24 hour siege again

[noindyfikator]

I think siege system is overcomplicated, too time consuming and too rewarding if defender loses. I don't have idea how to fix it but:

1. Simplify siege, all those hidden timers, relations between siege engines, claim powers, numens etc. I bet no spruce know how it works.
2. Reduce siege/defense time (take outlaw mechanism/time into consideration)
3. Do smth to prevent total base destruction when someone breaks walls.

Currently if a group of people break into your base they can do too much damage inside. MY OPINION is that we should have more sieges but with lower reward for attacker. Break walls, do research, take a few items and that's all. There should be limit for possible negative actions on active claim other than hp loss. For example (just a quick idea to give general point of view): there can't be done more than x negative actions on claim in y amount of time (common negative action counter for all attackers - it removes possibility of alt invasion)

[DonVelD]

and too rewarding if defender loses.

that's assuming the defender doesnt bash and despawn everything inside when they see they are going to lose the siege

[noindyfikator]

and too rewarding if defender loses.

that's assuming the defender doesnt bash and despawn everything inside when they see they are going to lose the siege

When you bash and despawn everything inside, result is the same. Why? Because in this game you rarely siege to get anything valuable (if u siege somenone it almost always means you are stronger) but to have satisfaction from exterminate others

[DDDsDD999]

Mmm ram so good cata so good gang gang gang gang mmm siege so good

[DonVelD]

hard agree

[bmjclark]

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.

I really don't want to destroy a ram at my wall and then have to camp the wreckage for the next few hours to make sure it's actually gone. Nor do I really want to succeed in destroying an attacking ram just to have the attacking group instantly pop a new one back up with the same siege charge. This sounds just miserable to deal with

[noindyfikator]

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.

I really don't want to destroy a ram at my wall and then have to camp the wreckage for the next few hours to make sure it's actually gone. Nor do I really want to succeed in destroying an attacking ram just to have the attacking group instantly pop a new one back up with the same siege charge. This sounds just miserable to deal with

Totally agree, another complication which we don't need

[vatas]

1. Simplify siege, all those hidden timers, relations between siege engines, claim powers, numens etc. I bet no spruce know how it works.

Reminds me of this case where a Sprucecap was put on following two-parter test:

1. Will you think of inspecting the ground under your claim, as it is the only way to see Power Level?
2. Will you figure out that low Power Level means your claim will be nearly useless?

He failed on both parts but imho it was devs fault to the point it becomes potential evidence for the theory, that the entire game is just an excessively elaborate and extended prank.

(They did add both Power Level and Siege Boost into the actual Personal Claim UI window in w14 at least.)

[MooCow]

• 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.

While conceptually I agree with this statement, I just don't think that it is possible to do this. People are trying to destroy the claim, not the wall, and having 30 different walled sections of a base means that sieging is 30x as long.

time =/= difficulty

This is not true. Having to babysit a ram for 72 hours is difficult. Having attackers spend a bunch of time banging rocks together is good, and not just because it's difficult, but it is also universally agreed upon to be an unpleasant activity. The fun in sieging should come from winning, not from itself being a delightful experience.

Having a certain level of awfulness baking into sieging for the attackers is a good thing. It helps balance the inherent awfulness of defending a siege. I don't believe its possible to make siege be fun for the defenders, because the entire point of sieging is to ruin the defenders day. Having siege being sufficiently awful that attackers have apathy towards sieging random nobodies that are 1/50th of their level is the system functioning as intended.

A bunch of real talk

Its absolutely delightful seeing posts that feel like they are aren't lying or intentionally obfuscating important information. I agree with basically everything you said except for the number being 24 hours and P-Claims being ineffective, but P-Claims being ineffective against sieges is probably fine because a single user can easily make and maintain a village in the current state of the game.

Considering the difficulty in picking the single correct magic number for the entire world, what if the default number was 24, and realms could adjust adjust it, like personal beliefs back in the day. Every ingame-year they could move it one tick towards an upper limit of 72 hours, or lower limit of 8 hours. I would be perfectly content moving to a safer realm. To me, if feels wildly appropriate having some areas of the world be significantly more violent than others.

[Clemins]

time =/= difficulty

This is not true. Having to babysit a ram for 72 hours is difficult. Having attackers spend a bunch of time banging rocks together is good, and not just because it's difficult, but it is also universally agreed upon to be an unpleasant activity. The fun in sieging should come from winning, not from itself being a delightful experience.

You're taking what I'm trying to say here out of context. I'm trying to state that this HUGE time sink is not DIFFICULT, it's miserable. I can agree to there being some flaming hoops to jump trough, I'm not saying time shouldn't be involved, and i'm also saying 5 days is fucking nuts.

Do you really want to defend yourself for 5 days? I don't. I also don't want to camp a ram for 5 days.

There has to be some compromise here...

Speaking of out of context:

The fun in [insert any other obnoxious thing about Haven here] should come from [end goal], not from itself being a delightful experience.

Taking this out of context, (not intentionally to change the topic), but why is this such a prominent ideology in Havens player base? Why can't both the experience and end goal be fun? Why would you need to suffer to have fun?