Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

What do you want to see in Sieges? Community help please!

McMackMuckMcMackMuck Member
edited February 2021 in General Discussion
Hi Community!
I wrote up a load of siege related suggestions in PDF format and generated an online poll. I have tried my best to make it tie in with what we already know about sieges.

I would really like your help in suggesting more ideas, alternative ideas or improvement on ideas, for the developers to consider.
Any feedback on any items or concepts that you really like?

The PDF is here [EDIT: I may have referenced and old document before, Facepalm!]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mFL-Kfvujdk1UxQtb3NU6v0i2ByYH7_K/view?usp=sharing

The poll is here:
https://www.strawpoll.me/42534507/r

The poll is the general case "do you want to have X in your sieges", not specifically that you agree with any implementation that I have suggested.

Thanks in advance, Mac.
Forum_Signature.png
«1

Comments

  • AsgerrAsgerr Member
    edited February 2021
    I like a lot of what is presented however I doubt most if any of it will be/should be integrated for a couple reasons:

    Castle sieges aren't really sieges in AOC. Rather it's more a storming the castle in 2 hours. So while we will have siege weapons and such, I doubt we'll need proper HQ tents or need to starve the enemy.

    No one who is in charge will wanna sit back and not participate in the largest form of instanced PvP we have.

    Other things like surveying the enemy movement from the castle etc. doesn't seem needed, as we know where the enemies are, there doesn't seem to be any way that the attackers can sneak up into the castle.

    Blockades would ultimately lead to a slow first 30 minutes of PvP and I doubt many people would actually enjoy that.

    Sapping to dig under the castle walls could be interesting, but I'm not sure how the programming side for it would function. I doubt they can create an actual tunnel for players to sneak through. They would have to add a sort of teleport point from one end of the tunnel to the other once it is complete. Feasible but complex.

    I like the idea of surrendering if the siege is pretty much lost for either side.
    However:
    Would it affect what amount of loot the attackers receive ?
    - If it's more than just winning, no one will ever surrender.
    - If it's less than just winning, the defenders will just surrender to screw with the attackers who are winning.

    As for the overall debuffs from morale and weather... It just takes away further agency from the players to perform their best based on their skills, I feel.

    The issue with giving certain classes certain boosts or perks in sieges is that it will ultimately devolve into a meta where people only want a set number of specific classes to maximize their chances of victory, and I think Steven was pretty against that idea.

    I'm not sure about the idea of caravans needing to transport content to the HQ before the siege, as it would demand more days and time for the people to prepare for a PvP battle, and I assume many people might not make it for every step, if they just want to focus on the large battle.


    Sorry if it comes across as me just tearing down all of your ideas. I really like the concept of a realistic siege, but I doubt that would be fun for many, and these may be some of the issues raised against these points.

    If you can come up with ways to make it fit the actual gameplay idea of a PvP battle like it has been presented (up to this point at least), I think more players will be on board and we can work toward submitting these ideas with more certainty.
    Sig-ult-2.png
  • JeetophJeetoph Member
    edited February 2021
    I like your ideas for a realistic siege but I don't think it is what we are going to get. To enable great strategies the siege should last at least three days or ideally a week with a daily scheduled combat window of an hour or two. In this scenario we could take the supply variable for both attackers and defenders into account (repairs, medical treatment, hunger, etc...) which would happen outside of the combat windows and could be sabotaged by the enemy.
  • I'd like sieges not to be restricted to certain hours of prime-time. If you want to own a node/castle/etc, then put the work in to defend it if it's attacked at any time of day.
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
  • McMackMuckMcMackMuck Member
    edited February 2021
    Thanks for all the valid comments so far.
    I think that some people aren't aware that quests related to building up castle defenses and involving the three castle "nodes" and caravan escort are already slated to be part of a siege monthly (4 week?) cycle. At least that is what I understood from the wiki. Ashes101 also explains that there will be weekly events related to the castle nodes.
    From what we know of AoC so far, there are very few fast risk-free travel options, almost everything has to run through the open world and risk being attacked. I don't think sieges will be any different. I believe the way to organize and structure siege preparation for both sides is using caravan escort quests during the siege preparation period. This makes players invest time and effort into the siege, far beyond just turning up for a two hour battle once a month.

