by Robben_DuMarsch » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:13 am
Jorb, once you successfully siege some large faction, I'll believe in Haven's longterm viability.
Even without firsthand experience, I'm sure you can easily conceptualize the arduous task that comes with destroying a single shield, much less more complicated defenses, be it a double village system or even a double palisade.
I've actually thought for a while you were intentionally trying to kill the ability of any faction to conduct sieges without directly acknowledging it or rendering it absolutely impossible - Simply improbable to the extreme.
I now understand why you believe current siege mechanics are a workable system for attackers: Ignorance and wishful thinking.
I ask for a moment of clarity:
Do you disagree that the likely outcome of this world, as things stand, is likely the same late game stagnation that caused irreversible population decline in previous worlds?
(If not, what changes do you credit for changing the flow of the figurative stream?)
Do you disagree that this lategame stagnation is caused, in large part, by the two related factors of (1)the lack of meaningful player interactions once cities are developed and (2)the inability to resolve conflict meaningfully between impenetrable cities?
Do you disagree that accessible sieges are an available solution to above issues?
Last edited by
Robben_DuMarsch on Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:35 am, edited 5 times in total.
