24 hour siege again

[Sevenless]

it is absolutely crazy that a FOUR post user from TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN (2011, 4 POSTS) has written us YET ANOTHER king james bible about his take

delete 5 day siege

Kinda crazy that someone who plays <2 weeks per world for the last 2-3 worlds is writing yet another post on how everyone else should play the game.

[vatas]

it is absolutely crazy that a FOUR post user from TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN (2011, 4 POSTS) has written us YET ANOTHER king james bible about his take

delete 5 day siege

My funny image does have a thick layer of irony that may obscure the true message. I assure I meant to primarily poke fun of the Jorb's "pVp iS oNLy tOOl for cOnFlicT reSOluTiOn" -design stance.

[Massa]

it is absolutely crazy that a FOUR post user from TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN (2011, 4 POSTS) has written us YET ANOTHER king james bible about his take

delete 5 day siege

Kinda crazy that someone who plays <2 weeks per world for the last 2-3 worlds is writing yet another post on how everyone else should play the game.

cope bozo

[loftar]

>Refuses to elaborate further
>Leaves

Sorry about that. It's just that when I wake up to six new pages I tend to think that "I'll read that through at a more opportune time".

Anyway, a couple of thoughts:

• As for the whole "identity of the game" question, it's certainly fundamentally true that Haven has conflicting design goals, but I'm not planning to abandon either side of the spectrum. We'll probably keep floundering around, trying things and see what sticks.
• I may have given that impression in my previous post, but the intention was never to "remove siege". What I meant to say, rather, was that siege just seemed too unbalanced to the attackers' side last world, so we intended to make it harder, and then perhaps balance it back to the other side when necessary, and never really got around to doing the latter, partly because, yes, we do tend to be a bit apprehensive to do siege changes unless strictly necessary, simply because they are always controversial, whichever side they're meant to favor.
• I do very fundamentally agree with the principle that the theoretical possibility of siege is positive for the game even if never actually exercised. I very much agree with the idea that the whole open-PvP-ness (combatwise, siegewise or otherwise) of the game heightens the experience even for people who never actually engage in it. I feel this very much myself in my own playing the game, even though indeed I never actually engage in it.

I do notice the fondness for the old siege shield system. I myself never was nor currently am too fond of it, for a couple of reasons:

• Primarily, the "small changes" that would be required to solve the overlapping/moving claims problem never were just small changes. They were fundamental and endemic to the system, we tried to solve them multiple times but never succeeded.
• Secondarily, I don't like it when the claim itself is a direct participant in the siege system; it tends to lead to weird and undesirable incentives. Clearly, the current siege boost system isn't perfect in this regard either, but I think at least the claim affecting objects on it is a lesser problem than it being a participant in itself.
• Tertiarily, I prefer the "siege chess" system simply because it's involves physical moving pieces instead of magic invisible macguffin shields.

That's not to say that I doubt there are legitimate reasons for the fondness of it, however. My analysis, and please correct me if I'm misreading y'all here, is that the main thing it had going for it was that "progress" in bringing down a claim wasn't as volatile, as bringing down a siege engine still allowed the attackers to build new ones and continue, which led to less constant baby-sitting.

For these reasons, we are currently considering making the following changes:

• Make destroyed siege engines leave some sort of wreck that can be rebuilt to keep their previous charge level. The wreck would either just keep its charge status and go away after a fixed time, or continuously lose charge status (by some linear or non-linear function of time) and go away when it has none left. Haven't decided on the details, but I'm sure you get the general idea.
• Possibly make it so that the time after which siege engines start to destroy themselves also scale with the power level of the claim that they're on.

In addition to this, we are considering (but have very much not decided we want) some sort of system whereby provinces have "wards" that can be sieged down to create a window of opportunity (probably with some delay) during which the power levels of claims in that province would be decreased. If we were to do this, it would be nice to make it in such a way that the realm owning a province would have incentive to keep the province wards protected, for example by making it so that the thingwall of the province would gain an extra challenge window if the wards were sieged down, or something like that.