    That might not be what some players want, but I think they will have a rude awakening when they realize how much commitment is required. Guild and alliance level coordination and logistics will be the key to success IMO.
    Forum_Signature.png
  • Decent gameplay?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited February 2021
    daveywavey wrote: »
    I'd like sieges not to be restricted to certain hours of prime-time. If you want to own a node/castle/etc, then put the work in to defend it if it's attacked at any time of day.

    This is unrealistic if you want the top end of your game to be large and diverse.

    If this were how the game was designed, castles would only be able to be held by guilds made up of students that can log in at all times. Anyone with a job would be out of the running for a place in a guild that has plans on castle ownership.

    By limiting the time in which a siege can happen, Intrepid have opened up the top end of the game to anyone that is able to put in 4 hours at a set time in the day. By having servers in multiple time zones, Intrepid are allowing players to decide for themselves (to a degree) what time it is they would be able to dedicate to sieges.

    While not a perfect situation, it is absolutely the least bad option they could have taken.

    @McMackMuck

    Much of what you are talking about here is possible, in one way or another.

    Lets take blockades as an example. If you are serious about sieging a castle, it is a month long endeavor. It starts after the previous siege of a castle, and involves sieging three towns over the next three weeks, followed by the castle itself.

    All four of these need to be built up by the defender, which means they need to bring in caravan loads of supplies. If you are serious about sieging the castle, you will attempt to prevent these caravans from getting through as much as you can - which is about as close to a definition of a blockade as I can imagine.

    This blockade may not be happening during the siege proper, but it is correct that it takes place over an extended period of time, which is what we are getting.

    There is little point in blockading a fully stocked castle, which is what you are facing if the defenders were successful in getting caravans through.
  • LordAdroLordAdro Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Perhaps I am weird... but you know what I want... I wanna be able to bet on who will win if I am not participating.
  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    daveywavey wrote: »
    I'd like sieges not to be restricted to certain hours of prime-time. If you want to own a node/castle/etc, then put the work in to defend it if it's attacked at any time of day.

    That's such a bad idea...
  • Song_WardenSong_Warden Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    The issue with 24/7 Sieges is consistencies and burn out. You spend all day winning sieges to wake up the next day to reverse the reversal over night. Its such a bad mechanic that I'm pleased we will have timed events which grants more scope for tactics.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • I dislike the idea of 24/7 sieges. It excludes a percentage of the community; those who have a life outside the game (ouch!). Prime time seems the fairest way to fit in significant events.

    @Noaani I agree that the 3 weeks of siege preparation is like a blockade and "blockades" isn't a necessary addition. I was just seeing if I could push tactical objectives into the battle, to give a reason for the defenders to not just sit put with what should be a huge defensive advantage. The more attack vectors and counters you build into a game the more interesting the tactics become IMO.

    The reason I suggested that a commander or a lieutenant should stay with the intel map is that this isn't a 50v50 skirmish. With 250 players on each side (and the possibility of 500v500) several roles can be supported and they would need coordinating. Yes, 250 players could all group up into one mob, but their ability to beat down castle doors should be zero, based on the medieval world. That's where all the other elements I suggested become relevant. Those elements need management to be effective.

    I like what I've read so far on sieges, with the limited material present in the wiki. If Steven can present the 2 hours of siege as something other than just a mass brawl then he will have done well.
    Forum_Signature.png
  • I also prefer prime time for sieges.
    However it's not uncommon to have dedicated servers for different gaming experiences. 24/7 sieges could fall in this category but this deserves its own thread IMO.
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Ah, before the game started releasing any content back at kickstarter promo, I had grand visions and hopes for the castles to be individual, put together something akin to some sim games.

    Crafted and built by the residents of a node

    Designed with key unitized components set pieces and predesigned, selectively placed by an elected head and with an outcome of no two castles alike. Hoping that key to the successful defending of a castle would be how it was put together. After a successful siege, then perhaps parts could be deconstructed and rebuilt more strategically from lessons learned from the last siege.

    Alas, perhaps one day in another mmo.
  • akabear wrote: »
    Ah, before the game started releasing any content back at kickstarter promo, I had grand visions and hopes for the castles to be individual, put together something akin to some sim games.

