New Siege Implementation: Siege Claims

[svino]

hey wait a minute, i just finished my village which has 35 complete rings of brickwalls that i paid chinese 12yo's to build for me. i can't walk outside my base without opening and closing 35 gates on my way out, and i only have space to plant a few carrots, and now you make this update?

totally unacceptable, i expect a full reimbursement for what i paid to those poor chinese kids

[Kaios]

claims.png

Red: Village claim
Blue: Private claim
Cross: Point of attack
Black: Imaginary 100x100 area around point of attack (not to scale)
Shaded: Resultant siege claim

That doesn't really make sense either because presumably in this example the blue private claim is also owned by the attacker since that's where the attack seems to be originating from and the village claim is what is being attacked, but how did the village claim and enemy private claim overlap in this scenario? Maybe the answer to that isn't actually relevant to your point but if I'm going to understand something correctly then the example given should at least be something that can actually occur in a scenario in the game.

Still though if I want to remove their walls, and their walls fall under the siege claim along with some of my walls and then damaging their walls also increases their claim authority allowing them to damage my walls... ??? Right????????????????????

[Potjeh]

There are no critical systems in MtG because it's not a persistent game. You can get away with a lot more in a game where a fuckup ruins a half-hour session rather than one where a fuckup ruins 2+ years of playing.

[MightySheep]

at this point id just be happy if you make any change to the siege system

big villages can just hire 500 iq asians to decipher this mess

[loftar]

because presumably in this example the blue private claim is also owned by the attacker since that's where the attack seems to be originating from and the village claim is what is being attacked

Not sure how you drew that conclusion. It isn't even possible for an attacker to create a pclaim overlapping a foreign village.

[Burinn]

Don't see anyone complaining about soak, food variety bonuses, the obscure level requirements to mine different cave walls, ect. yet this is apparently a problem. Hmm. Strange.

[Potjeh]

If all mechanics are trivial on the first hour that you play the game, you get bored.

Yeah, games like go have zero replay value

[Granger]

Upfront regarding palisades and brick walls: when even someone like me, which is painted by the ones currently complaining as a clueless PvE larper hermit that has no knowledge of the game on a regular basis, has left the needed space to be able to erect a brick wall around my palisades should the need arise... it's time to grab your heads with both hands and repeat the magic incantation of 'pumpkin prosper' until you feel better.

The complainers should do the suggested and after the ailment took root concentrate on thinking about the implications of the suggested system in general, so they don't have to complain the rest of the world that the new system sucks in general, even with the newly introduced steel walls.

Regarding the concept: Ysh has a point that attacking a forward (palisaded) base erected by your enemies to protect the siege engines used to project a siege claim (by attacking your walls) could effectively lead to fueling them in case you use siege engines to break the palisade from inside your walls as this would project another siege claim that could then be used by the attackers.

My thought is that claiming far enough outside the walls (wider than the reach of a siege engine) would prevent them from building a box, at least as long as the rule of building on a claim needing non-criminal permission stays intact (and a siege claim doesn't override this). This would lead to the defenders being able to reach the siege engines so they can destroy them by hand and the scenario Ysh painted can be circumvented.

Variations on the mechanics: not projecting a siege claim when the engine is operated by the claim owner would be OP as the defender would be able to instantly damage the attackers. The system tracking the creator of the generated claim (so one created by the defenders couldn't be used by the attackers) could possibly do the trick, would imply that a siege claim gets a lawspeaker like role that (assigned to the character that operates a siege engine that initially creates the claim) allows to add members who can work it...

As final words: I welcome the move of the developers to ask for feedback prior to implementing something, this allows us to analyze the system upfront and point out flaws that otherwise could/would be overlooked and could lead to a broken and unfun system. We should use this opportunity in a productive manner that encourages them to do this more often.

[jorb]

There are no critical systems in MtG because it's not a persistent game. You can get away with a lot more in a game where a fuckup ruins a half-hour session rather than one where a fuckup ruins 2+ years of playing.

This is a minor question as to the exact extent of a siege claim. It's not important that you understand it perfectly. The basic mechanic would still be point the siege engine and shoot, and to even get to that point you'd have to be at least, idk, 100? hours invested in the game already.

[Kaios]

Not sure how you drew that conclusion. It isn't even possible for an attacker to create a pclaim overlapping a foreign village.

Where is the forward attacking claim then? Because no one is gonna do this without that first.