Siege Fatigue ( Realism In AoC Sieges?)

ArchivedUser

TYRwarGOD said:

AutumnLeaf said:

@Azathoth that's why I said that starvation tactics should be viable for both sides, I'd just be a pain in the ass to deal with.

Regarding supplies going in and out, I'm pretty sure each node only has one metropolis/city/town so the resources for the defenders would need to come from a different node no ? the attackers would have an advantage in that they have a secure supply route and could starve the defending side to death. Though I guess the game won't have a food system so no need to worry about it.

That's where ally's come in and hit the attackers from the flanks and it also makes scouting a key part in attacking and defending which I love

Well that's also a way to deal with it, though I'm not sure if any interference is allowed during a siege, seriously a guess though

ArchivedUser

Big wall of text

I honestly think that realism is a bad term and more like stagnation or flawed feature is the bigger concern. So far reading their take on how sieges might actually play it it really doesn't bode well in my opinion as it brings up tons of issues that already makes this feature stale at best.

Attackers already seem to have a a major disadvantage as zerging is more common with defense then it is with attacking (Eve Online). Sounds like they are trying to artificially control how sieges work by gating the districts. It also sounds like their answer to siege mechanics is instanced arenas.

I honestly think that if they actually incorporated strategy into the mix it would alleviate a lot of the issues in regards to zerging and make the system not sound so clunky.

ArchivedUser

I'm not sure of the reference to instanced siege mechanics, but I may be out of the loop, please expand on this.

A zerg should be avoided on both sides. Technically the node under siege could have more civilians ready to do battle, but the side that initiated the siege should have had a large number of it's citizens readied. Not all citizens will participate on both sides, some due to timing and some that don't care (likely others for other reasons).

From what I understand/remember, but I can't claim 100% on this;

-Citizens under siege will re-spawn at predetermined points in town, and those will change as the city is "taken."

-Those performing the siege will spawn close to the battle, and be able to spawn in the city if they take strategic sections.

-Taking strategic city sections will be of direct benefit to those performing the siege and hurt those under siege. Although this implies that the siege could be pre-mapped and straight lined by IS, I don't think that is the way they are going to go.

That said, I don't know if they are going to gate certain districts and force sieges to move in a singular direction every time. That would obviously benefit the defenders.
I thought maybe the attackers could run rampant wherever/whenever (during a siege) in the city, but just randomly killing NPC's and PC's alike might not be as effective as taking major sections by killing section bosses.

I think you bring up some valid points, but I think overall from my understanding the system seems well thought out.

ArchivedUser

@Azathoth Well they have mentioned that they might cap out how many can participate, but keep in mind it is really way to early. Their concern is too many bodies participating and it becomes a zerg fest and Eve online had and probably still has that particular problem.

I am not a fan of the spawning mechanics as it pretty much sounds instanced and sounds no different then a battleground. I feel the better option is through player exhaustion of resources (i.e namely equipment being worn out & siege equipment being destroyed). I do agree with their take on objectives as it does put a goal to strive for. I feel that the spawning should be outside of the citadels or in another zone if they are doing a siege on a guild castle.  This makes it where planning is crucial as failure is significant and all but guranteed if you aren't coordinated.

Sadly, the only title I wished I played was Warhammer, as I heard their mechanics was pretty good and it wasn't instanced and 100% open world.

ArchivedUser

@TYRwarGOD if you want fatique, you should want full fatique including fatique for soldiers, not only for supplies.

And if you want realism than physical classes (muscular, fit, build for physical combat) should last longer, and gain fatique slower then "mind classes" like mages, healers and bards.

Mages, healers, summoners and bards should be getting tired (while running around) quickest, warriors and tanks having heavier armor, but being physically fit, at medium rate, and rangers and rogues, being fit, but lighter armor, should remain tireless the longest.

ArchivedUser

I've played Buff Mages...

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

the realer sieges are, the harder they are the more in depth they are the more happy i am :P i mean people are complaining that its hard to organize 40 man raids :P so shouldnt it be way harder to organize a whole siege?

ArchivedUser

I think it will be

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

I think it will be

I hope it will be. That would be such a big turn off if sieges are the same cancer as in Guild wars or BDO.

ArchivedUser

Hm... So you are automatically fighting as a defender if you are a citizen of the node or the subnodes. I can understand that systemdesign... But it prevents people from revolting! They first have to move out, then to revolt, then to move back into the city? xD

EDIT: Ah I finally got it... If they move out the node will delevel anyway.

ArchivedUser

BCGiant said:

Azathoth said:

I think it will be

I hope it will be. That would be such a big turn off if sieges are the same cancer as in Guild wars or BDO.

It would be a bigger cancer when your server is infested with Goons who has a ironclad hold on half the nodes and non aggression pact the other guilds so they can keep their fiefdoms. If you try to fight them, they just amass 2000k players to zerg your castle and force you to quit out of boredom.

ArchivedUser

I'm hoping this doesn't work. I would not stay in or help a node that was Guild.Inc, I am tired of elite clubs in my government in rl, I don't want that in Verra too.

With cool down times on castles that guilds should want, I would hope maintaining a "take turns at the castle" allegiance would fail. Hopefully there is no loot share options for alliances making them more armistice agreements than anything else.

Is should also be hard to zerg since there is no fast travel and the world is supposedly big, amassing 2000k (2,000,000?) players that quick should be difficult.

ArchivedUser

@Azathoth Well I would agree on the zerging if they released info regarding siege mechanics of just not gather X resources and do X quest. I would much prefer them to move all that equipment into the opposing factions territory as well, so you can initiate battles to stop them. I like to think of 300 since you would be able to use terrain to your advantage.  Right now they are making this sound like battlegrounds in wow with what they told us so far.

ArchivedUser

It sounds like your thoughts are somewhat parallel to the way a castle siege works. Maybe some of that will be implemented into city sieges as well!

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

It sounds like your thoughts are somewhat parallel to the way a castle siege works. Maybe some of that will be implemented into city sieges as well!

I don't see why it would be any different in all honesty. If anything it just has to involve coalitions (multiple guilds) that would require a lot of coordination and a lot of planning on top of logistics. Someone told me today at work that supposedly Black Desert Online has a similar mechanic which I wasn't aware about.

My view is very biased as I actually have a group mentality and look down on individuals. This is why I have my criticisms in regards to city management as described so far and the bits I have heard from city sieges. I think guilds should be a heavy focus in this mmo to achieve goals bigger then yourself.