    Crafted and built by the residents of a node

    Designed with key unitized components set pieces and predesigned, selectively placed by an elected head and with an outcome of no two castles alike. Hoping that key to the successful defending of a castle would be how it was put together. After a successful siege, then perhaps parts could be deconstructed and rebuilt more strategically from lessons learned from the last siege.

    Alas, perhaps one day in another mmo.

    I think Steven might agree, that if all players have a castle, no matter how differently you build them, is a castle really a prestigious thing? That restricted exclusivity is what breeds the desire to hold that castle and ultimately makes the castle all the better in your eyes.

    Otherwise there is something MMO like where everyone can build their own castle. Unfortunately it's Minecraft hahaha
    Sig-ult-2.png
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited February 2021
    Ah, I meant individual as in each one a one of a kind, not a plethora of castles!
    • Minecraft at the far extreme, and definitely not what I was thinking.
    • Everquest next had a nice idea in principle, but with very open stylistic opportunity, then the player built works were quite eclectic.
    • New World did a nice job of having clans being able to start marking their territory by constructing at first fences. But I never participated and can`t for the life of me find an example.

    I was thinking more akin to the malleability of "settlers" sim but created using the AoC artwork / building blocks!





  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    akabear wrote: »
    Ah, before the game started releasing any content back at kickstarter promo, I had grand visions and hopes for the castles to be individual, put together something akin to some sim games.

    Crafted and built by the residents of a node

    Designed with key unitized components set pieces and predesigned, selectively placed by an elected head and with an outcome of no two castles alike. Hoping that key to the successful defending of a castle would be how it was put together. After a successful siege, then perhaps parts could be deconstructed and rebuilt more strategically from lessons learned from the last siege.

    Alas, perhaps one day in another mmo.

    Archeage attempted this.

    Every castle ended up being designed in a way to cheese the games mechanics, rather than something that looked even remotely castle-like.

    They changed the entire concept of castles, as they couldn't get it to work.

    I can see Steven wanting to stay away from that - and to be honest, I prefer the idea of each castle being given it's own strengths and weaknesses rather than always being built to the current meta.
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I remember (although may be mixing stories), that Everquest Next has something like a path generator. Meaning the paths most trodden by players actually started into paths, then roads, then highways.

    And their destructible environments for dungeon making were awesome ideas never realized.

    As for your comment, I lasted about 2hrs in Archeage before deciding at the time it was not for me, I think I missed out by not giving it a chance!. A shame when best laid plans get manipulated by the playing community in ways never intended.

    I`m sure there will be a few wayward directions in AoC before things get sorted. Hopefully most in pre-release stage. Hope what ever meta is reached in any area ends up being more rock, paper, scissors than a mono outcome.

    Forgetting the solution, I think the intention of my comment was probably more orientated about ensuring different outcomes and increasing what influence players have to change and control the world as very much sandbox orientated put simply so prob., not much more than that.


  • @Beekeeper Had some great images from the 2-shields thread:

    machiny-29.jpg

    machiny-30.jpg


    Yours truly greatly enjoyed the late-game addition of NPC Player City Sieges in SWG. It gave trader-toons like my main a combat role, and then also provided environmental elements like build-able barriers that players could hide behind to absorb damage.

    Some of these are obviously move-able, and multi-man siege implements like this genuinely existed; it wouldn't be immersion-breaking to feature things like this!

    It be really cool to be in voice-chat, and to rally up 3 or 4 guildies to help pick up and move a destructible (destory-able?) barrier to get closer to a breach in a city's walls, before charging through said breach!


  • @Tyranthraxus Great contributions.
    Some of the above look a little unusual, but I'm sure they all had an application.

    I think there's a number of memorable moments that could come from the use of battering rams in castle sieges, both from the relief of the defenders destroying one and then picking off the fleeing crew or the attackers breaching a gate and piling through into a court yard melee.
    Those are the moments that you'd really want to be there, in the thick of things, when it happens, or at least hope that there's a streamer in pole position recording it so that a wider audience can feel the buzz later.
    Forum_Signature.png
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    ESO had awesome fun sieges
    L2 great sieges

    New World kind a killed their sieges with their incongruous cannon style for me.

