Make sieges not instanced

I see that instanced city defense is being considered.
"The majority (~80%) of content in Ashes of Creation is open-world but there may be instanced battles within castle and node sieges"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges

Why not make them happen in open-world?
Cannot be a performance issue because players are present on the server anyway. Can the server not handle the event?
For immersion, it would be better to see the siege happening, as you approach the city. And then decide what to do.
Finding a way to enter the city and join the defenders could be a challenge in itself.
Or a big party when it arrives to the siege location, could help from outside too.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George_Black

I am also intetested in this but I feel it's a bit early.
It would be great to have it open world just like in L2. I wonder if there is a technical reason for it.
We will see.

Ludullu

The instanced parts of the siege will be targeted at small group content. And if the whole siege will be made instanced, it'll be mainly done for better performance because, as far as I understand, they're not quite "on the server". That's kind of the point of instances, the players inside are separated from the outside influences.

MaiWaifu

I agree, it's a bit odd having it instanced unless it's like key people/objectives will be instanced inside a building or something and the rest is open world.

It would be a bit jarring to have either an invisible wall or parallel world for the entire node while it's ongoing if you're a non-participant trying to walk in.

Maybe they'll be a bit more immersive and just have war barricades around the whole node to prevent non-participants entering.

Rando88

I mention new world alot because I'm playing that now. I haven't done one in a while, but during wars it was a lag fest and I think they changed it there to instanced for more performance. The war lag was exploited and many players quit because of it. If they can do it with no lag I'd like it to be open world though.

George_Black

Another reason I can think is this:
In L2 the big alliances would sweep some castles in the last 15 minutes with huge numbers.
The defenders of each castle had to stay on their castles of course. They couldnt unite.
So basically in the last 15 minutes of the siege period you'd see one alliance capturing and establishing a defence for each castle one at a time.

Perhaps if IS wants to make this content instanced it is so that attackers and defenders both stay at one castle.

In the early years of L2 seeing unexpected reinforcements during a siege was great, great server stories and gameplay. But my most recent memories were of quiet 105 minutes of siege with a rush at the last 15 minutes. It was almost guaranteed that 6/8 of the castles of the game would change hands due to the last 15min zergfest. The first two castle defenders that got zerged in the last 15 mins would get to reclaim them. The other 6 would get zerged and taken.

MrPockets

Strevi wrote: »

For immersion, it would be better to see the siege happening, as you approach the city. And then decide what to do.

Games are not always %100 about immersion. There are many other reasons it may make sense to design the game with instanced PvP events like this.

just off the top of my head:

Server stability/performance
Higher quality PvP matches
Allows players not interested in PvP to continue to use the city as normal.
Structured PvP can just be more fun overall. (ie: League of legends, CS:GO, Battlefield, etc)

Strevi

MrPockets wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

For immersion, it would be better to see the siege happening, as you approach the city. And then decide what to do.

Games are not always %100 about immersion. There are many other reasons it may make sense to design the game with instanced PvP events like this.

just off the top of my head:
Server stability/performance

Higher quality PvP matches

Allows players not interested in PvP to continue to use the city as normal.

Structured PvP can just be more fun overall. (ie: League of legends, CS:GO, Battlefield, etc)

The wiki say:

Many services are shut down during the siege declaration period, and instead are replaced by preparation quests or services for the siege.[31]
Once a siege is declared, players are prohibited from moving goods out of depositories within the node.[32][33][34]

So there not be quite a normal life for PvE players during this phase.
And those who want structures PvP, I assume you mean instances, those can be added separately, as arenas or special instances
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Arenas

Castle sieges are expected to have at minimum 250x250 players to be on a single battlefield, with the possibility of increasing this to 500x500 over time.[29]

That means 500 to 1000 players. Quite a large number. The entire world will have 10 times more players.
I have no idea how a server is running but I doubt it runs on a single CPU.

akabear

George_Black wrote: »

Another reason I can think is this:
In L2 the big alliances would sweep some castles in the last 15 minutes with huge numbers.
The defenders of each castle had to stay on their castles of course. They couldnt unite.
So basically in the last 15 minutes of the siege period you'd see one alliance capturing and establishing a defence for each castle one at a time.

Perhaps if IS wants to make this content instanced it is so that attackers and defenders both stay at one castle.

