W9 Siege System

[Grandclaw]

I am not sure if this idea has been suggested before, but I reckon that we can draw some inspiration from games like Puzzle Pirates for how sieges might look like. In Puzzle Pirates, when one desires to blockade (siege) an island, a time is set up for when the battle will take place. The prearranged time for the battle ensures an intense event where all of the vested parties turn up to do battle.

How I envision this might look like is this:
1) The party that desires to conduct a siege should be able to declare an intent to siege by interacting with the said plot in some say, e.g planting a siege flag on or near the plot. The defenders of the plot then have a window (maybe 1-2 weeks) of time to declare when they are going to defend, which has to be at least 24 hours notice. The battle will commence at the time declared by the defenders. While the village in question has a siege flag on it, their charter stone is disabled. Indeed, the defenders may attempt to sneak out valuables in that time but that is a reflection of the reality of sieges-sometimes, when trying to break into a castle, whatever thing you are looking for in the castle may decide to sneak past while you are trying to break in.

2) The siege flag gives the attacking party a plot of land of some size in which they can construct a camp of some sort with siege engines etc. The camp will not be able to be vandalized until the time of the battle. Likewise, siege engines built on that plot will be unusable until the time of the battle.

3) With the battle time having been declared and the siege engines built, all the two parties involved has to do is turn up at the time of the battle. The attackers win by breaking into the village. The defenders win by either destroying the siege flag or successfully preventing the attackers from breaking into the village after some hours of defending, when the siege flag will automatically expire (simulating the attackers running out of resources after a lengthy siege as in rl). During the battle, the siege engines will be vulnerable.

After the siege, the village should be immune to more flag being placed onto it for a certain time (to prevent spam). The siege flags should also have some sort of significant resource cost.

[LadyGoo]

The party that desires to conduct a siege should be able to declare an intent to siege by interacting with the said plot in some say, e.g planting a siege flag on or near the plot. The defenders of the plot then have a window (maybe 1-2 weeks) of time to declare when they are going to defend

Declare when they have built the second village or moved out to their friends place you mean?

[jorb]

The party that desires to conduct a siege should be able to declare an intent to siege by interacting with the said plot in some say, e.g planting a siege flag on or near the plot. The defenders of the plot then have a window (maybe 1-2 weeks) of time to declare when they are going to defend

Declare when they have built the second village or moved out to their friends place you mean?

I get that this is a concern for you, and I don't think it is an illegitimate one, but how do you imagine it being otherwise? If sieges give almost any sort of advanced warning, the defenders will have both time and ability to move stuff to safety (Barring, I guess, completely draconian restrictions on what can be done on a claim under siege, such as not moving things at all from it). Do you imagine a system where defenders do not get an advanced warning?

[Kaios]

Did you even read this thread:

http://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=45816

[jorb]

I did, and I re-read it just now. Your siege-tower idea is perhaps not necessarily terrible. Why?

[Kaios]

I thought there were some good ideas in there and not just my own I mean!

[Grandclaw]

I have read the post and I see the point about not forcing players to be on simultaneously. However, at the same time, interactions, especially "battles", where players are not on simultaneously are not dynamic, interesting or visually appealing. I don't know for sure, but I speculate that most players would be more willing to tolerate a common log in time of 2-3 hours to resolve an interaction rather than having to camp a place for 24+ hours to have a remote chance of success.

[jorb]

In case it wasn't obvious I have moved away somewhat from the thinking expressed in that post.

Time gates on, for example, walls, are fairly problematic, as they strongly incentivize multiple wall layers.

[Potjeh]

I don't think the problem is as much the difficulty of razing a base as it is the difficulty of killing criminals. Wall climbing when? With a debuff ofc that prevents vandalism and cripples your combat skills.

[jorb]

I don't think the problem is as much the difficulty of razing a base as it is the difficulty of killing criminals. Wall climbing when? With a debuff ofc that prevents vandalism and cripples your combat skills.

Nidbanes were born out of a discussion on wall-climbing, since we couldn't make wall-climbing work. The only way wall-climbing works is if you can traverse any and all objects on the claim -- otherwise all it does is incentivize spamming branch-stockpiles or whatevs to keep people out -- hence, well, ghosts.