How hard should it be to siege a castle?

ArchivedUser

I can genuinely see the PvP aspect.
In reality there would be **** pillage murder, the town razed the the ground and the populace enslaved unless they could defend themselves.
BUT....some would rely on technical advantage. Some would rely on brute force of arms. Most would rely on a mix.
This is where using relative altitude, climate, home ground (especially racial) and terrain modifiers could all play a part. Let the warriors use their personal skill to exert control. Let the smart manipulate the environment in which the warriors try to work.

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

Why can't a PvE guild own and maintain a castle if they have awesome defenses and hire mercenaries*? Other PvP guilds will have to fight the mercenaries, does it matter if they are in the guild or not?

*I don't think a PvE guild should be able to negate PvP. They should be able to outsource it though.

If PvP guilds will be able to get raid loot by PvP then sure.

For example why couldn't PvP guild wait outside of raid entrance for PvE guild to clear the raid, then attack them on their way out and steal all raid boss loot from them?


I bet you wouldn't like that, right? But on the other hand you would like to be able to use PvE to win and maintain castles. Do you realize the hypocrisy?

ArchivedUser

In a fantasy setting there are large magical attacks and devastating weapons of epic power (ie: dragon breath).  but there would always be equally powerful defences.   Magical shields.  Castle walls infused with captured earth elementals.  etc etc.  
Yes it should be hard to take down a castle. Both from a game fun/balance perspective and from the age old argument bigger weapon vs stronger armor.  
The length of time could be something that could be calculated by having  an idea of how much damage certain weapons can do against a known value which is the hit points of a wall.  This realistic, since people have always had an idea of the abilities of the weapons they use against known defences.  
Of course defenders can add unknowable variables to that calculation, depending on what we add, besides a warm digital body, to the defence of a holding.  Knowing the game mechanics better would probably be the only way to really know how long it will take.
   Not worrying about real life where you need a substantially larger force to siege a holding , I think just for game purposes, a siege should take 3-5 hours of time assuming both sides power is about the equal, in game terms anyway.  for an average sized siege (whatever average would mean.) with a 50% increase or decrease for a smaller or larger siege. 
   This amount of time allows for may people to be able to be there and take part in the majority of the event.  Before they have to log and go to bed, go eat, go to work and so on.  
RL sucks

ArchivedUser

@Gothix, you did read the part that says I don't think PvE guilds should be able to negate PvP right? You thought that meant I would like PvE to be able to win/maintain castles...

Sure, if they paid someone to PvP for them as I mentioned. When I said "...they should be able to outsource it" I thought it was clear I meant to other players. Maybe not. Otherwise it wouldn't be outsourcing PvP.

You don't think that guilds should be able to hire players from another guild, or just friendly locals, to help in a Castle Defense/Siege?

Also, the PvP guild could pay others to grind gear for them if somehow PvE was the only way to get gear. That would be a proper comparison, not "...why couldn't PvP guild wait outside of raid entrance for PvE guild to clear the raid, then attack them on their way out and steal all raid boss loot from them?"

I never suggested that PvE guilds should be able to negate PvP. Yet you somehow made the comparison that a PvP guild should be able to negate PvE.

The hypocrisy was due to your comparison, not my argument.

Anyhow, I firmly believe that Castles owned by guilds that have both PvP and PvE players should benefit from the efforts of both types of players. If the guild is PvP or PvE oriented they should, through other means, also be able to participate in Castle Defense/Siege play. Even if that means outsourcing certain activities to other players.

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

BCGiant said:

I feel there should be ways to upgrade the castle so its harder to take, after thats its up to how the defending guild plays it. If they put a lot of effort into building up their castles defenses it should be harder to bring it down.

That's exactly what i vote against.

This is another way of catering to PvE carebears, that will farm to build up their castle to impenetrable status to avoid PvP as much as possible.


It boils down to this: if PvP crowd sees that game caters too much to PvE play style and neglects the PvP, they will not come to play.

If I see AoC turns to PvE carebear land, I will be the first one that will not play it, and I guarantee you, none of the PvP crowd will.

That's it, as simple as that. And this means not only less profit to IS, but also an early game death, because PvE games in general die early.



Special note: it's not only this one thing that turns the game to PvE, but it's the principle, crumb by crumb, harsh punishment for attacking greens, PvE elements being significant factors in PvP events, sieges happening rarely, etc.

All this together, piece by piece, destroy PvP inside a PvX game, and game becomes PvE, regardless of how developers call it.

I don't get this line of thinking at all.

If a PvE focused guild has a castle and are trying to build it up via resources (assuming that is a thing), a PvP guild wanting to take it over simply needs to disrupt that supply of resources via PvP (aka, the caravan system), and suddenly that PvE guild can't reinforce their castle.

As to your "special note", this is not a game where mindlessly attacking greens is to be considered viable. The PvP in this game is all about the larger systems, not about ganking some poor solo harvester. Sieges are one of the larger systems that set players up for PvP, but so are guild wars.

I think the vast majority of MMO players would agree that any player that would leave an otherwise fantastic MMO simply because the games systems does not make ganking viable is a player that the game and it's community could quite happily do without.

ArchivedUser

hard af

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

Also, the PvP guild could pay others to grind gear for them if somehow PvE was the only way to get gear. 