In the early years of L2 seeing unexpected reinforcements during a siege was great, great server stories and gameplay. But my most recent memories were of quiet 105 minutes of siege with a rush at the last 15 minutes. It was almost guaranteed that 6/8 of the castles of the game would change hands due to the last 15min zergfest. The first two castle defenders that got zerged in the last 15 mins would get to reclaim them. The other 6 would get zerged and taken.

I thought the L2 seige battlefields were instanced. Didn`t it go through a stage of ejecting players not signed up from the battle field?

Ludullu

akabear wrote: »

I thought the L2 seige battlefields were instanced. Didn`t it go through a stage of ejecting players not signed up from the battle field?

It ejected all non-defenders, but it wasn't instanced.

George_Black

That was at the very beginning of the siege.

akabear

George_Black wrote: »

That was at the very beginning of the siege.

Haven`t played in 10 years.. memory is a little thin on some details.. cool!

Mag7spy

MrPockets wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

For immersion, it would be better to see the siege happening, as you approach the city. And then decide what to do.

Games are not always %100 about immersion. There are many other reasons it may make sense to design the game with instanced PvP events like this.

just off the top of my head:
Server stability/performance

Higher quality PvP matches

Allows players not interested in PvP to continue to use the city as normal.

Structured PvP can just be more fun overall. (ie: League of legends, CS:GO, Battlefield, etc)

Voice of reason thank you, i have hope for humanity now lol. Sieges are serious business you don't need people trolling them that aren't even part of the war and having targets that are immune or dmg or can't be hit further confusing you.

akabear

Wonder then just how much additional area is instanced off!

Mag7spy

akabear wrote: »

Wonder then just how much additional area is instanced off!

im guessing it is different per area so we wouldnt know until we see each area.

Strevi

Mag7spy wrote: »

MrPockets wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

For immersion, it would be better to see the siege happening, as you approach the city. And then decide what to do.

Games are not always %100 about immersion. There are many other reasons it may make sense to design the game with instanced PvP events like this.

just off the top of my head:
Server stability/performance

Higher quality PvP matches

Allows players not interested in PvP to continue to use the city as normal.

Structured PvP can just be more fun overall. (ie: League of legends, CS:GO, Battlefield, etc)

Voice of reason thank you, i have hope for humanity now lol. Sieges are serious business you don't need people trolling them that aren't even part of the war and having targets that are immune or dmg or can't be hit further confusing you.

Why would anyone be immune in a place of war? Everybody close to the point of action should be considered a participant.

Asgerr

Strevi wrote: »

I see that instanced city defense is being considered.
"The majority (~80%) of content in Ashes of Creation is open-world but there may be instanced battles within castle and node sieges"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges

Why not make them happen in open-world?
Cannot be a performance issue because players are present on the server anyway. Can the server not handle the event?
For immersion, it would be better to see the siege happening, as you approach the city. And then decide what to do.
Finding a way to enter the city and join the defenders could be a challenge in itself.
Or a big party when it arrives to the siege location, could help from outside too.

I think they're not Open World, because you declare the siege through great effort (not just click a button, there are quests and tasks and payments to be completed) and it will trigger at a prime-time on the weekends so that all players involved may attend.

Now imagine all of that, and then some random uninvolved Guild, which you or your opponent had never heard of, show up just to ruin it for both sides. Plus, how would the game then know that who captured the throne room of a Castle is in fact one of the people who declared the siege, and not some random guy who snuck in during the battle, to take the Castle for himself on a technicality?

The servers can take it, but for the fairness of the competition between groups, leaving such important PvP to be open world, would be a griefing magnet.

Warth

@Strevi its to prevent performance issue, simple as that.

I try to explain it in a very simple manner:
Outsourcing it onto a different instance allows you to provide it with a dedicated Siege Server.
This prevents the primary game play server for this world to be overburdened and allows to dedicate more calculation resources towards the siege.

Strevi

Asgerr wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

I see that instanced city defense is being considered.
"The majority (~80%) of content in Ashes of Creation is open-world but there may be instanced battles within castle and node sieges"
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges

Why not make them happen in open-world?
Cannot be a performance issue because players are present on the server anyway. Can the server not handle the event?
For immersion, it would be better to see the siege happening, as you approach the city. And then decide what to do.
Finding a way to enter the city and join the defenders could be a challenge in itself.
Or a big party when it arrives to the siege location, could help from outside too.

