Game Development: Whirling Radii

[strpk0]

[telum12]

do you mean that a situation where the game requires you to be chained to computer with little amount of time to notice threat if you are not is a good one?

do you think that the defenders should have 0% chance of defending just because they have slightly weaker force?

defensive actions should have some advantage

There is a difference between OVERWHELMING force and 'slightly weaker force'. You're just trolling at this point, intentionally not reading the arguments.

Also, it's the attackers that need to be glued to the computer for potentially days. The defenders can pick and choose when to defend.

[Nightdawg]

siege is not the problem here, the core problem is somewhere else

[MadNomad]

Also, it's the attackers that need to be glued to the computer for potentially days. The defenders can pick and choose when to defend.

they have to defend during the period when attackers have siege equipment, and they can't predict it thus they have to constantly log in and check everything just in case someone decided to put siege equipment on this very day

if it was a week(as in previous description) it would give some reasonable time to notice, but one day is easy to miss, and you can't take even a short break if you want to stay safe

being chained for one day is not the same as being chained constantly, and of course the aggresive one should put more investment not the defensive one

you should stop trolling and calling other people trolls

There is a difference between OVERWHELMING force and 'slightly weaker force'.

of course, you never know how strong it will be

[telum12]

Also, it's the attackers that need to be glued to the computer for potentially days. The defenders can pick and choose when to defend.

they have to defend during the period when attackers have siege equipment, and they can't predict it thus they have to constantly log in and check everything just in case someone decided to put siege equipment on this very day

if it was a week(as in previous description) it would give some reasonable time to notice, but one day is easy to miss, and you can't take even a short break if you want to stay safe

you should stop trolling and calling other people trolls

There is a difference between OVERWHELMING force and 'slightly weaker force'.

of course, you never know how strong it will be

Under what circumstance are all of these afk spruces being sieged?

Also wtf are you even talking about

[VDZ]

The people freaking out about the siege system don't seem to recognise how annoying it is to siege. Why would multiple faction people spend their time sieging 3 random nabs? They wouldn't. In almost all such cases the random nabs are people like Shubla or MadNomad which have annoyed people so much that they're willing to spend their free time sitting on rams for potentially days in order to fuck with them. This does not mean that the siege system balance is broken, just that an overwhelming force can still win.

This precisely. I'm pretty sure I haven't been sieged since legacy. The best defense against siege is not being worth the hassle. If you manage to anger people so much that they go through the effort to siege you, you shouldn't be surprised to get wrecked. And as pointed out earlier,

or rather, they spend all of their time alt vaulting / stashing / despawning their loot so by the time you break into the village there's nothing to gain from it other than destroying the village

You can save your most valuable stuff, and this in turn greatly reduces the value of siege for anything except actual conflict resolution. Which I personally think is a good thing; if people did get decent loot from raiding that would indeed incentivize people to siege nabs. But that is not the case; Shubla gets sieged because people hate Shubla. Actual sprucecaps get left alone (siege-wise). As long as siege remains more hassle than it's worth for what you gain from it, it's only a problem for griefers.

[DoctorCookie]

From what I gather from other people who actually perform sieges, most people don't bother actually defending. This means that sieging goes from being a super aids to bearable. Those people then take to the forums complaining. It's the most farcical thing ever.

lol I remember when I sieged DoctorCookie they had 5-10 active players, some portion of which were online and moving around during the entire 36 hour period before we broke into the first wall. You know what they did during their 180-360 potential man hours to defend? Build exactly 3 archery towers & make like 100 forum/discord posts about it. Nothing more, nothing less.

"wahhh I shouldn't lose in PVP if my strategy is to literally do nothing under any circumstances ever. PVP/siege is broken wahhh"

Dont be dishonest. You have no idea what our makeup was at the time. I was the only player with any combat stats left playing. Most of us were farmers/crafters. I will admit that I had a bad understanding of archery towers. We could not place archery towers, as you know, after they were destroyed to counter your siege engines. We did not have a stockpiles of brimstone, nor were we at liberty to sail the world and gather them as you were. We had no players with 6k stats to counter yours(yea I know stats dont matter right, you just get those stats because it is fun). We had players log in sure. People would log in their normal 2 to 3 hours a day to check out your 24 hour camp. I have not made any posts about this, only you have. I even have asked you questions, taking your posts about wanting others to learn at face value. But this is a post to derail, to extinguish any discussion that does not agree with your playstyle. It is just a part of your very transparent playbook where your toadies hurl insults with no substance.

[DoctorCookie]

The people freaking out about the siege system don't seem to recognise how annoying it is to siege. Why would multiple faction people spend their time sieging 3 random nabs? They wouldn't. In almost all such cases the random nabs are people like Shubla or MadNomad which have annoyed people so much that they're willing to spend their free time sitting on rams for potentially days in order to fuck with them. This does not mean that the siege system balance is broken, just that an overwhelming force can still win.

This precisely. I'm pretty sure I haven't been sieged since legacy. The best defense against siege is not being worth the hassle. If you manage to anger people so much that they go through the effort to siege you, you shouldn't be surprised to get wrecked. And as pointed out earlier,

or rather, they spend all of their time alt vaulting / stashing / despawning their loot so by the time you break into the village there's nothing to gain from it other than destroying the village

You can save your most valuable stuff, and this in turn greatly reduces the value of siege for anything except actual conflict resolution. Which I personally think is a good thing; if people did get decent loot from raiding that would indeed incentivize people to siege nabs. But that is not the case; Shubla gets sieged because people hate Shubla. Actual sprucecaps get left alone (siege-wise). As long as siege remains more hassle than it's worth for what you gain from it, it's only a problem for griefers.

We got sieged for a hat we did not have by someone I have never met or wronged or had spoken to before that. Not bitter, but this is just false.

[shubla]

If someone has an actual, concrete idea about how the siege system could be replaced

Devs could stop sucking cock and remove battering rams etc. for fast fix.

[strpk0]

If someone has an actual, concrete idea about how the siege system could be replaced

Devs could stop sucking cock and remove battering rams etc. for fast fix.

incredible