For Melee and Unarmed combat, fighters within a factor 2 of eachother in relevant stats are for all intents and purposes considered to be exact equals.
Would the use of a curve ultimately work better than the use of a factor of two?
For instance, at Skill 10, the factor could be 5.0. As skill levels rise, the factor could decrease, until it reached a lower value (like 2.0). This might encourage more early-game PvP, as fewer players will have been able to "pull away" to the extent that they're out-of-range of another faction's fighters.
Another interesting iteration could be the curve functioning like a parabola, where the factor would begin to increase again after a certain skill value-- thus making it more difficult for "titans" to pull away entirely from the rest of the player base. That skill value could perhaps be a dynamic value, like the average skill of the top 25% of players with the relevant combat skill.
SIEGE
----------------
Village & Personal Claims, in addition to their authority upkeep, now have a "Power Level", ranging from 0 to 5.
Increasing the "Power Level" of a claim is initiated by clicking the "Charge" button in the claim's interface.
Once a "Power Level" increase has been initiated, there is a 24 RL hour delay, during which nothing happens.
After the 24 hour period concludes, there is an 8 RL hour weakness window during which the claim's "Power Level" counts as zero.
After the 8 hour period concludes, the claim's "Power Level" is increased by one.
The claim naturally loses one "Power Level" over the course of two RL weeks.
The "Power Level" of a claim, finally, determines how long Battering Rams need to dry before they can attack the various wall types on the claim.
Drying time for Battering Rams per "Power Level" & Wall Type:
Level 0: Palisades: 20min, Brick Walls: 1h
Level 1: Palisades: 3h, Brick Walls: 4h
Level 2: Palisades: 6h, Brick Walls: 8h
Level 3: Palisades: 15h, Brick Walls: 20h
Level 4: Palisades: 24h, Brick Walls: 32h
Level 5: Palisades: 24h, Brick Walls: 32h
There seem to be two common themes running through the complaints about the new siege system-- first, that the system used in W10 is regarded with some degree of positive nostalgia; and second, that the 'punishment' for potentially recharging your claim (and dropping to Level 0) is too excessive.
I would propose the following potential changes to the system:
1) The "weakness window" created by recharging the claim opens up a claim shield mechanic, similar to what existed in W10.
2) The "weakness window" would create an immediate, attackable claim shield at the current "Power Level" of the village.
3) Rather than "Power Level" determining how long battering rams need to dry, "Power Level" determines the length of time that the claim shield remains open to damage. The lower the "Power Level", the longer the claim shield remains open to damage. The higher the "Power Level", the smaller the window of opportunity for attackers. By way of example,I'd present the following values for each level:
Level 1: 32 HRs
Level 2: 24 HRs
Level 3: 16 HRs
Level 4: 8 HRs
Level 5: 4 HRs
4) Following the completion of the "weakness window" there would be a cost to repair the claim shield before the next "Power Level" was enabled. This could be handled in a few ways-- either a percentage of village members' LP is skimmed "off the top" when any items being studied are completed, until the repair was complete; or individuals could sacrifice LP (or maybe Experience) as part of a hearth ritual to repair the damage.
I believe this might encourage the use of sieges in general, for the following reasons:
1) A failed siege can still result in damage to the defenders (deprivation of LP or Experience). This moves away from siege being a zero-sum action.
2) A successful defence is more likely, given the way shields worked in W10. However, there are still negative consequences for the defender which make repeated sieges more likely to eventually succeed (loss of LP or Experience means falling behind in "the race").
3) If villages are more likely to repel a siege, it delays (or perhaps even prevents) the point where one faction becomes so dominant that other factions no longer compete, and then quit.
I am not a PvP'er or a member of a village or faction, but I hope that these ideas may at least encourage some constructive discussion about changes to the siege mechanics that could result in a more enjoyable game for a wider range of players.
by Yorla » Tue Feb 25, 2020 1:59 am 
