BRING BACK SIEGE

[SnuggleSnail]

I think there's a lot that could be done to make sieging bigbois more realistic while having little to no impact on regular people. Likewise, I'm pretty sure hermit villages could be made sturdier without making major bigbois harder to siege.

An example would be how major villages tend to be a 3x3 to 9x9 mess of honeycomb when catapults can only move 4tiles/hour, meaning to actually crack large villages you have to spend literal weeks of 24/7 pushing a catapult. Shitters villages typically just have 1 big box. Attacking claims instead of walls akin to world 10 shield system is a HUUUUUGGGGGEEEEE nerf to the people that "should" be sieged, while leaving room for it to even be a buff for regular players.

Siege chess is also pretty bad for slightly buffing hermits, but making bigbois completely invulnerable. In theory it should be regular player's biggest asset, in practice it's too complicated and just confuses/demoralizes them. I've sieged a good handful of mid tier villages over the years and I can't think of a single instance where it seemed like the defenders had any idea what they're doing. Meanwhile I would not even attempt to siege a village if somebody who lives there knows how siege works, it's just a waste of everybody's time.

It's still a waste of time to rework siege for the 20th time. They won't get it right, and even if they did the feedback would be negative so they'd change it.

[MightySheep]

i agree theres way more interesting shit for them to spend their annual couple of hours of work on

[dafels]

don't think siege will ever be good when they try to please hermit/pver vs pvp playstyles at same time

[Dawidio123]

don't think siege will ever be good when they try to please hermit/pver vs pvp playstyles at same time

I agree that it can never be truly good for both sides. One side wants to be able to siege basically anyone (which would make the game a lot more pvp favoured which isn't necessarily a bad thing) in a reasonable amount of time. The other sides never wants to be sieged because they feel like they're losing everything (arguable but also fair, if i got sieged i'd probably just quit and gg go next even if i could rebuild most of the things in like a week).
In the end it's basically on the devs to decide which part of the community they want to appease or they can just keep the whole thing in this gray zone where pvpers hate it bcs sieging anyone is basically impossible unless they let you, and pve-ers hate it because they get sieged if they skip a few ingame days and get unlucky.
And i'm kinda on msheep side on this one, I just don't know how one would implement a system that satisfies both extremes of the spectrum, yeah you can improve on it with stuff snail mentioned like shield system making it so hermits who don't build their bases for siege defense aren't punished for it, but i still feel like both sides will end up disatisfied with the end result unless it's a result that heavily favors their side. (even if the defensive side is heavily favoured now the mechanics are not explained anywhere and the only way to learn is to practice which you can't even do now without bonking the thingpeace)

One thing that would improve siege HEAVILY is having a clear documentation of mechanics and some way to test them out (possibly valhalla like instances for that or w/e) that doesn't require you to do a whole bunch of setup in the actual game. I mean damn, I will admit i have literally 0 idea on how the archery towers work, never used them, never needed them (which is also part of the issue, you can just run out and bash the ram without engaging into the whole siege mechanics, why would you risk fucking it up when the ram approaches instead of going out and bashing it). I'd imagine if actual proper sieges, as in the ones where both parties engage in the siege chess, were more common and the knowledge on how the shit works wasn't obscure and known by like 3 players in the game the whole system would be a lot easier to judge based on its actual pros and cons, instead of the current I WANT TO SIEGE EASIER vs I DONT WANT TO BE SIEGED AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[GreenScape]

Sieges could easily be improved, say, by having a `Value` system. Value would be derived from the type of an item or a structure, combined with its quality (usual (Q/10)^1/2) that is located on the claim or inside a container within the claim plus the size of the claim, all the natural resources it covers, etc etc. Additionally I would include a value of all characters whose HFs are covered by that claim (with value sticking to that claim for a few days after the HF is moved). Then the value would just be a parameter in a formula that scales the soak value of structures on this claim. The lower your total Value is - the stronger your structures are (more effort, less reward). The higher your value is - the easier you are to siege but also you should be stronger and more capable in defense, as having more total value means that you are (check one or more):
* more active
* have more people
* have more resources
* better equipment

This way, If you're a hermit having not much valuable stuff you aren't worth raiding as that would require a lot of effort given how strong your walls are.
And if you're a strong faction you have to work harder to protect 'all your gold that you sleep on'.
This would even help with botting a bit as bots will intrinsically create 'value' and work towards making you more vulnerable for the amount of actual human resources that you possess.

And this only scratches a surface. It is possible to improve the current mechanics. You just have to at least want to improve it.

[SnuggleSnail]

wow that's so embarrassing for you

[OIchi]

Sieges could easily be improved, say, by having a `Value` system. Value would be derived from the type of an item or a structure, combined with its quality (usual (Q/10)^1/2) that is located on the claim or inside a container within the claim plus the size of the claim, all the natural resources it covers, etc etc. Additionally I would include a value of all characters whose HFs are covered by that claim (with value sticking to that claim for a few days after the HF is moved). Then the value would just be a parameter in a formula that scales the soak value of structures on this claim. The lower your total Value is - the stronger your structures are (more effort, less reward). The higher your value is - the easier you are to siege but also you should be stronger and more capable in defense, as having more total value means that you are (check one or more):
* more active
* have more people
* have more resources
* better equipment

This way, If you're a hermit having not much valuable stuff you aren't worth raiding as that would require a lot of effort given how strong your walls are.
And if you're a strong faction you have to work harder to protect 'all your gold that you sleep on'.
This would even help with botting a bit as bots will intrinsically create 'value' and work towards making you more vulnerable for the amount of actual human resources that you possess.

And this only scratches a surface. It is possible to improve the current mechanics. You just have to at least want to improve it.

It's insane how shallow your thinking is. It's one of the worst idea I have ever seen.
Working around and abusing such a system would be trivial.
Assigning value to every item in game is not something easy either, how much is a steel bar worth 4 weeks into a world and how much is it worth 4 months in?

[Massa]

the game was better when basically everything was a bug raid and you could just camp a ram for 24 hours.

just let us camp a ram for 24 hours. make the fucking towers destroy them.

[NightMind]

Major PvP factions only play for the first two weeks. Give them a Battle Server that wipes every 2-3 months on the regular and comes with a gimmick/test mechanic each time and let them battle it out. Maybe even reduce siege debufs/protections. They are needed for those of us looking for the stardew valley experience vs being sacked by vickings experience.

[Archiplex]

its funny seeing the tropes of basically every suggestion thread at play

we basically have the vague useless op with "fix thing" followed by 3-4 of the same faces going "yeah do it" followed by snail saying "Yeah i've said this 1 gorillion times, can we ignore sprucecaps yet?" followed by robben with the "the only patches made cater to basement dwellers", sprinkle in a little bit of alt spam, then a 2 page literary analysis about why someone is wrong (without actually suggesting good ideas) followed by snail's retort of "see? look at this mouthbreather, everything he says is wrong" while explaining nothing about why he's wrong (or if he does he begrudgingly says "i've explained this 100x times, but here's a small bulletpoint summary on why you're a monkey" followed by nameless faces with retarded opinions and actually insane ideas chiming in, all for a game that hasn't had a real update in over a year, whose devs dont even post, and is barely even played by anyone


you guys play any other games yet? do you get tired of following this recipe over and over? im not even on either side anymore im on the side that thinks this game is fundamentally broken and catering to anyone is stupid and everything about combat, pvp, permadeath, base+siege and similar needs to be reworked from the ground up to be good, but its not going to happen so erm why care

the spruces unironically dont even know they're playing the game the most optimal way for enjoyment. unless you really like drama which i guess most of you do