Siege Fix (real)

[Luno]

It boggles my mind how generally accepted it is that sieges last at least 24 hours.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

It boggles my mind how generally accepted it is that sieges last at least 24 hours.

I think it's a bandaid solution to make it impractical but still theoretically possible.
There was a successful siege of a fully populated village last world, by Polska Crev. But the defending side didn't really put up a real fight.
There was also a bug-raid of a full market.
Then there was the attempt to siege WB.
There were tons of successful sieges of AFK/quit players.

So, it actually does happen.
But how do you balance the desire to shit on others with the desire to keep active players (which would certainly be harmed by players quitting after logging in to see their bases missing)?

[Audiosmurf]

You guys must understand by now that haven has the timings of a like 2007 facebook game on purpose

[Luno]

So, it actually does happen.

Did i ever say it doesn't happen?
My village actually did a 200% to 300% power level siege last world, which means it took between 48 and 72 hours, i don't remember for sure right now.
That doesn't mean that it's reasonable. It baffles me that this "bandaid" is so widely accepted.

Also, why mention sieges that happened due to bug exploits and AFK defender side? lol

[Robben_DuMarsch]

That doesn't mean that it's reasonable. It baffles me that this "bandaid" is so widely accepted.

It doesn't need to be "reasonable" in the sense that it is a good risk vs reward proposition for the attackers. It should be difficult and impractical. The fact that it still happens means that the threat of siege is fulfilling its purpose, while being difficult enough not to happen regularly and drive all the players away. That's a reasonable outcome.

I believe most people acknowledge the siege of WB was how it should have been. A siege of troy style situation where a gigantic coalition of various factions came together (Snail/Ozzy/Arcanum/Oppidia/London/Felix, so 6 factions) and broke on the walls of a major city, creating content before they all quit (which they would have done anyway.)

[Luno]

It doesn't need to be "reasonable" in the sense that it is a good risk vs reward proposition for the attackers. It should be difficult and impractical. The fact that it still happens means that the threat of siege is fulfilling its purpose, while being difficult enough not to happen regularly and drive all the players away. That's a reasonable outcome.

You are focusing solely on the goal of the "bandaid solution" and not on the amount of time commitment required to do it. I can tell why everyone who ever discusses with you can't help but insult you at every other sentence.
Make this shit as hard and as impractical as you want, but it will never be reasonable to expect players to spend 24 REAL LIFE HOURS in order to do it. People still doing it doesn't mean that it is reasonable.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Make this shit as hard and as impractical as you want, but it will never be reasonable to expect players to spend 24 REAL LIFE HOURS in order to do it. People still doing it doesn't mean that it is reasonable.

What's your proposal then?

[Audiosmurf]

It doesn't need to be "reasonable" in the sense that it is a good risk vs reward proposition for the attackers. It should be difficult and impractical. The fact that it still happens means that the threat of siege is fulfilling its purpose, while being difficult enough not to happen regularly and drive all the players away. That's a reasonable outcome.

You are focusing solely on the goal of the "bandaid solution" and not on the amount of time commitment required to do it. I can tell why everyone who ever discusses with you can't help but insult you at every other sentence.
Make this shit as hard and as impractical as you want, but it will never be reasonable to expect players to spend 24 REAL LIFE HOURS in order to do it. People still doing it doesn't mean that it is reasonable.

Is the alternative, where you're not allowed to take 12 hours off because someone could smash your shit in within that timeframe any better? (It's not.)

[Luno]

What's your proposal then?

https://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=74265&p=919801&hilit=jorb#p919801
I actually had a proposed something uknowingly similar to someone else and many others on Jorb's DMs some time ago.
I am not saying this a perfect solution, and it could even be the worst solution ever. But expecting people to spend 24 hours online nonstop will NEVER be reasonable as long as you expect human players with an actual life to play your game.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

What's your proposal then?

https://www.havenandhearth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=74265&p=919801&hilit=jorb#p919801
I actually had a proposed something uknowingly similar to someone else and many others on Jorb's DMs some time ago.
I am not saying this a perfect solution, and it could even be the worst solution ever. But expecting people to spend 24 hours online nonstop will NEVER be reasonable as long as you expect human players with an actual life to play your game.

See image. Will become mandatory for siege defense in your proposal.

You admit: "and it could even be the worst solution ever."

The 24 hour siege limit is a horrible band-aid solution. But it's also less aids than other alternatives we've considered and lived with. No need to get angry over us discussing this in good faith.

+ in your proposal, every small village would get wiped off the map in a matter of weeks.