New Siege Implementation: Siege Claims

[shubla]

Ok, pick this apart: The siege claim is created, within the 100x100 area, but only on tiles where claims present on the attacked object are also present. I think that may fix Ysh's and shubla's complaints.

As a fix, maybe siege claim could only affect the claim that the damaged object was at?
And also claims overlapping with this claim, (if its a village claim)

This way building some dummy claim that does not intersect the claim that you are sieging won't allow you to do stupid tricks.

Would it also affect overlapping claims?
Like if there is a village claim with pclaims in it.

[loftar]

IDK how much lipstick you put on it, it's still a pig. Binary siege system in any form is always going to be horseshit.

Not that there isn't any case to be made, but it's the best we've got right now. If anything, the fact that the siege bubble is limited in size strictly speaking decreases the binariness of it, even if it can be debated by how much.

[Potjeh]

No siege at all is superior to binary siege. Also, unintuitive mechanics with shitty UI may be acceptable for less important parts of the game, but they have no place in critically important systems.

[jorb]

...and now those forced to rebuild their bases will set wrecking balls, creating a "voluntary" 100x100 siege claims for those who will be glad to siege them from outside.
Great success.

Not paying attention, sir. If you're not attacking as a crime you won't be creating any siege claim.

[jorb]

No siege at all is superior to binary siege.

I'm not sure what non-binary siege would even be. Either you gain access, and hold the battlefield, or you don't.

[loftar]

Would it also affect overlapping claims?
Like if there is a village claim with pclaims in it.

It would coincide with the union of claims present at its point of creation, not the intersection.

[Potjeh]

No siege at all is superior to binary siege.

I'm not sure what non-binary siege would even be. Either you gain access, and hold the battlefield, or you don't.

Resource expenditure per destroyed object similar to the cost of the object itself. Claims shouldn't be tough outer shell with squishy innards, they should have similar toughness throughout the whole thing.

[Ozzy123]

...and now those forced to rebuild their bases will set wrecking balls, creating a "voluntary" 100x100 siege claims for those who will be glad to siege them from outside.
Great success.

People like you and the fact that devs have to dig through all these shitposts of uneducated ignorants is the reason why we can't have nice things

[loftar]

Claims shouldn't be tough outer shell with squishy innards, they should have similar toughness throughout the whole thing.

I'm not sure I think that's entirely true; I do think there should be some sense of triumph when breaking in, by some metric. I don't disagree that there should probably be a raising of the internal toughness, but I don't really think there should be an exact parity of cost to building vs. destroying. Also, increasing the internal toughness was more-or-less what we attempted with braziers in Salem, and that was perhaps not the greatest thing ever.

[shubla]

2 v-claims like this could be difficult to siege.
Of course, there may not be a way of preventing this with any siege system.
Overall, having a really large village with many layered walls would be quite difficult to siege with 100x100 siege claim.

Second problem: what about cave levels?
Somebody could build walled mineholes to all cave layers below his village, then move all characters and valuables there when the village is sieged, and you would have to build separate siege claims to each layer.

Would charter stones work if the village is being sieged?

What if part of the claim is destroyed when its being sieged?