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!
Options
What did you think of the siege dragons in A1?
Nerror
Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
Specifically, how would you feel about a similar mechanic for the actual released game?
Basically, in A1, we had 3 worldboss level dragons placed on the map a ways away from the castle. Both attackers and defenders could attempt to kill them and the team that managed it would get buffs for the remainder of the siege, as well as epic and legendary level loot.
For A1 I was ok with them. It was a way for the devs to test some mechanics on worldbosses with two competing teams. Like a two birds with one stone kind of thing. I also felt they were a distraction from the actual siege testing.
However, I am worried they might try to incorporate something like that for the released game, and I am dead set against that. When a siege happens, everything should be 100% focused on the siege objectives. Having people run off to do a dragon for loot, and perhaps a buff, is bad design IMO.
From start to finish, I want people focused on destroying or repairing walls and gates. On capturing specific locations, and obviously killing the enemy players. I want resource management to be a thing, with finite stockpiles of wood and stone having to be managed for both sides. (Thanks @Simurgh for bringing this up during todays episode of Ashes Pathfinders).
If there are going to be any sort of monsters involved in sieges, I want them to start as guards on the defenders or attackers side from the start, for the opposing team to take out. But honestly, I would prefer minimal involvement of monsters in sieges.
Basically, in A1, we had 3 worldboss level dragons placed on the map a ways away from the castle. Both attackers and defenders could attempt to kill them and the team that managed it would get buffs for the remainder of the siege, as well as epic and legendary level loot.
For A1 I was ok with them. It was a way for the devs to test some mechanics on worldbosses with two competing teams. Like a two birds with one stone kind of thing. I also felt they were a distraction from the actual siege testing.
However, I am worried they might try to incorporate something like that for the released game, and I am dead set against that. When a siege happens, everything should be 100% focused on the siege objectives. Having people run off to do a dragon for loot, and perhaps a buff, is bad design IMO.
From start to finish, I want people focused on destroying or repairing walls and gates. On capturing specific locations, and obviously killing the enemy players. I want resource management to be a thing, with finite stockpiles of wood and stone having to be managed for both sides. (Thanks @Simurgh for bringing this up during todays episode of Ashes Pathfinders).
If there are going to be any sort of monsters involved in sieges, I want them to start as guards on the defenders or attackers side from the start, for the opposing team to take out. But honestly, I would prefer minimal involvement of monsters in sieges.
3
Comments
I don't mind it, a Siege that isn't at least somewhat like a MOBA map is going to be boring and easy to figure out most of the time, and showing up with more raw numbers than the other side on defense then having to wait for the Siege to time out isn't great.
I like the idea of being able to get a few extra people on early, throw numbers and power at the Siege Bosses to get buffs for everyone, then whoever needs to leave can leave, secure in the knowledge that their super buffed defending force is just going to win.
They may be aiming for 500 v 500, but the more players that can enter a Siege, the more lopsided it will be and the more 'just throw bodies at it' is going to work.
Having a 'Strike Team' that can fight the dragon while causing the dragon's AoE to wipe out a bunch of undergeared warm bodies from the enemy side so they can keep doing this, sounds good to me.
Coming across them in remote areas and mountains tops all aspects of adventuring.
I dont like that they are parked a few moments away from a castle inhibited by players, just waiting there to give an advantage to the group that kills them like it's LoL or Dota.
I would prefer if they replaced them with some short of undead knight or some other type of guardian that fits sieging.
Remake them as defensive "golem defenders" that the occupying group have to invest resources into with a variety of types to choose from with corresponding buffs for the enemy team to acquire if they manage to defeat one. Kill speedy Mc Twiglegs Golem and your group gets a slight movement speed buff. Kill Meaty McIronface golem and you get a damage reduction. etc. etc. A Build-a-Boss defense workshop if you will.
I think that sort of setup would allow sieges to have some variability and more in-depth strategic planning than simply throwing guys at each other with the off-handed ranged siege weapon.
However, I do feel that they should limit the number of dragons that spawn, put the dragons into an RNG pool so you get different dragons in different sieges, to add variety to siege experience.
Somewhat related - for defenders in particular, dragons add an ACTIVE objective you can take initiative towards, rather than being passive and responsive to attackers. This is a gameplay element that felt under-represented A1. When defending, you feel mostly powerless without a dragon and you're just trying to wait out a timer. As an attacker you're free to roam, free to die, free to destroy.
There isn't much "conversation" between the states of play, it's a one-way expression of agression. (Because defenders basically have no way to threaten attackers).
What will happen is 4-500 attackers quickly zerging down the dragon and then moving on to start placing the siege engines afterwards, if the dragon is placed outside the walls. There is no strategy to that.
I hear you on the latter part, and I would like to see ways the defenders can sally forth, so to speak, and weaken the attacking army by taking siege related objectives and destroying parts of the attackers base camp.
