Some thoughts on Siege

[Tonkyhonk]

But whatever, I guess this discussion isn't exactly on topic.

oh i find this to be completely on topic, imo.

what do people expect from siege system? what is "challenging" siege system people are talking about?
the most obvious is that people always want something easy enough for them and their playstyle while expecting it to be difficult enough for others, no matter what "difficult" means per se. nobody enjoys being raided, everyone wants to feel "winning" because its a game. anything that could benefit your potential enemy is mostly considered "fail" or so-called "broken".

i do think its nice that jorb brought it up publicly for everyone to discuss, but im afraid trying to discuss details is not the way to go, but what i think should be discussed is what people want to prioritize in this game to achieve whatever achievable by the system. participatory design is cool and all but the key is not to make us expect as if we actually have a say to the final design, especially in detailed parts, otherwise, many would only end up being disappointed.

(such as my suggestion which I feel was quite good with respect to the mechanics of this game yet nobody has commented on)

if you mean that fire thing, i fail to see how it is different from waste claim in salem, which was super notorious. but maybe its just me.

[Thedrah]

what about a magical shield like thing that protects only a small portion of your stuff? like a 20x20 area that people cannot destroy? and only one per village

static defense would be cool too, like traps

[Kaios]

if you mean that fire thing, i fail to see how it is different from waste claim in salem, which was super notorious. but maybe its just me.

lol, that fire thing... did you even read the post at all? Also Trial by Fire is what it is called in Salem, so yeah I am using Salem as the example. I don't know what you mean by super notorious, just sounds like you're using vague descriptions to avoid looking like you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, it would essentially be an object that creates a claim. The object doesn't have to be called "Trial by Fire" as that was merely an example that actually related to the concept. One of the thoughts I had on how this could work would be through the creation of a Siege Tower. The Siege Tower would have a 25x25 area of influence or something like that and could be moved around at a slow speed, taking the area of influence with it. Claimed walls and the like would be unbreakable under normal circumstances and you can only damage claimed walls, containers, etc. by covering them with the siege tower claim. However this is just one suggestion out of a number of possible ideas that could utilize the use of claims.

Thus, this means that any settlement, big or small, is invulnerable to any type of siege warfare including the use of palibashers until the attacking party decides to setup their "Trial by Fire" or whatever it would be called.

[shubla]

Some defence that shoots shit into people that get near would be nice. Like not literal shit. But something that prevents people from loitering around my walls without me getting out with sword.

[iamah]

here's an idea to keep both siege's sides happy:

Make a tribute mechanic, in a way that it's very appealing not to destroy the loser town, but instead make him pay tributes to the winner. Every thing the loser produced would be taxed automagically and sent to the winner's base, stored in a magic building that could store everything forever without space restrictions. The loser could try to get free of taxes by attacking the winners base and winning the siege. Taxes could be small, or shared in case the loser suffer's multiple sieges and is being taxed by multiple players. A third part could attack the tax collect building and free the loser of the tax. Lots of details could emerge from this, but the balance should be aiming at making it attractive to the siege winner to not destroy the base. Could be a vanity thing too, in case the winner is already rich, the tax building could be a nice statue in a way the winner wants to have a collection of those statues as a pride thing.

I'm just trying to think of a way so the loser has a chance to keep his stuff and don't quit the game.

[Kaios]

i'm just trying to think of a way so the loser has a chance to keep his stuff and don't quit the game...

I do agree with the sentiment which is why I re-iterated someone else's point earlier that siege should be done in conjunction with Kingdoms.

You can find the thread here if you aren't aware of what was proposed in that system.

[iamah]

thanks, I imagined it was probably an old idea, will take a look at it

[DDDsDD999]

if you mean that fire thing, i fail to see how it is different from waste claim in salem, which was super notorious. but maybe its just me.

Thus, this means that any settlement, big or small, is invulnerable to any type of siege warfare including the use of palibashers until the attacking party decides to setup their "Trial by Fire" or whatever it would be called.

So it's a salem Trial by Fire? Yeah, no thanks. I don't like the idea of game mechanics "staging" the gameplay for the player, one core thing to H&H is sandbox elements. I'm not really familiar with Salem as of late, but I'm pretty sure the existing trial things have been the source of tons of abuse-cases.

See in the OP:

[*] War and siege should be a collection of informal, localized states, rather than formal and global. Formal states create distinct interfaces between states that are prone to manipulations, workarounds and exploits. The game devolves to a game about those states, rather than a game about siege warfare.

[Kaios]

So it's a salem Trial by Fire? Yeah, no thanks. I don't like the idea of game mechanics "staging" the gameplay for the player, one core thing to H&H is sandbox elements. I'm not really familiar with Salem as of late, but I'm pretty sure the existing trial things have been the source of tons of abuse-cases.

Well I think if you want to make a fair comment, you should understand how it works in Salem and then re-read what I am proposing here.

The specifics such as periods of wait time, area of influence, etc. obviously need to be worked out or if there should be any wait period at all. The "siege tower" idea is only for the purpose of creating a mechanic that allows you to damage the claim, we still need to figure out how that damage is actually done.

[DDDsDD999]

So it's a salem Trial by Fire? Yeah, no thanks. I don't like the idea of game mechanics "staging" the gameplay for the player, one core thing to H&H is sandbox elements. I'm not really familiar with Salem as of late, but I'm pretty sure the existing trial things have been the source of tons of abuse-cases.

Well I think if you want to make a fair comment, you should understand how it works in Salem and then re-read what I am proposing here.

This is what I've seen when I browse through the cancer that is salem forums, and I can't say I like it.