    Wished for a bit of cross between ESO & banner lord in the game for seige style..
  • Noaani wrote: »
    daveywavey wrote: »
    I'd like sieges not to be restricted to certain hours of prime-time. If you want to own a node/castle/etc, then put the work in to defend it if it's attacked at any time of day.

    This is unrealistic if you want the top end of your game to be large and diverse.

    If this were how the game was designed, castles would only be able to be held by guilds made up of students that can log in at all times. Anyone with a job would be out of the running for a place in a guild that has plans on castle ownership.

    By limiting the time in which a siege can happen, Intrepid have opened up the top end of the game to anyone that is able to put in 4 hours at a set time in the day. By having servers in multiple time zones, Intrepid are allowing players to decide for themselves (to a degree) what time it is they would be able to dedicate to sieges.

    While not a perfect situation, it is absolutely the least bad option they could have taken.

    @McMackMuck

    Much of what you are talking about here is possible, in one way or another.

    Lets take blockades as an example. If you are serious about sieging a castle, it is a month long endeavor. It starts after the previous siege of a castle, and involves sieging three towns over the next three weeks, followed by the castle itself.

    All four of these need to be built up by the defender, which means they need to bring in caravan loads of supplies. If you are serious about sieging the castle, you will attempt to prevent these caravans from getting through as much as you can - which is about as close to a definition of a blockade as I can imagine.

    This blockade may not be happening during the siege proper, but it is correct that it takes place over an extended period of time, which is what we are getting.

    There is little point in blockading a fully stocked castle, which is what you are facing if the defenders were successful in getting caravans through.

    Dont say that students have a lot of free time. They dont.
  • @winner909098
    I already explained the rationale behind my "blockade" idea, accepting that the siege prep time _is_ the blockade....
    McMackMuck wrote: »
    @Noaani I agree that the 3 weeks of siege preparation is like a blockade and "blockades" isn't a necessary addition. I was just seeing if I could push tactical objectives into the battle, to give a reason for the defenders to not just sit put with what should be a huge defensive advantage. The more attack vectors and counters you build into a game the more interesting the tactics become IMO.
    I hope that you can see I was just trying to prevent the defenders from hiding in the castle for two hours with all the defensive buffs that a castle should give.

    If anyone can think of other methods of motivating the defenders to leave the castle for a worthwhile risk/reward objective I'd love to hear them. Taking the attackers spawn points, destroying siege engines. Any others?

    On the subject of Sapping. My idea only goes as far as the outside of the walls, not inside the castle, which IMO would be OP. I suggested "Group of Mages" as a trickier and temporary means of getting inside the castle without climbing or physically breaching.
    Forum_Signature.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Dont say that students have a lot of free time. They dont.
    Students have more free time than they will have once graduated.

    Having been a tertiary student for a total of 7 years, I'm fairly confident on this point.

    If you are a student and don't think you have a lot of free time, the world is going to kick you in the ass before long.
  • JamationJamation Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dont say that students have a lot of free time. They dont.
    Students have more free time than they will have once graduated.

    Having been a tertiary student for a total of 7 years, I'm fairly confident on this point.

    If you are a student and don't think you have a lot of free time, the world is going to kick you in the ass before long.

    Think both ends have different kinds of free time. School timing can be a little more chaotic and depends on all the extra things related to it. Honestly felt like I had more time when I was an undergraduate compared to high school simply because I was in so many extra-curriculars (honestly too many) and by the time I got home and finished my homework was time to sleep. But when I started working and had a fairly fixed schedule I knew exactly when I had free time, but had more responsibilities with owning my own place as opposed to having parents who used to do all the adult things I do now. But whether students have more time than full-time employment, truly depends on the person and the job in my opinion. Can confidently say some of the students I'm with now(I'm back in school + working), have more work and less time than some people that just work full time.

    Wait what thread am I on - hahahah how did this conversation even start hahahaha whaaaat. This forum is a blessing.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Jamation wrote: »
    Honestly felt like I had more time when I was an undergraduate compared to high school simply because I was in so many extra-curriculars
    They are all free time, as they are your choice.