Thoughts?

[Clemins]

Thoughts?

I'm glad you're gunna take a stab at this; But I think you're missing one of the major problems attackers had this world: TIME.
I really want to underline just how crazy of an addition the numen thing was this world:

• I can charge a NEW claim from 0% to 100% within about an hour after it's 8 hour drying period, I did it this world and have had it done to me, it's a joke.
• Image a world where you guys did the opposite of the 5x power boost, like an attacker ability to reduce the power on a claim to make it instead take 1/5x the amount of time, sounds broken right? It is... Just on the other end.
• Being able to boost your claim from 100% to 500% in as little as 10 minutes once an active siege is place effectively kills it, who the hell in their right mind would continue that fight?

It's not any more "difficult" than it was last world, it just takes up to 5x the amount of time it used to. Contrary to popular belief, we have lives...

I don't like it when the claim itself is a direct participant in the siege system

Me neither, and the numen thing has to go at the very least.

Make destroyed siege engines leave some sort of wreck that can be rebuilt to keep their previous charge level. The wreck would either just keep its charge status and go away after a fixed time, or continuously lose charge status (by some linear or non-linear function of time) and go away when it has none left. Haven't decided on the details, but I'm sure you get the general idea.

Actually, please, elaborate further, I don't see what this will solve.

Possibly make it so that the time after which siege engines start to destroy themselves also scale with the power level of the claim that they're on.

Instead of the current busted numen boost? Because if this is in addition to it, it just makes it even worse.

...it would be nice to make it in such a way that the realm owning a province would have incentive to keep the province wards protected, for example by making it so that the thingwall of the province would gain an extra challenge window if the wards were sieged down, or something like that.

Again, time =/= difficulty. If your goal is to help make it so defenders and attacker have "more" equal footing, I implore you to take another approach that doesn't rely on anything more that 24 hours.
I made a suggestion specifically to jorb awhile back, don't know if he shared it with you or not so Ill just copy-paste it here:

...Since the plot boost with numens is really easy to get, each time we actually tried to siege someone the time would extend (as intended I suppose) to 5 days. I'd love to spend all my time playing haven and defending the siege, but alas I am human and at the very VERY least i have to sleep sometimes. We ended up resorting to wrecking balls since it still worked sorta like the old system, but they were hard to defend. And since we kinda ruined that option with the signs, sieging just isn't feasible anymore. I'm not too sure what you think of it as it is, but if you're looking for some ideas/input, we thought of something and I'd love to know what you think.

SOOO, I think a lot of people's complaints about the current system is the timing. Hear me out, what if, when you wanted to start a siege the aggressor builds a warflag similar to thingwall claiming. After it's build, the defender will be prompted with the option to pick a defense time window (within like, 24-36 hours or something). After which, the aggressors are notified of the time and both sides have (X) time to get stuff ready for the siege. Once the window arrives, then both sides can start building siege equipment (catapults, rams, towers) and it just works like a normal 8 hour siege until one side loses. And i dont know if this is a stretch, but maybe it could be 4 hours and THAT can be boosted with the numens instead up to like 6-8-10-12-14 hours?

[loftar]

Actually, please, elaborate further, I don't see what this will solve.

I thought I made it abundantly clear that the idea is to make siege progress less volatile, so that you don't have to start again from zero just because the ram was destroyed while you looked away for five minutes. Or, in other words, to remove the need to watch the siege constantly, piss-bottle style.

[Clemins]

Actually, please, elaborate further, I don't see what this will solve.

I thought I made it abundantly clear that the idea is to make siege progress less volatile, so that you don't have to start again from zero just because the ram was destroyed while you looked away for five minutes. Or, in other words, to remove the need to watch the siege constantly, piss-bottle style.

Well lets assume that this is the thing you change, while in theory it allows for "less" babysitting time around the ram, I don't see what benefit that would have since while I'm gone it can still get destroyed, in a sense. So that means the siege will (assuming) cost more resources and technically more time, since it's at best "paused". Meaning, it's still more "efficient" to babysit the siege.

