24 hour siege again

[MooCow]

People of equal skill do not have this large a discrepancy in stats. Because of ua/mc equalization and (most) stats being 2/3/4th roots, stats between fighters are usually much more equal than you think. The problem is that you need to know how to play effectively in order to reach the range where stats converge.

Like Snail mentioned, gear becomes much more important early on because of how quickly STR*WPN damage rises. If you do not have decent steel gear against an equalized opponent with a b12, it is very easy to cleave into your HP.

Balancing of stats and gear for PVP groups of (arguably) equal skill is a different conversation from lowering the barrier of entry for non-factions. The latter is also probably a much more important issue to address, regardless of some hypothetical fairness in a 1v1 with stat imbalance.

I was basically try to get to this, but it a much more round about way. The only stat that is unavoidably powerful in combat is strength. Everything else can be circumvented by have more bodies and better gear. I honestly believe if a kingdom started recruiting the peasants, they would rofl-stomp every other faction. You know, after the peasants got even a little good at fighting.

it's normal to have a bad take

The memes write themselves.

Saying 'it's normal to have a bad take' is the equivalent to 'Most Idea's are Bad'. It's just true.

imo claim shield was the best siege system i experienced

Ideally for me, seiges should be rare, but meaningful. The worst system we ever had was the 24 hr wreaking ball sieges. People just dropping fire and forget bullshit hoping to catch somebody off-guard was 100% bullshit. It's completely just punching down. The stakes are WAY too high to randomly have everything ruined because I decided to do something in real life for a weekend.

Claim shields were decent, that's true, but sieges really SHOULD take multiple days to complete because bases take months to build.

Good Sieges have two requirements

• The attacker should win in they attack for a long but reasonable amount of time
• Defenders should be given opportunity to attack or run away

I would much rather have sieges take 12 or even 6 hours, if those hours were spread out over a week. I actually find it really surprising that its never been tried.

[Sevenless]

Good Sieges have two requirements

• The attacker should win in they attack for a long but reasonable amount of time
• Defenders should be given opportunity to attack or run away

I would much rather have sieges take 12 or even 6 hours, if those hours were spread out over a week. I actually find it really surprising that its never been tried.

Therein lies the difficulty. To use a system like that there has to be an assumption that defenders can fight back. Due to haven's mechanics, for the vast majority of cases this isn't true. There are hundreds of villages/hermitages, and <20 of those are realistically combat capable. Most of them achieving that by banding multiple villages together for a faction, but it's not feasible for most haven players to join factions. Running away just doesn't work in haven. The difficulty of moving is nearly as much as building a village in the first place, and frequently players forced to move or die just quit until next world. If siege is achievable timesink wise and requires active combat: Hermits die and our endgame pop peak is ~100 instead of ~200 because of all the hermits who'd keep playing being griefed out of the game.

I have no idea how to make a siege system where most players are happy. At this point, after more than a decade of discussion, I think we should consider this as a cursed design problem. Cursed design problems are defined as: unsolvable design problems rooted in a conflict between core player promises.

Haven has two cursed design issues. Players are promised the ability to "handle grievances via pvp", but they're also offered the ability to play without pvp since the vast majority of the game's actual content isn't pvp and caters to pve players very well. You can't let pvpers decide everything grievance wise and maintain a healthy pve population. So one group or the other is unhappy eternally.

The other is about world resets. A core gameplay loop about quality spiral that requires the illusion of permanence, but that same loop gets stale for most players once you run out of infrastructure/achievements to earn and it starts being number gains only. World resets are mandatory to keep this loop engaging, but so is the illusion that your gains are permanent.


So for siege at least, expecting it to make everyone happy is pointless. Pick the balance that makes whatever population you belong to the happiest and try to convince the devs your group should be happier than the other on that topic lol.

[dagrimreefah]

In the same way people who it end up playing single player games on hardmode even when they die 200 times to the same boss, people who don't want to PVP in haven like the idea that they're playing a hardmode PVP game. This is a substantial % of the playerbase, and they would lose interest without the threat, even if they're trying to avoid it.

Six million percent this.

