Siege Fix (real)

[Luno]

See image.

Use words please.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

See image.

Use words please.

Sure.
You would box a village in with another village which would form a complete box enclosing it.
This could be repeated to infinity, but wouldn't be necessary, because a single box would probably make sieging the interior city even more impossible than now.

Any village that didn't abuse this would also be subject to elimination if they were unable to defend in the 5 or 8 hour window you suggested, which would seriously reduce player population and investment in Haven as smaller villages are systematically eliminated.

[TheServant]

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.

Lol this is horrible wtf how you come up with this

[Luno]

Sure.
You would box a village in with another village which would form a complete box enclosing it.
This could be repeated to infinity, but wouldn't be necessary, because a single box would probably make sieging the interior city even more impossible than now.

Any village that didn't abuse this would also be subject to elimination if they were unable to defend in the 5 or 8 hour window you suggested, which would seriously reduce player population and investment in Haven as smaller villages are systematically eliminated.

There are 6*(it keeps going up lol) things you are not considering:
1 - I actually suggested a change to the current siege engines, i didn't specify, but you could make it very defense sided in many ways.
2 - I assume you are talking about village claims being overlapped, which you can just make tyhat not possible.
3 - You are ignoring how annoyingly hard it is would be to maintain multiple village idols and how annoying it would be for the people that live inside that outter village idol shield to leave the village through said shield.
4 - Even if taht shit is possible, taking care of a throwaway village claim shield will still be easier than sieging any decently stablished village is right now, and rebuilding that wouldn't be very easy.
5 - Oh and one more thing, even if this idea is/was bad, that doesn't mean the current 24 hour commitment is acceptable.
6 - If you give, say, 5 to 7 days warning and make structures industry and stuff be easier to move around than it is now, then you could make it so that people that get sieged don't actually lose much if anyhting at all because they can just move away more easily. I think most people would agree that moving stuff should be way easier than it is now.

how you come up with this

It's easier than coming up with arguments to defend pedophilia.

[Austinh15]

Siege should never favor the attackers in a sandbox settlement building mmorpg. However it shouldn't be a 24 hour constant time sink either. This is a conversation that has happened before.

There are so many edge cases that makes this near impossible to get 100% right, so the default conclusion should be to heavily favor the defenders.

However territory management is a very real thing. Some people (myself) bully the hell out of their neighbors in attempts to clear out competition early. This revolves around mainly mining and rare resources such as pit clay etc.

Also griefng using claims is another low hanging fruit.

It's really difficult to bob and weave through all these use cases in a meaningful way.

I do agree just palisade spamming during a siege is probably NOT the intended feel of defence, but just preventing palisade building during thing peace break isn't a good solution, as it sort of fucks and entire province.

Preventing palisade building near siege engines wouldn't fix this either.

It's almost like you need some kind of way to declare intent of siege on both a province and village level. So essentially some war flag esc build that you place a few tiles away from, or on, a village claim that prevents palisade building for a duration, and that only is buildable during a broken thing peace.

I'm spit balling here though.

[Apocoreo]

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.

Let's run the numbers baybeeeee

1 success from someone who didn't fight back
1 success through a bug
1 attempt
Tons of successes against AFK/quit players

I don't think the bandaid is working with 0 success rate against active players, that are playing, within the rules of the game. In my village, we don't call it a siege if people aren't playing the game, we call it salvage.

Also consider with 24 hours the idea is your villagers work in shifts, prohibiting hermits from using the system outside of salvage. And that it is over 24 hours, depending on what you're try to accomplish breaking into another players plot. I miss lone rangers and frontier justice.

I don't really have any solutions other than to shake my stick and say back in my day it was 8 hours. Hermits are fucked in that case but hell, they are anyway. Ideally I'd like to see realms have an incentive to prevent war on their turf. Not actually suggesting 8 hours don't engage me on this.

[Apocoreo]

Oh I like the idea of "bidding" for a scheduled siege time. Attackers and defenders take turns choosing when the defenses drop, rams are shielded like the walls outside of vulnerable windows. Defenders get first bid on times, within a range set by the attackers based on when they build the ram. If the defender doesn't bid, it automatically happens at after a set time. Attackers get several chances to return to the walls and counter bid within a shrinking range of times, if they so choose.

The purpose of this system is to force a confrontation between two active forces, or a surrender by the defenders if they think they can't win. Just like real life. Defenders can delay until allies are ready, but doing so risks putting them at a schedule disadvantage, or they can just name a convenient time to to crush those that underestimated them at their walls.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

I'm spit balling here though.

I think your observations are reasonable. It's really difficult to come to some solution or right answer that doesn't break another part of the game, though, as you've acknowledged.

I give up on this task. Good luck fixing siege everyone else

[Luno]

I must make it clear that i don't expect siege to be fixed, and i don't really expect my suggestion to be heard. It makes no difference to me.
I am just surprised that 24 hour commitment to this game was normalized to the point that i actually have to argument with a retard in order to prove that expecting 24 hour commitment to one of the main aspects of the game is unreasonable.
My current main issue with the game is that it's an ethnostate. Add skin colors to this game so i can actually suggest this game again, but i digress.

[Zentetsuken]

i don't expect it to ever be fixed either, but in the meantime some small tweaks can be made to get rid of ridiculous stuff like getting bots to build a fresh 20 layers of palisade spam as a means of defense