A non-trash siege system

[TeckXKnight]

I wouldn't be ignoring you if I responded, would I?

No but seriously, I mostly don't want to bother responding to you because you're very wordy without expressing much in terms of ideas or substance.

The core of the game is one that enables users to do bad things to each other. We can steal, break, kill, and everything else that ruins the fun of others for our own fun. Parsing those rights cannot realistically be done without enabling massive exploits that cannot be reconciled in meaningful ways. With that vagueness out of the way, how do we define what is and is not opted in? If a village never commits a crime is it opted out? Can they grab all of the land in multiple supergrids and never be attacked for it? If I setup a claim on your resource node but opt out of siege, are you just stuck now that I've claimed your swamp and mountain? How do you differentiate newbie from grief alt? How do you differentiate thief from settlement? How do you differentiate hoarder from necessity? Or do you not and once land has been grabbed by a "peaceful" player is it just theirs until they let it run out of authority?

A system that does allow for cities to be stomped on is actually pretty forgiving. That we go into all or nothing gambits is the part that really sucks. That once your walls are broken all of your structures and belongings are effectively gone sucks. The shift in cattle death is a great move and a move in the right direction in my opinion. Where cattle isn't immediately slaughtered by invaders but instead knocked out. Once it has been knocked out several times over a longer period of time it is actually killed. This gives the defender time to respond and do things. That's the crux of the proposed idea -- give the defender timer to respond and do things. It is not the perfect solution but it does offer benefits that are great for both parties, both the attackers and the defenders. It puts an end to the silly ram checks that we have to do every 8 hours.

[Glorthan]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I will try to be brief ^^

how do we define what is and is not opted in?

The opt-in style system was more to do with how kingdoms (could) work: it's good to be king (read: in game benefits to production, etc), but other groups would want to bring you down.

If a village never commits a crime is it opted out? Can they grab all of the land in multiple supergrids and never be attacked for it? If I setup a claim on your resource node but opt out of siege, are you just stuck now that I've claimed your swamp and mountain?

No differently to how it is now. That is: If you have a resource node, claim it. If you want to remove someone else's claim, ram it.

How do you differentiate newbie from grief alt? How do you differentiate thief from settlement? How do you differentiate hoarder from necessity? Or do you not and once land has been grabbed by a "peaceful" player is it just theirs until they let it run out of authority?

I don't propose any changes to "non-kingdom" players. The idea would be that you'd want your statted griefing alts to be from your kingdom - as they'd be far easier to level. Zero stat alts are unpunishable under any system I've seen proposed so far.

A system that does allow for cities to be stomped on is actually pretty forgiving. That we go into all or nothing gambits is the part that really sucks. That once your walls are broken all of your structures and belongings are effectively gone sucks. The shift in cattle death is a great move and a move in the right direction in my opinion. Where cattle isn't immediately slaughtered by invaders but instead knocked out. Once it has been knocked out several times over a longer period of time it is actually killed. This gives the defender time to respond and do things.

Yes, a shift towards a timegated (ugh but how they annoy me so) system would tie in better with unavoidable force of arms raids. As it currently stands though, you lose a wall and you're completely screwed. Wall drying mechanics mean the wall is never going to recover if the raiders come back daily, and time gated mechanics on replacing walls would mean the raiders could seal them instead. Massive amounts of items are lost to cupboard smashing. Clay-based buildings can cost a lot to replace - yet a time gated system would lead to nice abuse walls. Trellis crops are also an issue. They're just the first few things that came to mind, I'm sure there are many more.

I agree with a shift towards raiding being more protracted, and it would make the bitter pill of not being able to prevent raiding more digestible, but there's a long way to go yet rather than simply "change ram timers".

[overtyped]

So you're opposed to siege against participants that don't agree to it. Opinion noted and ignored.

