New Siege Implementation: Siege Claims

[Potjeh]

Hence why I said it's not good enough to actually implement. It's a beginning of a first draft of an idea.

[Kaios]

What if I kill the players that initiated the siege? Can that do something? And at least one of them has to hang around for the authority to even be raised.

[loftar]

What I'm still confused about is the nature of the siege claim and what Ysh brought up regarding defenders damaging walls and other objects within the siege claim and providing authority to that siege claim. What happens if they get inside and get a key to a gate and now a gate has to be taken down by defenders that also falls under the siege claim, or some other scenario in that regard in which defenders are required to fire at objects under the siege claim. My confusion lies in what will happen during all the possible scenarios because of a claim that is essentially ownerless or has no link to any object that could for example be destroyed by defenders to remove the claim.

I don't know if there's a question in there. If you draw up a claim floorplan that confuses you and mark a point of attack on it, I can shade it for you.

[loftar]

How's about this: adventure->destroy can't be used on claims without permissions, instead you have to burn down whatever it is that you need destroyed. Burning things down requires fuel, which can involve all sorts of resources like wax, lard, linseed oil, bone glue etc. To burn down an object you need fuel of greater quality. Things take time to burn down, and you can put out the fire to save the object. Burning time is proportional to ratio of fuel q and object q, capped at both ends. This way cost of destroying a base scales with investment in the base, so walls can be made weaker since they're no longer the only obstacle to razing the base to the ground.

How does this not incentivize multiple wall layers very much?

[iamahh]

make siege claims possible only on weekends

QoL would improve, playerbase could last longer with a more wholesome approach to work and study

I don't think we should punish NEETs just because they're NEETs.

even the NEETs get tired of worrying 24/7 about their base... but most people have work or school, and this eventually makes the game a short experience

[Potjeh]

In this system a wall is an object like any other, and not necessarily even the hardest object to destroy. But yeah, it's still a half-baked idea with plenty of holes. You can't really expect much from a design with very little effort put into it. Good design would require tons of effort, and it's not something I have time or will to do (or would even do for free). Like 80% of developer effort should be spent on design, and 20% on implementation IMO. I'm just throwing random shit out there to try to knock you out of these rails you seem to be stuck in. Though it'd probably be better to try to convince you to step away from the problem for a while, read some books on design in general and take your time to really digest them, and then come back with hopefully a fresh perspective. I highly recommend Steve McConnell's Code Complete, it's got a great section on design.

[rye130]

Pardon the terrible diagram.



There are 3 brickwalls marked by the red rectangles. The outermost brickwall is on the village claim (purple rectangular donut) and is 101 tiles away from the second brickwall which is also only on the village claim. How does someone extend their siege claim to the inner brickwall when the siege claims won't overlap since they only go 50 tiles?

The inner blue rectangle is a personal claim which doesn't overlap the village claim whatsoever and has yet another brickwall on its edge. How does the siege claim from the second brickwall ever get extended to this brick wall when it is on a different claim?

The way I see it, you get 3 full brick wall timed shield claims in a pretty small amount of space.

[loftar]

But yeah, it's still a half-baked idea with plenty of holes. You can't really expect much from a design with very little effort put into it.

Of course not, but I don't see how it could possibly be salvageable in any form even vaguely resembling the original, as the mentioned problem seems to be extremely intrinsic to any paradigm where every object stands entirely on its own merits.

Good design would require tons of effort, and it's not something I have time or will to do (or would even do for free). Like 80% of developer effort should be spent on design, and 20% on implementation IMO.

It's also highly naïve to think that a perfect solution could be reached theoretically in a single attempt. Hence why we instead try to iterate on the problem, attempting to improve with each step. We might not always be successful at that, but we can't really do more than try. Also, do you really imagine that there goes no analysis into this; that we just randomly think of an idea and throw it into the game without even trying to analyze it?

Stop just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks

I'm just throwing random shit out there

>.>

[Granger]

I don't know if there's a question in there. If you draw up a claim floorplan that confuses you and mark a point of attack on it, I can shade it for you.

What happens when attackers gain access to a part of the base (eg. through looting keys, or a spy that re-keyed a part of the village) so the defenders have to break walls on the village claim? Wouldn't that lead the the attackers being able to leverage the siege claim that would be created by the defenders?

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...

could possibly be something to avoid that.

I nevertheless would have a little more time to think this through in depth, as the problem of not being able to be on 24/7 also applies to the forum.
Some days delay in implementation, please?

[loftar]

What happens when attackers gain access to a part of the base (eg. through looting keys, or a spy that re-keyed a part of the village) so the defenders have to break walls on the village claim? Wouldn't that lead the the attackers being able to leverage the siege claim that would be created by the defenders?

A siege claim is only created when a crime is committed (as mentioned in the OP). Also, they could only leverage it by having siege engines already inside the village.