The actual siege only lasts a couple of hours. Fighting over a dragon takes away from that. I want to see trebuchets firing and walls crumbling. I want pitched battles at choke holds and attrition of players and resources during those 2 hours. I don't want to see 25% of that time fighting over a randomly placed dragon who is only there because reasons. How do you even begin to justify having a dragon just standing there during the siege, with no affiliation, just being fodder for whichever side is the strongest?
Killing a boss for a passive buff is a terribly boring thing. As stated, it distracts from the main draw of a siege, which is army on army. But not only that it rewards the team that is most likely already winning and gives the losing side little opportunity to fight back. I say that because if you are outnumbered or behind in the defense you most likely cannot spare the manpower to take out a dragon and continue an already failing defense. Therefore the team that brings more gets an even bigger advantage.
I've never liked snowball mechanics in games that reward the dominate player or team. It should become harder the further a side progresses towards victory, not easier.
I think a much better use of dragons, golems, or any other type of world boss would be to provide an opportunity for the losing side to even the playing field, maybe at a great sacrifice: part of the castle will be destroyed, many resources consumed or offerings of gold and treasure may have to be made going forward.
Whatever it is I agree that it should be something that makes sense. If there's a dragon that close to a castle. Why? I'm all for a great lore based tie-in to siege warfare, but I would hope that the primary focus remains on the players for what I hope will be a great game mode that is fun and challenging for both sides.
I agree that the focus of a siege should be the siege. In the alpha it was fun to have the dragons as side objectives because everything was new and fresh, but when the game goes live I don't think I want there to be three random ass raid bosses outside of every castle waiting to give buffs.
I want sieges to be fun enough content to stand out on its own.
It also reminds me of the world buff situation in Classic WOW which was a major problem for that game that should have been nerfed. Last thing we need is a system that incentivizes people not to play the game for fear of losing buffs.
The dragon fights themselves were fun for how basic they are. I am hopeful that as testing goes on we will see raid bosses and sieges tested separately.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I don't understand why the dragons would be present on the map purely because there is a siege. The absence of a valid logical reason breaks immersion. "because it's fantasy" doesn't work for me.
If dragons are attracted to high troop density and the clash of battle then have them only turn up during the battle and barf indiscriminatory death from above or swoop down to pick off lone troops in the open for a tasty snack. Waiting on the ground to be killed shows zero survival instinct.
Dragons should be based in remote areas and make best use of air superiority when players move too close. A wide surrounding territory should be stripped of hard cover from above, a sure indication that the area isn't safe.
Dragons need to think and act like a species that lives for hundreds and thousands of years, not like a dumb pile of hit points waiting to die.
Players should have to prep hard to get a dragon hunted, trapped and weakened enough to have a largely ground based battle and a chance of killing the beast before it escapes (like we saw in A1). Killing a dragon should have a major impact on the server, not just a respawn after a short period of time.
There's my opinion, for what it's worth.
If the dragons or something similar and more fitting lore wise aren't part of Castle sieges, they might as well not have those Sieges at those number scales.
They'd almost definitely just be eyecandy experience-hype that work maybe twice. At the numbers they're touting, Castle Sieges aren't going to be 'interesting' or 'work'. Note that nothing I say here is anything to do with Node Sieges which have all sorts of reasons why they could be really great.
But there's no way to design a good Castle Siege where the attackers have any way to damage the gates without siege weaponry, at large number scales, that won't make any given castle gate just 'a Dragon that doesn't actually fight back'.
If the gates are 'defendable because there are players there' then the dragon is 'defendable' because you can send players there. It's a living hazard in the middle of your PvP zone that you can choose how to deal with.
Castle Sieges have to be at least 'more fun than general large scale PvP' to carry any gravitas in terms of experience. But if they're so rare anyway, that's probably not the better goal to focus on. Node Sieges would be the main important thing.
Dragons, Golems, Sandworms, whatever. You can't change your main Archetype in this game, so Castle Sieges have to be as diverse in their objectives as possible, and 'random environmental hazard creature' is one of the easiest and perhaps best ways to do that.
If it must be Dragons, I wanna be able to roll Diplomacy and offer the dragon a cut of the gold to help out instead.
It sounds like you haven't played much in the way of MMORPGs with castle siege mechanics. The ones I have played are Dark Age of Camelot, Warhammer Online, Guild Wars 2, Elder Scrolls Online and Black Desert Online, off the top of my head. Those are my inspirations. Well, the first two more than the rest probably
In a properly set up game, like some of the games I mentioned above, attacking the gate without siege weapons is possible, but with defenders there it's almost futile to do so. Boiling oil from above will kill anyone within a few meters of the gate. Player collision also ensures that not that many can damage the gate at once. I mean, you can't throw 500 people at the gate, or anywhere close to that number. Defenders should have the advantage in the ranged fights with the attackers near the walls. If they don't, the castle is designed poorly and should be redesigned.
It's completely different than 2 big groups going at it in more open terrain, competing to kill a dragon somewhere away from the castle. Like, massively different. Not even apples and oranges different, but apples and nail clippers different.
