Remove Brimstone as Siege Component

[wonder-ass]

Brimstone serves a vital purpose right now and it's to mitigate a player's ability to crap out as many siege machines as they want and whenever they want. It doesn't matter if you increase the material cost or make it more expensive because a larger faction still maintains the capability to mass produce the materials required regardless of what they are. You can't store up a mass amount of brimstone since it decays after you pick it and the nodes really aren't that uncommon that there should be any issue in finding some. If you remove that requirement then it also removes the necessity to plan a siege more carefully due to limited resource availability.

If a small village or hermit player really wanted to attempt to siege something they would, the problem is the chances of a larger faction getting involved in such a scenario are pretty high depending on who is doing the attacking/defending so why would they bother either way? I can assure you that the lack of interest in sieging and pvp in general has nothing to do with brimstone.

this.

[Zentetsuken]

Brimstone serves a vital purpose right now and it's to mitigate a player's ability to crap out as many siege machines as they want and whenever they want. It doesn't matter if you increase the material cost or make it more expensive because a larger faction still maintains the capability to mass produce the materials required regardless of what they are. You can't store up a mass amount of brimstone since it decays after you pick it and the nodes really aren't that uncommon that there should be any issue in finding some. If you remove that requirement then it also removes the necessity to plan a siege more carefully due to limited resource availability.

If a small village or hermit player really wanted to attempt to siege something they would, the problem is the chances of a larger faction getting involved in such a scenario are pretty high depending on who is doing the attacking/defending so why would they bother either way? I can assure you that the lack of interest in sieging and pvp in general has nothing to do with brimstone.

I think that preparing for a siege means knowing that you either have to have a good group of people nolifing for many days and that you have to be ontop of stuff like having a constant supply of brimstone, it is surely not the main deterrent but I know it's relative to the planning of it all.

I don't think there is anything wrong with crapping out as many siege engines as you want in this case. Did anybody ever make like 100 rams around a village in legacy? Probably not because they could be easily destroyed so it would be a waste of the siegers time. It used to be that you had to camp your built siege for quite a while in order to protect it, and this is probably what caused the majority of action, having to actually protect your siege equipment.

If we go back to a more legacy-like brimstoneless siege tactic then I think it will probably be cause for a bit more action.

[Ants]

Brimstone serves a vital purpose right now and it's to mitigate a player's ability to crap out as many siege machines as they want and whenever they want. It doesn't matter if you increase the material cost or make it more expensive because a larger faction still maintains the capability to mass produce the materials required regardless of what they are. You can't store up a mass amount of brimstone since it decays after you pick it and the nodes really aren't that uncommon that there should be any issue in finding some. If you remove that requirement then it also removes the necessity to plan a siege more carefully due to limited resource availability.

If a small village or hermit player really wanted to attempt to siege something they would, the problem is the chances of a larger faction getting involved in such a scenario are pretty high depending on who is doing the attacking/defending so why would they bother either way? I can assure you that the lack of interest in sieging and pvp in general has nothing to do with brimstone.

Then archery towers need to be made more expensive. It seems too easy to shit them out if someone builds a ram.

[Dakkan]

I think that preparing for a siege means knowing that you either have to have a good group of people nolifing for many days and that you have to be ontop of stuff like having a constant supply of brimstone, it is surely not the main deterrent but I know it's relative to the planning of it all.

I don't have much to contribute to this thread but in W10 I loved how brimstone was always in extremely high demand before a siege, I always knew when something serious was going to happen and I'd have a reason to spend a day trekking through hours of caves draining all the obscure geysers. It was so much fun I usually didn't even ask for anything in payment.

[shubla]

In my opinion, there are two options.
1. Make siege impossible, so no one gets raided
2. Make siege so easy that all nubs get raided
I'd prefer the 1st option, and also hope that devs don't waste their time on it.

[pppp]

I can assure you that the lack of interest in sieging and pvp in general has nothing to do with brimstone.

This. Removing brimstone will only make problems worse.

The real problem with siege is elsewhere:
1. Binary outcome of won/lost siege
2. Deciding siege outcome when defending and attacking party do not log on at the same time because of their real life.

[Granger]

In my opinion, there are two options.
1. Make siege impossible, so no one gets raided
2. Make siege so easy that all nubs get raided
I'd prefer the 1st option, and also hope that devs don't waste their time on it.

I would prefer a 3rd option that lies inbetween, something in the direction of the things mentioned and linked here. Because as long as siege success equals base destruction the bar for success must be too high to make it practical for everyday events (or we run out of bases and through this of active players).

[Zentetsuken]

In my opinion, there are two options.
1. Make siege impossible, so no one gets raided
2. Make siege so easy that all nubs get raided
I'd prefer the 1st option, and also hope that devs don't waste their time on it.

This is stupid, why are you limiting the solution so dismissively? I believe we are basically living your #1 to some degree right now. Raids via siege are basically so time and material expensive that they are generally only done later world by the very rich to those determined to be much less active.

#2 makes no sense, did people endlessly raid all noobs in legacy when people could toss rams anywhere they wanted and just camp them until they are dry? No.

AND, even if they do this, now with the whole kingdom mechanic I believe that it would be easier for a group of people to defend noobs and smaller villages within the realm with quicker response times. There is both less incentive than ever to raid a noob, and it's more risky than ever.

I would prefer a 3rd option that lies inbetween, something in the direction of the things mentioned and linked here. Because as long as siege success equals base destruction the bar for success must be too high to make it practical for everyday events (or we run out of bases and through this of active players).

While I agree that we need a 3rd option, I don't think it's worth revisiting convoluted, year old ideas that were already fully torn apart.

There would be almost no difference in the outcome of a siege if brimstone is removed, the winner will still be the most active and most strong group between defender and attacker. With realm and kingdoms in the game now I think the defender actually has a small advantage in that they can easily call for help and probably actually receive it. A siege should absolutely be a boolean outcome, and it has been this way for 10 years, why stop now?

If a defender is active and there to actually defend then what is to stop them from simply killing the attackers before they get through the walls, or even when they finally do get through the walls? Number of people, stats, skill? So basically the exact same thing that would already determine who wins a fight in literally every other scenario.

I mean, maybe there can be some additional small things added to help a defender get their claim back up quicker, or maybe some additional siege engines that rather act like sentry guns for attackers? Boobytraps? I think something simple like this can be implemented to atleast make it more fun and perhaps give a defending group that is slightly smaller or less skilled some kind of edge instead of some whole new ridiculous system.

[wonder-ass]

the moment you lose your factory you lose the game no point in going forward you lost and will never catch back up in this infinite grind of infinite numbers. so why should we focus sieging when it will obviously ruin the game because of shitty core game mechanics?

[Zentetsuken]

the moment you lose your factory you lose the game no point in going forward you lost and will never catch back up in this infinite grind of infinite numbers. so why should we focus sieging when it will obviously ruin the game because of shitty core game mechanics?

It's an open world pvp survival game that has had siege and base destruction in it for a decade, people have seemed to be able to cope with it historically. I think for every player that would quit from losing a base there is a player that would quit from getting bored of the lack of pvp in the game. If you can just stay inside your factory forever and be invincible then what is the point?