Best raid loot will likely be BoP, as it usually is, which is logical. So no, PvP guilds will not be able to pay someone else to grind raid loot for them.


I strongly believe, that not every player should have everything. Player should have that amount of things depending on his on his direct accomplishment.

So if player can beat the raid boss with his group, then he should have raid boss gear. If he can conquer a castle with his group then he should be able to claim it and benefit from it.

I am strongly against people being able to grind wood and rock all day long, get gold, and then pay for everything else game has to offer. That is a game that caters to no life grind then.

I want some stuff in game to be restricted by requiring appropriate player skill in that area so that player is able to obtain those particular "stuff".

This is where our opinions differ.

I want to have something and walk around with it so people know I accomplished it myself by slaying the particular boss, or by PvP success.

If people can just grind flowers all day, get gold and then buy everything, then to hell with such game.

ArchivedUser

To handle a guild who purchases protection, you could scare or intimidate the mercenary  guilds to the point where they won't want to help them. Threaten the other guild, ruff them up a bit. Make the incentives of hiring themselves out to the other guild be not worth the costs. If your guild has a reputation for kicking ass then other guilds will be weary of facing against you.

ArchivedUser

Honestly it should be quite difficult to siege a castle, defenders always hold an advantage and even though this is not real life where food, location, terrain, weather etc. matter it still should hold to the defenders advantage. Since attacking a castle requires the use of weapons like catapults and others I believe that the defending side should also have the chance to stop the arrival of those weapons to make things even more difficult for the attackers, all in all I think a solid 2 hours or more with restrictions on ressurection would be great.

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

Azathoth said:

Also, the PvP guild could pay others to grind gear for them if somehow PvE was the only way to get gear. 

Best raid loot will likely be BoP, as it usually is, which is logical. So no, PvP guilds will not be able to pay someone else to grind raid loot for them.


I strongly believe, that not every player should have everything. Player should have that amount of things depending on his on his direct accomplishment.

So if player can beat the raid boss with his group, then he should have raid boss gear. If he can conquer a castle with his group then he should be able to claim it and benefit from it.

I am strongly against people being able to grind wood and rock all day long, get gold, and then pay for everything else game has to offer. That is a game that caters to no life grind then.

I want some stuff in game to be restricted by requiring appropriate player skill in that area so that player is able to obtain those particular "stuff".

This is where our opinions differ.

I want to have something and walk around with it so people know I accomplished it myself by slaying the particular boss, or by PvP success.

If people can just grind flowers all day, get gold and then buy everything, then to hell with such game.

From the May 2017 video

[13:06] Will gear in AoC be BoE?

1. Staying away from BoE, bound items
   1. Doesn’t facilitate the objectives they have for their economy
2. There may be “some” binding, exception rather than the rule

This game will let you get what you want by trading most things . If you want to gather and still get great you will be able to trade for it . You will get some bound items but if you only want to PvP you will be able to trade those skills for loot, matts, and gear .

ArchivedUser

Althor said:

if you only want to PvP you will be able to trade those skills for loot, matts, and gear .

That would be great but experience shows that people extremely rarely trade their gold for "PvP services".

I played a whole bunch of MMOs through over a decade, and nowhere have I seen people make their game play by paying other players for PvP services. It is a rare exception when it happens.

People will give gold for AI mercenaries, or they will risk their materials, all rather than give gold to PvPers for protection (remember they all hate PvPers, just look at forums).


So your idea is nice "on paper" but it doesn't happen in practice.

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

Althor said:

if you only want to PvP you will be able to trade those skills for loot, matts, and gear .

That would be great but experience shows that people extremely rarely trade their gold for "PvP services".

I played a whole bunch of MMOs through over a decade, and nowhere have I seen people make their game play by paying other players for PvP services. It is a rare exception when it happens.

People will give gold for AI mercenaries, or they will risk their materials, all rather than give gold to PvPers for protection (remember they all hate PvPers, just look at forums).


So your idea is nice "on paper" but it doesn't happen in practice.

I find myself somewhat agreeing with you here. If IS fails to provide incentive for the PvE crowd to engage with the PvP crews than the game will die. I just think weak caravan guard NPCs are a better motivational too for the interaction than open world PvP. 

ArchivedUser

I agree with both of you. IS could find several ways to encourage hiring PvP guilds or just PvP-players. If they don't it would be hard to trust a PvP guild to take your gold and keep you safe, if they get intimidated by another guild and run away with my gold and I loose my goods I would never hire another guild and rely on NPC's.

If my guild had PvP players, I would use them.

If the PvP guild I hire gets its butt kicked and I loose my stuff, as long as they suffered from the loss too (simply by losing) I would be happy. I would also be willing to hire them again assuming they would have something to prove.

It is hard to trust players you don't know with your goods and pay them to do it. Unless there is some sort of contract in place to make sure they don't turn on me or refuse to fight, it falls back on "fool me once..."

This, however, does not relate to the difficulty of a castle siege. It does however relate to the possibility of a PvE guild paying a PvP guild to help defend/siege one.

ArchivedUser

Also agreed. IS do need a way for mutual engagement between PvP and PvE in a positive way.

ArchivedUser

I hope it takes inspirations from various games that are out there. It would be nice that you could do some sabotage before the siege, poisoning food, assasaniting targets. A form of food idea could also be a good idea, but not sure how long sieges would be