Thank you for the mature and well reasoned response. Under the proposed system if you aren't a major faction you have these options upon having a siege started at your walls:

• Relocate the things of value that you can move to another location before the siege starts. This includes keeping seeds in reserve for all crops and trees so that they can be relocated quickly. It also involves remaking your base - hundreds if of man hours of tedious "fun", rediscovering nodes, etc. Oh yeah, and rip your smelters/ovens/kilns, and goodbye animal industry. Taking out someone's base essentially removes them from competing whatsoever until a world reset.
• Bribe/enlist players to come to your aid. Of course this has a lot of downsides. Players you enlist aren't trustworthy, and if charterstones don't exist next world this won't be feasible at all. Additionally, we barely have anything worth trading in this world, so paying this mercenary army is likely going to be difficult and regardless will far exceed the cost to start the siege [in real terms -> large-scale botting factions have a very small real cost].
• Call the bluff (see cost of enlisting aid vs siege cost) and hope it wasn't a genuine attack.

So yes. I don't agree with forced removal from the world if you aren't a major faction and would prefer the alternative of having an opt-in system to a more rewarding and risky playstyle. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you do prefer it?

Jesus christ, if you want a siege system, where you are actually capable of taking a place over, then there will be sacrifices.
The siege system we have now is a joke, it might as well not exist. At the moment, as long as you check for rams you are unsiegable. Is this what the system should really be??

I think the meta of haven will shift and become more interlocked with your allies, in the event that such a thing happens, and can come to your aid, in the event this system is introduced.
This is also risky for an attacker, since the defender chooses the time. They could show up with 20 people and the attackers get wiped off the map. I have a feeling sieges will be less common as well, if the cost of a siege ram is increased.

[overtyped]

The current new siege system we have now is so bad( and so abuseable that its laughable) , that i find myself dreaming about this idea.
A real siege system, where taking a place over is actually possible, without camping for 48 days, which is worse than the old camping a ram for 24 hours.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

The current new siege system we have now is so bad( and so abuseable that its laughable) , that i find myself dreaming about this idea.
A real siege system, where taking a place over is actually possible, without camping for 48 days, which is worse than the old camping a ram for 24 hours.

^

[MightySheep]

at this point im not expecting anything fancy, just bring back palibashing!

[jorb]

The current new siege system we have now is so bad( and so abuseable that its laughable) , that i find myself dreaming about this idea.
A real siege system, where taking a place over is actually possible, without camping for 48 days, which is worse than the old camping a ram for 24 hours.

^

What laughably obvious abuse are you thinking of? Link to bug report or GTFO.

Also, Bob Dole and Robben DuMarsch are upset that the siege system makes defense too easy?

at this point im not expecting anything fancy, just bring back palibashing!

Palisades are not going to be a noob trap that might as well not exist, or only serve some temporary function while you get a brick wall, no. Generally speaking, no system which allows for raiding of walled compounds without meaningful advance warning is going to be considered, because it simply leads to defenders being stomped out of existence when they aren't online as a fait accompli, and that isn't fun. I can't think of any argument to the contrary, tbt, and I frankly do not understand how you could even consider this.

[painhertz]

As much as I liked (and miss) palibashing,I prefer to actually have a chance to do something in game without being smashed to dust in the first couple of weeks.

[Zeler]

The thing is that right now unless your enemy goes on a vacation or you have numbers beating him 3:1 and able to camp 24h non-stop, you can't ever break someone walls. We need some sort of an active system (not impossible bullshit like right now) which would actually make defender put some effor into defending, and make attackers do something else that mindlessly camp a ram.

[jorb]

make defender put some effor into defending, and make attackers do something else that mindlessly camp a ram.

One of the nice things about the present system relative the old one is that the attackers do have more things to do, namely build, maintain and fire siege machines. It is not just "mindlessly" camping a ram.

Also, I don't agree that the defender is the one who needs to be called upon to take actions. His stuff is at being risked in an engagement that is not of his choosing. I think the impetus for action should rest pretty squarely on the attacker, and minimally if at all on the defender.