A non-trash siege system

[overtyped]

What defense does a small village have versus a large village? Roll over and die I assume?

You can't make an omelet if you don't crack a few eggs.
You could make this exact same argument about the current siege system, what if a super village with 100 people take turns camping a ram for 12 hours? wheres that different ?

If anything, this would make small villages form peaceful coalitions with others, in the event of such a thing happening.

[TeckXKnight]

What defense does a small village have versus a large village? Roll over and die I assume?

If a larger, stronger, more active, veteran group of players decide that they're going to shit on your parade then they're going to shit on your parade. This grace period allows you to evacuate characters, goods, and other valuables out of harms way. Failure to act or plan ahead will mean that bad times are ahead of you. What would you do to give smaller, weaker, less active, green groups a fighting chance against invaders?

[higherark]

PS: Are we actually going to discuss the idea in this thread? Bad? good?

Yes I can do that, I like his ideas. I like that the Defender has the ability to set the time to fight and that is how it should be, perhaps with a little possible sway in the form of +1 or -1 hour from the attack side. The problem with commenting on this now though is that the siege system is being changed for the new world so while I do like these ideas I am not sure all of them will apply.

Given the lack of progress on the siege system I'm not convinced that in two weeks its going to be completely revamped. I hope he takes these into consideration, if nothing else.

Just gotta keep dumping shit onto jorbs face until he decides to open his mouth

[raybon256]

To be honest, I'd like to change one thing about the rams, the fact that you can move them like, 20 squares and then you can spend 8 hours and 60 bones before you can touch it again. Make a ram cost a lot to make, but let us move it more than 15 seconds.

[razfen]

Here's a thought:

Rams can only be pushed on claims that have the auth/bond well fed, when the claim's owner is online.

[shubla]

Here's a thought:

Rams can only be pushed on claims that have the auth/bond well fed, when the claim's owner is online.

Alts for claims that never log on

[overtyped]

Here's a thought:

Rams can only be pushed on claims that have the auth/bond well fed, when the claim's owner is online.

To be honest, I'd like to change one thing about the rams, the fact that you can move them like, 20 squares and then you can spend 8 hours and 60 bones before you can touch it again. Make a ram cost a lot to make, but let us move it more than 15 seconds.

Bad ideas, Bad you.

[Glorthan]

If a larger, stronger, more active, veteran group of players decide that they're going to shit on your parade then they're going to shit on your parade. This grace period allows you to evacuate characters, goods, and other valuables out of harms way. Failure to act or plan ahead will mean that bad times are ahead of you. What would you do to give smaller, weaker, less active, green groups a fighting chance against invaders?

I don't think that if a group of douchebags decides to ruin your base that took months to create they should be able to just because they happen to be a large faction. I would much prefer that this kind of "forced showdown" style siege is left for when/if J&L implement something akin to their kingdoms idea, with those that choose to found a kingdom with whatever benefits it provides the only ones able to be able to be forced to participate. Essentially, any faction would recieve benefits from some form of opt in like that, however they would need to be prepared to defend themselves.

With a forced siege on anyone system, it will likely be similar to palibashing today; raid villages that are smaller than yourself because nobody likes to risk their multiple month old characters in a fight that's fair, and picking on a village that looks about your size could backfire horribly for the attackers. I get that no siege is boring, but we already know that killing villages for the sake of killing them are what most of the larger factions do when they get the opportunity.

I'd also like to see more incentive for people to actually go outside their walls. A hostile group sure can make people's life hell by picking off their foragers/villagers when they go outside, but with the game as it is there is very little reason to leave the base frequently (except with extremely low stat hunting alts, and for dirt/water/clay on occasion). And no, I'm not advocating reimplementing overpowered curiosities to be botted and abused, but ingredients for craftable curios would be a good start (as raw foraged curios scale poorly with village progress).

[TeckXKnight]

So you're opposed to siege against participants that don't agree to it. Opinion noted and ignored.

[Glorthan]

So you're opposed to siege against participants that don't agree to it. Opinion noted and ignored.

Thank you for the mature and well reasoned response. Under the proposed system if you aren't a major faction you have these options upon having a siege started at your walls:

• Relocate the things of value that you can move to another location before the siege starts. This includes keeping seeds in reserve for all crops and trees so that they can be relocated quickly. It also involves remaking your base - hundreds if of man hours of tedious "fun", rediscovering nodes, etc. Oh yeah, and rip your smelters/ovens/kilns, and goodbye animal industry. Taking out someone's base essentially removes them from competing whatsoever until a world reset.
• Bribe/enlist players to come to your aid. Of course this has a lot of downsides. Players you enlist aren't trustworthy, and if charterstones don't exist next world this won't be feasible at all. Additionally, we barely have anything worth trading in this world, so paying this mercenary army is likely going to be difficult and regardless will far exceed the cost to start the siege [in real terms -> large-scale botting factions have a very small real cost].
• Call the bluff (see cost of enlisting aid vs siege cost) and hope it wasn't a genuine attack.

So yes. I don't agree with forced removal from the world if you aren't a major faction and would prefer the alternative of having an opt-in system to a more rewarding and risky playstyle. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you do prefer it?