    Making a decision on how to spend a portion of your free time for the whole year doesn't change the fact that it is, indeed, free time.
  • JamationJamation Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Noaani wrote: »
    Jamation wrote: »
    Honestly felt like I had more time when I was an undergraduate compared to high school simply because I was in so many extra-curriculars
    They are all free time, as they are your choice.

    Making a decision on how to spend a portion of your free time for the whole year doesn't change the fact that it is, indeed, free time.

    Guess that's where our opinions shift, as the job of a student is to learn and make themselves attractive to future employees. So the activities you'd consider free time for students, I'd consider equivalent to their job. Just like adults have to buy groceries and pay their mortgage in order to survive, it could be viewed as "free time", but if they didn't do it there would be consequences. If students don't make themselves presentable through more than just their academic scores there will also be consequences.
    You have every right to think that student's don't do much with their time, but that's simply something I could never believe myself.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Jamation wrote: »
    You have every right to think that student's don't do much with their time, but that's simply something I could never believe myself.
    As someone that has hired around 100 recent graduates in the last decade, I can tell you now, I've not once looked at extra curriculars.

    Some employers may. I don't. There is nothing useful they can tell me about a person.

    By the time I am looking at hiring someone with two years of work in their field, I am not even looking at their academic record at all, as it is no longer relevant.
  • JamationJamation Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Noaani wrote: »
    As someone that has hired around 100 recent graduates in the last decade, I can tell you now, I've not once looked at extra curriculars.

    Some employers may. I don't. There is nothing useful they can tell me about a person.

    That's your personal bias on your own hiring process then, but as you say yourself other employers can (and do) look at everything a person has to offer. Why would a student intentionally cripple their chances and lower the overall pool of opportunities they could draw from?
    Noaani wrote: »
    By the time I am looking at hiring someone with two years of work in their field, I am not even looking at their academic record at all, as it is no longer relevant.

    If they are a fresh graduate with two years experiences in the field already that already shows how busy students are as they'd not only have to work on school, but also work. If these aren't fresh graduates then they'd need two years experience from somewhere else and those companies might not hold the same hiring standards as you personally do. In the end the student would still have to make themselves eligible to one company or another.

    I'm just not really a fan of looking down on students simply because the work they do isn't paid.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Jamation wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    As someone that has hired around 100 recent graduates in the last decade, I can tell you now, I've not once looked at extra curriculars.

    Some employers may. I don't. There is nothing useful they can tell me about a person.

    That's your personal bias on your own hiring process then, but as you say yourself other employers can (and do) look at everything a person has to offer. Why would a student intentionally cripple their chances and lower the overall pool of opportunities they could draw from?
    That is their choice, but it is, without a doubt, a choice.

    Most extra curriculars are about new experiences, not about making yourself more attractive to a potential employer. This is why some employers prefer new graduates to not have taken any extra curriculars at all - preferring to look at people that focused on their studies exclusively (this is specifically true for fields that actually require focus).

    Point is, extra curricular activities are purely optional (hence the name), and will usually serve no benefit past graduation.
    Jamation wrote: »
    If they are a fresh graduate with two years experiences in the field already
    You misunderstood.

    I said that as soon as I am looking to hire someone with two years experience, not looking to hire a recent graduate with two years experience (I can't think of a time I would specifically want a new graduate with two years relevant experience).

    What I was saying here is that unless you are doing a masters or a doctorate, everything you do, all the time you spend in tertiary education, it all means almost nothing in terms of employment opportunities after about two years.

    Also, I am not looking down on students. I am looking down on the notion that some people have of what an employer wants in an employee.
  • JamationJamation Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    We won't see eye to eye and that's not a problem.

    But anyways, how about those sieges.
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited February 2021
    • There there is the issue where years of work does not always equate to years of experience.
    • There are those workers that graduate, start working and within gain sufficient knowledge to achieve their work load and only slowly advance thereafter.
    • Then you have those workers that graduate, sieze every opportunity to improve their skills and knowledge and the value they can provide.
    • Compare the two after 5, 10, 15 or 20 years and just like compound interest, the personal investment return difference is staggering.
    • Couple that with those that turn up to work at 9 go home at 5 or 6, compared to someone who puts in the extra time every day and/or weekend: 35hr week (100%), 70hrs week (200%), 105hr week (300%)
Sign In or Register to comment.