You killed this game yourselves, devs.

[Sevenless]

Idk, I'm all for raiding, but like I said, most people recover from character deaths.
Frequently losing bases is what makes people quit for good

I've never agreed with the concept of "losing a base" because someone breached the walls. If we're talking radical rework of sieging system, there's no reason why we need to keep current mechanics in that sense. Yes, it moves away from sandboxiness a bit perhaps, but we're trying to fix a flaw that is inherent in all sandbox games with pvp. Due to the rework of teleportation mechanics for example, I can see very few reasons why anything other than walls should be vandalizable during an attack.

The main issue as to why I suggested this was based on my earlier suggestion of static defenses. I don't see any way to balance static defenses for every day stuff vs sieges. My only way of reconciling the two is to have some formal declaration that turns the static defenses off somehow.

Side note: As it is right now, the only way to attack a stable faction is 24 hr camps. And frankly, that's bad game design. You've got a point that you don't want sieges to be easy to drop because it kills people out of the game. But I really don't think 24hr camping as a mechanic is acceptable. If sieges are so destructive to the game, why should they be allowed at all? If we magically found a way to make animals/infastructure immune to being attacked, what you'd stand to lose in sieges is equipment, characters, and general "stuff".

I'm definitely not arguing hardcore for any of my suggestions. Just throwing out ideas and looking for flaws.

[jordancoles]

Idk, I'm all for raiding, but like I said, most people recover from character deaths.
Frequently losing bases is what makes people quit for good

I've never agreed with the concept of "losing a base" because someone breached the walls. If we're talking radical rework of sieging system, there's no reason why we need to keep current mechanics in that sense. Yes, it moves away from sandboxiness a bit perhaps, but we're trying to fix a flaw that is inherent in all sandbox games with pvp. Due to the rework of teleportation mechanics for example, I can see very few reasons why anything other than walls should be vandalizable during an attack.

The main issue as to why I suggested this was based on my earlier suggestion of static defenses. I don't see any way to balance static defenses for every day stuff vs sieges. My only way of reconciling the two is to have some formal declaration that turns the static defenses off somehow.

Side note: As it is right now, the only way to attack a stable faction is 24 hr camps. And frankly, that's bad game design. You've got a point that you don't want sieges to be easy to drop because it kills people out of the game. But I really don't think 24hr camping as a mechanic is acceptable. If sieges are so destructive to the game, why should they be allowed at all? If we magically found a way to make animals/infastructure immune to being attacked, what you'd stand to lose in sieges is equipment, characters, and general "stuff".

I'm definitely not arguing hardcore for any of my suggestions. Just throwing out ideas and looking for flaws.

An issue with the idea of only walls being vandalized is that people will just use that to their advantage
If a ram can only roll 28 tiles, they would simply make 30 tiles all around of banners or other unmovable objects instead

While I do like the idea of less damage being done during a raid, I'm not sure how to go about implementing that
A limitation of potential damage atm is the soft hp damage that is dealt when committing a crime, but as characters become better, this becomes less of an issue

Last world we had hhp dmg instead of shp, and it still didn't stop us from leveling bases.
All of us simply had 1000+ health to compensate

I suppose the shp dmg could be buffed depending on the crime, theft remaining 1 tick and vandalism being much higher of a penalty
But that's still not a huge deterrent because once a defending group is outnumbered or killed, a large raiding party can simply camp inside the village, eat and regen their shp to continue the raid

Siege mechanics are painfully delicate

[Avu]

I argued in the past that raids should be about stealing a few cakes a bar of steel here and there nothing in town can be permanently vandalized but replaced with new systems, arson for buildings so you have to set buildings on fire, animals should be poisoned rather than slaughtered (saline solution to make them vomit and be all good), crops can be stolen seeds from but not regularly harvested, chars should be knocked out robbed a bit and wounded but not killed. If you're red handed you can be killed no problem. The cost of destruction should be at least as large as the cost of buildup. Raiders make the world exciting but they also make people quit so rein them in. If they're cut out for the job they'll do it anyway.

More regionalization would also give more incentive for raids. If the only area in the world that makes no hunger apples (that goes into all apple products and makes them no hunger) refuses to trade with you maybe raiding is the answer.

If raids were less destructive they could also be more easily allowed to happen.

[barra]

As it is right now, the only way to attack a stable faction is 24 hr camps. And frankly, that's bad game design. You've got a point that you don't want sieges to be easy to drop because it kills people out of the game. But I really don't think 24hr camping as a mechanic is acceptable

How many hours drying time would make camping acceptable? 12h? 6h? Where's the sweet spot for both defenders and attackers?

[jordancoles]

As it is right now, the only way to attack a stable faction is 24 hr camps. And frankly, that's bad game design. You've got a point that you don't want sieges to be easy to drop because it kills people out of the game. But I really don't think 24hr camping as a mechanic is acceptable

How many hours drying time would make camping acceptable? 12h? 6h? Where's the sweet spot for both defenders and attackers?

12-16 hours is about right for most game timers

8 hours is a work day. Anything under 10 hours heads into the "second life" territory, which doesn't fit with a lot of peoples' schedules/lives

[Avu]

You can't solve the siege system under the current paradigm, messing with dry times won't make the system any less shit.

[jorb]

At least back then game made you do something

Run scripts?

Jorb, I hope you along with loftar are happy with what you made with the game. Hopefully it dies quick enough. If you think legacy is done, why not release the source code by the way? No one will play it anyway, right? Everyone loves the new H&H. Sorry, I was just daydreaming.

Sometimes it baffles me why developers don't listen to their playerbase.

*sigh*

I've never -- afaik -- spoken with you before. Must you come at me with such a bitter and confrontational attitude? "Hopefully it dies quick enough"...?

How can it possibly baffle you if I don't listen to you when this is how you approach the discussion? Why should I listen to someone who wants the game to die?

If your great idea of progress is to return to the old LP system then, no, I'm not going to listen to you. We moved away from it for very well established reasons.

That being said, however, I am also not happy with the present curiosity implementation either, and I agree that qualitative player input should matter more than it currently does.

[Sevenless]

You can't solve the siege system under the current paradigm, messing with dry times won't make the system any less shit.

Agreed, this siege system is fundamentally flawed. But JC has a point. Whatever gets implemented to replace it is going to be an incredibly delicate balance.

[dageir]

I am sure you are aware but listening too much to the forum users about game development might give us an unplayable game.
Many indie game developers just make a game THEY want to play and do some variations over that after input from players.

[chrisrock]

most people recover from character deaths.
Frequently losing bases is what makes people quit for good

i'd much much MUCH rather lose my base than lose my character.
anything but my character.

and i agree with you on how salem's waste claim was stupid.