pitchkor wrote:
sounds right, i guess rich and powerful should win
Y-yes...? Are you being sarcastic? Should the person who isn't even going to try fighting and cannot be bothered to build a catapult win verse the person camping a ram and building multiple catapults?
Do you just want there to be literally no siege, under any circumstances ever?
"We specialize in permadeath and forum drama." -man who removed death and deletes every drama thread http://www.seatribe.se/
You pick: Autistic lack of sleep, combat strength (heavily weighted towards numbers), or resources.
Something has to decide who wins a siege. Combat strength is dangerous, because it means the biggest group can just wipe everyone else out if it's really the only major limiter. Lack of sleep isn't particularly healthy, but has been the "deciding factor" for sieging in the past (and as a general trend in gaming has become much less accepted or common as gamers stop being solely teenagers). The last option of resources means hopefully raiders spend more value than it's worth cracking open hermitages.
If you overdo protecting the weak, alt abuse becomes rampant. Blocker claims back in legacy are a good example. You couldn't destroy a claim, so to hamper your enemies you'd drop claims around them and prevent them from expanding.
Simply making sieging impossible (effectively or literally) takes us down a very griefable road.
Lucky: haven is so quirky
Lucky: can be so ugly, can be so heartwarming
Sevenless: it is life
strong and rich should win, im not sarcastic, was just asking if my scenario was accurate on how a siege plays out.
another question..I'm still under siege at the moment and with how things has been going, they have used 84 brimstones in the last 6 hours, is that even possible to stock up so many stones without decay?