I think they're not Open World, because you declare the siege through great effort (not just click a button, there are quests and tasks and payments to be completed) and it will trigger at a prime-time on the weekends so that all players involved may attend.

Now imagine all of that, and then some random uninvolved Guild, which you or your opponent had never heard of, show up just to ruin it for both sides. Plus, how would the game then know that who captured the throne room of a Castle is in fact one of the people who declared the siege, and not some random guy who snuck in during the battle, to take the Castle for himself on a technicality?

The servers can take it, but for the fairness of the competition between groups, leaving such important PvP to be open world, would be a griefing magnet.

Yes, you are right, I think the game wants to ensure that nodes can survive if they are skilled defenders.
Else a node can fall because the entire map comes and attacks them.
I see it now as a better decision as the survival depends on both combat and how defenses were prepared in advance:
"Treasury funds can be invested into improving node defensive structures, such as stronger walls and gates, traps, and siege equipment.[8][9][11]"
And those defenses might be ensured by players who are not very good at PvP while the battle itself will allow only the best fighters.

Throne room is not mentioned though on the page I am reading. They say instead:

A node siege will last for up to two hours.[67]
- Defenders will be required to hold a central point in the node for the duration of the siege or they must destroy the hedquarters of the attacking army.[86][35]
- Attackers will need to gain access to the node then reach a central point where they must channel a 5 minute cast on the defender's flag. This cast can not be interrupted by CC but can be interrupted through death of the caster.[86][35]

I assume that players who arrives late to the node or log-in during the fight, can still enter the instance if the number of participants is below 250 (or 500) because:
"Citizens of the node or provincial nodes being attacked are automatically registered as defenders.[28]"

but they can be useful outside too if the the number is capped
"Players could potentially intercept stragglers with the guild war or flagging system en route to the siege field.[65]"

So a player who is just curious what happens there, may register on one of the side and enter the instance while the battle is in progress? Then he can leave and register on the other side?

I see that the registered status can be canceled (else this makes no sense):
Players may choose to respawn at their HQ as long as they are registered.[61][64]

That still opens the possibility for griefing or let's say sabotage the fairness of the competition because on one side some neutral players can register to prevent others to join and they'll do nothing useful during the war. Might simulate they fight though but will have low quality gear or will let guard down to be killed easier.

Strevi

Warth wrote: »

@Strevi its to prevent performance issue, simple as that.

I try to explain it in a very simple manner:
Outsourcing it onto a different instance allows you to provide it with a dedicated Siege Server.
This prevents the primary game play server for this world to be overburdened and allows to dedicate more calculation resources towards the siege.

That explains why they mention the possibility to increase the number from 250x250 to 500x500.
If I can join to see the battle, if I arrive late, for me is ok.
I am a bit worried though that some players will get upset if I do not instantly follow orders and know what to do.
How will 250 or 500 players coordinate themselves during the battle?
If I join, will the game automatically assign me to a group and they will expect me to help them?
Can group members even identify each other within the larger 250 / 500 amount of players?

Warth

Strevi wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

@Strevi its to prevent performance issue, simple as that.

I try to explain it in a very simple manner:
Outsourcing it onto a different instance allows you to provide it with a dedicated Siege Server.
This prevents the primary game play server for this world to be overburdened and allows to dedicate more calculation resources towards the siege.

That explains why they mention the possibility to increase the number from 250x250 to 500x500.
If I can join to see the battle, if I arrive late, for me is ok.
I am a bit worried though that some players will get upset if I do not instantly follow orders and know what to do.
How will 250 or 500 players coordinate themselves during the battle?
If I join, will the game automatically assign me to a group and they will expect me to help them?
Can group members even identify each other within the larger 250 / 500 amount of players?

@Strevi
you mix up node sieges and castle sieges.

Castle Sieges have been said to be 250 v. 250 (with the possibility of this being increased)
Node Sieges are uncapped as of the last information we have received.

Castle Sieges will probably rely on Teamspeak or Mumble as Discord is sever performance issues with that amount of clients and lacks tools necessary to coordinate such a large group.

We virtually know nothing about Node Sieges, how they will work, subobjectives, Zone Layout etc. so talking about this would be pure speculation. Especially on the topic of communication, as we neither the quantity of players necessary, nor the ingame tools ready to organize them.

Child Item