Require Sieging to Destroy Knarr Dock

[azrid]

Siege is bad so having expensive structures placed only in undefendable locations is a nice compromise? I don’t see what the benefit in breaking one is if you want the owners to be travelling around far distances.

But good thing everyone wants easy cross-continent fast travel that just means eventually no one has to take any risks moving around at all.

Draining resources. Its a tactic used in real life sieges too.
Causing tedium to your enemy is a pretty great mechanic. You just know it will affect them.
Its a message that speaks louder than someone spamming "nigger" under your name in the kingdom chat.
These are the reasons I want to see more of dock like structures/mechanics.

[Kaios]

Ok but why is the realism argument appropriate for some things and not others, it's a game and if something detracts from the overall fun why would you include it for the sake of realism. The game causing tedium towards players is a large reason why players quit the game so you think players also generating a level of tedium towards others will benefit the game in the long-term?

[Ants]

Ok but why is the realism argument appropriate for some things and not others, it's a game and if something detracts from the overall fun why would you include it for the sake of realism. The game causing tedium towards players is a large reason why players quit the game so you think players also generating a level of tedium towards others will benefit the game in the long-term?

It only detracts from the fun for you. Dock smashing isn't a common occurrence and I doubt it would be happening at all if siege was an option.

[Kaios]

so this then:

people that say no are of the mindset that griefers need to grief.

[Astarisk]

Ok but why is the realism argument appropriate for some things and not others, it's a game and if something detracts from the overall fun why would you include it for the sake of realism. The game causing tedium towards players is a large reason why players quit the game so you think players also generating a level of tedium towards others will benefit the game in the long-term?

It only detracts from the fun for you. Dock smashing isn't a common occurrence and I doubt it would be happening at all if siege was an option.

It's not a common occurrence because a lot of us understand how shitty it is to do that. It''s like road last world, we could smash roads all we want but we know once we do that they'll retaliate and do the same. Just because its not common doesn't mean it doesn't need fixing up. As it stands docks being so vulnerable for such a high price is stupid as hell.

[Ants]

Ok but why is the realism argument appropriate for some things and not others, it's a game and if something detracts from the overall fun why would you include it for the sake of realism. The game causing tedium towards players is a large reason why players quit the game so you think players also generating a level of tedium towards others will benefit the game in the long-term?

It only detracts from the fun for you. Dock smashing isn't a common occurrence and I doubt it would be happening at all if siege was an option.

It's not a common occurrence because a lot of us understand how shitty it is to do that. It''s like road last world, we could smash roads all we want but we know once we do that they'll retaliate and do the same. Just because its not common doesn't mean it doesn't need fixing up. As it stands docks being so vulnerable for such a high price is stupid as hell.

Then maybe the price should be reduced.

If smashing a dock required siege engines no one would ever do it.

[AntiBlitz]

perhaps if it just announced that your claim was under attack the same way it tells you, you are being sieged, this would be enough to, pseudo-counter the trolling aspect of it. If it also took a bit longer, like the cairns do, then i could see this as reasonable, so it gave you atleast some time to defend it, tho not much. then we dont have to worry about changing the costs or anything, and its not really anyones problem then if you decided not to defend it, and lastly, there is atleast a time commitment added to it, as not everyone wants to stand there for 30-40mins bashing something, especially when its riskier.

[Kaios]

Yeah if it took like 40 minutes to bash them I’d be cool with that. What matters most is that the effort put in to destroying something is equal to or greater than the effort it takes to create, within reason.

[datie008]

that's exactly j&l want.
they come bash your dock and the only way you fight back is bash back.
than more pvp, more grinding,more cash earn.
at least more vandalism alt and more dead game

[azrid]

Ok but why is the realism argument appropriate for some things and not others, it's a game and if something detracts from the overall fun why would you include it for the sake of realism. The game causing tedium towards players is a large reason why players quit the game so you think players also generating a level of tedium towards others will benefit the game in the long-term?

Docks give you an ability to punch up. You really have to piss someone off if they started griefing your docks and roads. Its not done that often.
Mechanics that make you want to be not a total asshole are a good thing. Without docks actions of the strong will go without any retaliation.

people that say no are of the mindset that griefers need to grief.

people that say yes are carebear babies that want to live in a totally safe world