BRING BACK SIEGE

[Massa]

bring back siege

just make it so incredibly accessible that even small groups of hermits can fuck eachother up

[MightySheep]

where siedge where meteor

[LeeroyJenkns]

NO I think you should grind lp for ten trillion billion gorillion years before you can even slap your enemy lightly let alone do any damage to their settlement because this is clearly good game design

[Robben_DuMarsch]

I think that there could be a reasonable argument to be made if we had shorter worlds, think 3 months or so, that siege could be liberalized while being reverted to W14 state on the longer term world for the Farmville casuals.

[SnuggleSnail]

Reworking siege for the eight gorrilianth time is a waste because even if it's good it'll get broken again over hyperbolic complaints from a crowd of people doing a loss aversion bias/fearmongering.

I started writing a list of every successful siege I knew about this world and why it wasn't actually a siege, but it ended up being too much work. That I know of there were 20-25 bases destroyed this world, and only Turtle Stew/Rasveet's village were conventional sieges. In both cases the sieges were only successful because of immense skill issue.

Every single other attack that the community commonly refers to as a siege, and that result in siege getting nerfed was actually just exploiting security flaws and or social engineering. Yet siege still got massively nerfed midworld, in spite of practically no successful conventional sieges.

That said, if you guys do choose to rework it the W10 style shield system is the only one that had any chance of rly "working" without being wildly imbalanced in either direction.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Reworking siege for the eight gorrilianth time is a waste

Lolz.
It's just broken and easy enough now that it's suitable for harassing hermits and casuals, which is all it ever needs to be for Snail, so of course he doesn't want to see it changed.

Haven should *of course* be balanced around the desires of those who want it to be a risk-free, consequence free, hermit murder-porn game.

[SnuggleSnail]

ong so true siege is brokenly easy rn just look at all of these successful sieges they NEED to nerf siege again everybody should be afraid there's no point in even playing rn you just get wiped out by tryhard factions botting and bug abusing the insanely OP siege system!!!

[Dawidio123]

W10 style shield system is the only one that had any chance of rly "working" without being wildly imbalanced in either direction.

+1, i liked that w10 system in principle won't make you build your base into a maze to make it harder to siege, I like building without too many palisades everywhere on the inside and not being punished (by being easier to siege in principle) is cool.

[MightySheep]

will somebody please think of the hermits

[Robben_DuMarsch]

will somebody please think of the hermits

Let's take a walk down memory lane.
Remember when there was a brief period where placing a cave claim at the front of an entrance of a cave was disabled, which would have meant at least some modicum of risk for competitive/faction players in the very first days of the world, when frankly that risk is simply losing a day or two of progress?

Snail+Shaki were both in favor of reverting.
Meanwhile tons of people were spamming the devs claiming the game would be "unplayable" if this risk was born by everyone:
viewtopic.php?p=944458#p944458

I think it's extremely ironic that the most sprucecap friendly players were in favor of keeping it out. There's no secret why. It would have been more dangerous for *everyone* not just Spruces. This would have invited more possible pvp among those leaving scents in the early days by allowing them to visit retribution upon one another:
viewtopic.php?p=944427#p944427
viewtopic.php?p=944300#p944300
viewtopic.php?p=944472#p944472

It's hilarious to me that the one thing that would have invited *more conflict* among PvP players in the world was largely rejected by the PVP players, and largely supported by the hermit friendly players, because it would have made traditional PVP groups bear some risk.

The parallel in argument with siege (and pvp generally) is very similar.
There has been an extremely successful group of people who have lobbied Jorb and Loftar over the years to make PVP bear virtually no risk on experienced PVPers, and virtually all the risk/loss/griefing is visited on spruces and casuals. Siege follows this exact formula, as it is with the vast majority of PVP. Worse, it is not even clear of Jorb and Loftar understand the true balance of this situation. When they make meaningful changes it's usually because of things like "it looks ugly" (the reason they originally removed cave claims), and "it makes sense that catapults could destroy walls" (which gave us the broken siege system in W15/early W16).

I think of any on *the other side,* you may be the one most inclined to agree with me that there needs to be more risk for established PvPers and more mechanisms causing them to fight one another. If you aren't, perhaps I've misjudged you.
But my qualm with siege isn't that "pvp bad, think of the hermits." My qualm with siege is that it does nothing to endanger factional groups and places all of the burden on spruces/newbs/larpers/hermits/casuals/people who want to log in less than every 28 hours who currently exist purely to be the "gooner-outlet" for a small subset of this community. I hope I used that phrase right.

Let me be extremely clear:
I would be perfectly happy with a situation where the farmville players and casuals can play on the long world where siege is as difficult as W14, but siege on the shorter parallel world resembles Rust where PVP factions can, and do, siege each other with extreme regularity. The only change I would make is, unlike Rust where you can be sieged any time in a 24 hour period (which is fine with the weekly/bi-weekly wipes you usually see in Rust), I'd suggest allowing the defender to pick a 4 hour vulnerability window which anyone can view by using inspect on a claim tile.