[MooCow]

Therein lies the difficulty. To use a system like that there has to be an assumption that defenders can fight back. Due to haven's mechanics, for the vast majority of cases this isn't true. There are hundreds of villages/hermitages, and <20 of those are realistically combat capable. Most of them achieving that by banding multiple villages together for a faction, but it's not feasible for most haven players to join factions.

I totally agree with this, but at the same Haven is a social game. I have never once been playing and been aware of a siege that was happening to one of my neighbours, or even myself. Been playing casually off and on since 2010, and been sieged a few times. Its just log in, and hey bad stuff happened while I was away. Even being totally dogshit, I would rather fight and die, than not-fight and still die. I would fight to help my neighbours too, and I think most people would want to fight for a cause that they believe is just, even if they are wrong. 24 hours is just WAY to fast for people like me, and I think a lot of casual hermits are in the same boat. Making sieges take longer means there is time to do something, and just crying about it on the moot, or in realm chat is still something. Players being able to experience somebody else getting popped helps reshape the context of the game. It makes it all more real.

Running away just doesn't work in haven. The difficulty of moving is nearly as much as building a village in the first place, and frequently players forced to move or die just quit until next world. If siege is achievable timesink wise and requires active combat: Hermits die and our endgame pop peak is ~100 instead of ~200 because of all the hermits who'd keep playing being griefed out of the game.

Yeah, I wish there were better options for running away. My hope was that IF something like this was implemented, and IF running away became in demand, realistic options for it might be developed

I don't know if making sieging take 6-12 hours stretched over a week is actually good, but it's clearly an improvement to this system. It is also different from other systems that have been tried, so their is learning potential from it. I wouldn't specifically recommend it unless some of the more aggressive players gave it their seal of approval, but this thread is for discussing things

Even though this siege system is generally disliked by people on the forums, I don't think it is a total failure. This system as proved that there is a clear upper limit on how much work attackers are willing/able to put into fighting their enemies, and that is useful information.

[Massa]

also there is nothing wrong with dying or losing your shithole

it's called taking an L and we all do it all the time

[Sevenless]

also there is nothing wrong with dying or losing your shithole

it's called taking an L and we all do it all the time

Problem is making pvpers happy makes far more people unhappy. Maybe the PvPers should just take the L instead?

Not sure I buy callous positions like "I'm happy by wrecking other people's fun, but they're just babies so I should be allowed to" works here.

[SnuggleSnail]

If you consensually go to the designated ratfucking cage where everybody goes to get ratfucked, then piss yourself crying that ratfucking shouldn't be allowed you're actually a dickhead.

This is an unironic condemnation of your IRL character.

[Massa]

also there is nothing wrong with dying or losing your shithole

it's called taking an L and we all do it all the time

Problem is making pvpers happy makes far more people unhappy. Maybe the PvPers should just take the L instead?

Not sure I buy callous positions like "I'm happy by wrecking other people's fun, but they're just babies so I should be allowed to" works here.

this is a pvp game and its success suffers as pvp suffers

[vatas]

also there is nothing wrong with dying or losing your shithole

it's called taking an L and we all do it all the time

Problem is making pvpers happy makes far more people unhappy. Maybe the PvPers should just take the L instead?

Not sure I buy callous positions like "I'm happy by wrecking other people's fun, but they're just babies so I should be allowed to" works here.

Current siege: you can NOT siege PvP people. Noobs can be attacked at near impunity outside walls cause there is no risk of revenge siege. Lack of game knowledge can still be exploited to the great effort to the point where noob loses their base.

24 hour siege: likelihood that you are sieged is now much higher, but PvP people can now ALSO be targeted with retaliatory action.

Clarification: Noob probably isn't in position to siege PvPer, but surely there would be factions that would prefer justified conflict against another PvP group over "seal clubbing" noobs.

[MooCow]

24 hour siege: likelihood that you are sieged is now much higher, but PvP people can now ALSO be targeted with retaliatory action.

Clarification: Noob probably isn't in position to siege PvPer, but surely there would be factions that would prefer justified conflict against another PvP group over "seal clubbing" noobs.

If retaliatory sieging is common and good (I am not refuting this point), then wouldn't it be better if sieges took a long enough time that people could intervene BEFORE the raid was completed?