Also, Again-again, this does not touch on the point I'm really trying to convey to you guys, 5 days is still insane. And this just seems like it will further extend the total amount of time it will take to successfully siege someone.

[SnuggleSnail]

system whereby provinces have "wards" that can be sieged down to create a window of opportunity (probably with some delay) during which the power levels of claims in that province would be decreased. If we were to do this, it would be nice to make it in such a way that the realm owning a province would have incentive to keep the province wards protected

• every group capable of making a significant realm wants to rape and pillage, even if there's a few front facing gamer girls that pretend otherwise
• you will not encourage pvpers to not grief people by giving them the power to grief people
• I would squeeze my nuts until they explode to fuck up your day

Tertiarily, I prefer the "siege chess" system simply because it's involves physical moving pieces instead of magic invisible macguffin shields.

• the average player does not give a shit about siege mechanics until they see the ram
• siege mechanics are too complicated/time consuming to test/figure out after you've seen the ram
• siege chess having lots of moving parts with random important timers/interactions even the devs don't know/remember is insanely fucking bad
• 98% of people's innate reaction to seeing a ram is to A>Y it, which is literally a noobtrap in this system
• the siege system should be one of the most intuitive systems in the game (obviously?)

reasons for the fondness of it, however. My analysis, and please correct me if I'm misreading y'all here, is that the main thing it had going for it was that "progress" in bringing down a claim wasn't as volatile

No. Getting your siege camp overrun and not losing all your progress was nice, but the thing people actually care about is that it made sieging large/compartmentalized bases possible.

I guess you took it as hyperbole whenever people talked about sieging down 30+ walls in big sieges, but no. Pretty sure you visited us at the cumjar last world. To actually fully siege that village would've effectively taken I THINK 26 separate sieges, and we didn't even have a certain wall. That was not an extreme case, that's just normal.

Make destroyed siege engines leave some sort of wreck that can be rebuilt to keep their previous charge level.

• too complicated
• still need to babysit the ram to prevent defenders from doing shit to it / building catas around it
• I don't want to win a siege at 8PM then have to wake up at 2AM to re-destroy the ram, especially when the attacker might not even turn up

[SnuggleSnail]

You should just change the funny number back to 24 and work on more important things like the feasting system being the worst its ever been instead, but:

• revert to W10 sidge
• keep the ram/cata destroy timer, but set it to 5-10min
• remove regaining authority by using brimstone because convoluted/hidden
• make flags being rammed not do auth damage, just destroy them if the ram is >1 or 2 hours charged
• don't let flags be catapulted
• make Pclaims basically worthless for siege defense/claim shield
• make any Pclaim that's overlapped or within a few tiles of a vclaim taking shield damage also take damage
• encourage people the few people who are perma Pclaimbois to make a vclaim somehow
• accept that like 1 or 2 retards in the entire game will wrap villages, because it's the same thing as having a curtain wall not and not rly a big deal + it's hugely inconvenient and not scalable
• instead of a claim shield with authority, have sieges directly damage claims down to 1% where they become inactive, and spam the shit out of anybody being sieged that o god o fuk THE VILLAGE IDOL IS TAKING DAMAGE AND GOING TO EXPLODE with its current percentage of HP remaining and how much can be taken per hour and its regen rate
• remove power%/the numen on claims
• remove Ngate (big buff to siege attackers vs. competent people, but does nothing vs. shitters - and will also prevent more people getting raided than any system will cause people to get sieged xdxdxd)

P.S: I know this is not even in the realm of possibility, but a companion phone app that just alerts you if your claim is being sieged would have alleviated a lot of W10 stress related to having low shield%.
Global chat would make sieging shitters a lot harder, and not rly affect sieges verse major groups

[DonVelD]

The time, intuitiveness/ingame guide or something, getting rid of babysitting and bullshit like 0-500% numen boost should be the priority, then we can change the minor things