New Siege Implementation: Siege Claims

[jorb]

Yes, shubla, you would have to grind through village setups like that, and some level of compartmentilization would be possible. I'm not sure that isn't as it should be. The circular wall village is at least somewhat complicated to accomplish.

As for the cave levels, yes you could presumably move stuff down there, or alt stash it, which is another possibility currently in the game.

[jorb]

Also, increasing the internal toughness was more-or-less what we attempted with braziers in Salem, and that was perhaps not the greatest thing ever.

Yeah, I could perhaps agree that single points of failure aren't super great, and I'm not necessarily opposed to increasing the internal toughness of various village stuff, but command of the battlefield is still a thing. If I dominate your village square, I can effectively prevent you from playing, and the village might as well be null and void.

[Kaios]

Ok, pick this apart: The siege claim is created, within the 100x100 area, but only on tiles where claims present on the attacked object are also present. I think that may fix Ysh's and shubla's complaints.

Can you explain that again but in a way it makes sense please

[Potjeh]

Claims shouldn't be tough outer shell with squishy innards, they should have similar toughness throughout the whole thing.

I'm not sure I think that's entirely true; I do think there should be some sense of triumph when breaking in, by some metric. I don't disagree that there should probably be a raising of the internal toughness, but I don't really think there should be an exact parity of cost to building vs. destroying. Also, increasing the internal toughness was more-or-less what we attempted with braziers in Salem, and that was perhaps not the greatest thing ever.

The triumph is in gaining access to redhanded characters. Which doesn't really work with Salem-style braziers, but it works with making objects themselves hard to destroy. Basically raids should be surgical strikes instead of carpet bombing if you want any semblance of hope for player retention. Losing a character is manageable, losing entire infrastructure is not (unless you implement quality hardcaps).

[jorb]

Ok, pick this apart: The siege claim is created, within the 100x100 area, but only on tiles where claims present on the attacked object are also present. I think that may fix Ysh's and shubla's complaints.

Can you explain that again but in a way it makes sense please

Makes sense the way I wrote it. The siege claim is created on every tile within a 100x100 area, which has any of the claims also present on the tile where the attacked object is.

[loftar]

Ok, pick this apart: The siege claim is created, within the 100x100 area, but only on tiles where claims present on the attacked object are also present. I think that may fix Ysh's and shubla's complaints.

Can you explain that again but in a way it makes sense please :)

The tiles covered by the resultant claim would the intersection of the 100x100 area and (the union of any claims present at the tile of its creation).

[rye130]

So what, day 1 we should all have known you were going to change siege like this?

>there are two walls
>one is more expensive than the other and gives a more sturdy appearance
>i wonder if it's ever going to be relevant to have that one...

I can't believe this is actual an argument you think holds any place in this game.

>there are two curios
>one is more expensive than the other and looks good
>it actually sucks dick and is completely worse than the first curio and probably won't get changed for 1240120492 years

This game is full of useless bait recipes, items, gildings, credos, combat items, mechanics that aren't actual good. You're opposing adding a feature to allow people to upgrade their walls just because we should read your mind and know that this is the time when you're finally going to fix this particular example of the bad game design?

Seriously why are you so opposed to letting people upgrade their walls? Even outside of there being siege changes I'm sure it would be a feature many would appreciate and few would oppose.

[shubla]

Maybe ideas could be combined:
Each "successful" siege claim would decrease the authority, required by other siege claims to damage the walls.
This way you wouldn't gain too much advantage from having lots and lots of walls in your village.

[loftar]

This game is full of useless bait recipes, items, gildings, credos, combat items, mechanics that aren't actual good.

That is hardly an argument against trying to improve that situation.

Seriously why are you so opposed to letting people upgrade their walls? Even outside of there being siege changes I'm sure it would be a feature many would appreciate and few would oppose.

I'm not necessarily opposed to that in and of itself (though I do have my reservations in the aesthetics department), I'm just saying that it's not a necessary change in order to introduce better walls.

[Kaios]

Makes sense the way I wrote it. The siege claim is created on every tile within a 100x100 area, which has any of the claims also present on the tile where the attacked object is.

The tiles covered by the resultant claim would the intersection of the 100x100 area and (the union of any claims present at the tile of its creation).

sorry but I don't think a siege system that is so difficult to understand what you're even talking about would go over well in-game

Can you explain that again but in a way it makes sense please

fool. the intersection of the claim created is present at the center of the 100x100 claim where the perpendicular claim is also present at the wall of the attacked object . its not rocket science

oh now I get it