It's hard to describe honestly. A good castle siege is so much more strategic and epic. The chaos, and the periods of order in that chaos. The fight to survive getting the roofed ram to the gate. The pitched fights over a wall breach. For Ashes the stakes will be so much higher than in any previous MMORPG. We don't need anything other than the fight over the node or castle with proper siege mechanics to get the most thrilling experience.
You're incorrect about what I've played.
Your experience is different, and I'm glad for that. It would be good if Ashes met your experience.
I'm coming at this from the other side. You say that if you can just throw bodies at the gate, then the castle sucks.
I say that if you can just throw bodies at the 'dragon', then the 'dragon' sucks.
I suppose the difference between us is that you expect Intrepid to make it so that you need Siege weapons to bring down the gates, and I really don't. So in a way, we agree in premise but not in expectation.
That is, if I realize they are going to design Sieges so that players can't just bash down the gates with their magic and melee like in Alpha, then I can agree that it will be at least decent. Possibly good. And if you realize they are definitely planning for this to be a valid option...
Just remember that it's easy to fall into the 'trap' of expecting developers to do sensible things you've seen done well before, simply because it seems obvious.
It's a whole New World of MMOs out here.
What we saw in Alpha 1 aint it. The dragon makes no sense, very bland, very boring and will just lead to problems that others talked about. I'd much rather see PVE elements that either side actively deploys at critical moments to stall, push or otherwise achieve objectives in the siege.
I like that.
This being said, the dragons felt very, very anemic.
For a 2004 game it would have been okay.
For AoC (a game that will probably release in 2025) its pretty bad.
I hope the end result will feel more like a Dark Souls boss than this Onyxia's lair stuff.
Bosses like dragons should be more mobile, more alive.
Right, but that's not my point at all. You were comparing a gate to a dragon that doesn't hit back and saying "If the gates are 'defendable because there are players there' then the dragon is 'defendable' because you can send players there". My point was that it doesn't matter what the dragon mechanics are and what the defenders can do (unless they are literally defending the dragon inside a castle). They are two completely different experiences, and even the very basic stuff we saw in A1 proved that. The only similarity between a castle siege and fighting over a dragon is that it is mass-scale PvP. That's not saying much. I want a castle siege to be about the siege. Not a completely different play-experience.
I fully expect them to design sieges in a way where it will take so long to bash down a defended gate without siege weapons that the siege will essentially fail, because the 2 hours the attackers have to complete their objectives isn't enough by then.
I hear you about expecting the developers to do sensible things. However, I do hold Intrepid to a much higher standard and expectation than I do NW devs or most other teams. Three major reasons are: 1. NDA is already dropped. We are with them through these early stages, and can tell them what works and what doesn't in time for them to actually do something about it. 2. They've proved susceptible to feedback and willing to make changes based on it. 3. We don't have a publisher or moneymen behind the scenes blocking necessary changes to the game because it would delay release.
I do like that idea, drawn to the sounds of battle and whatnot
It would have to be a constant struggle for the goal
defenders have 3 time trial buffs with a duration 5 min .
mana spring = 25% mana , reg mana
mine = 25% attack siege weapons
caravan camp = 25 % hp
at the end of time the defenders will have a debuff
mana spring buff = -25 % mana
minie= -25 attack siege weapons
caravan camp = -25 % hp
Each objective creates a carriage to carry supplies to both the castle and the attacking camp .
this may represent the state of a siege.
so the attacker can get a buff and deny it to the defender and weaken him
I would like to find several types of siege depending on the cost of the attacker.
250vs250 - 350vs350 500vs500
with or without a world boss event
without repaswn, each soldier has a limited number of kills respawn
with respawn 1hour 2 hour ......
Dont try to make sense of it.
This person said that castle (guild contested) sieges will be rare as opposed to node sieges, not understanding the enormity of the task that is to try to destroy a player made city, that can be defended by every citizen.
They also said that if there isnt a PvE element to an event such as sieges that:
Brings wealth to guilds that overseer the territory
Form the basis for alliance/rivalries server stories
Provide the most adrenaline rush in mmos during the crucial capturing moment
Bonds guild members like no other mmorpg feature
PvP can occur without death penalty or corruption gains (and I am 100% sure that gear wont get damaged)
that event might as well not happen.
That's not even relevant. There's five total guild castles for the entire world. We had 9 nodes in A1 alone, and that number is going to be much, much larger on release, with up to 20 in an area the size of the A1 map. Five total potential sieges a month versus as many nodes as players desire to siege in that same month, you're going to get more node sieges. Especially in the early days, when new nodes are being established on the borders of the "known/explored" world for a server, you're going to see way more skirmishes over Villages than you will the (potential) monthly Castle Siege between guilds.
Where are you even getting the second half of that? She just noted that if the Castle Sieges aren't more fun than generic large-scale PvP, then people won't care about them as much. That's pretty uncontroversial, people will value and remember the events that are more fun better than those that aren't as fun.