Cap on players for Node Sieges? Sets up for zergs

With the nodes stream coming up in a few weeks, I hope they provide some clarity on Node Sieges. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like they're set up completely different than Castle Sieges.

Castle sieges are (for now) 250 v 250. The guild leader who owns the castle (The "King" or "Queen") chooses who defends the castle and the guild who creates the siege scroll decides who will be attacking.

In Node sieges, it seems like it's a free-for-all. The person who laid down the siege scroll doesn't get to decide who attacks and all of the citizens of that node are signed up for it's defense. That could be reaaaaally fun to have some massive numbers fighting, but I wonder if it would end up putting stress on the server and result in poor performance. Anyone know if Steven has mentioned that there will be a cap on people participating in a node siege?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Vyril

All currently known plans

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges

OlympusBurns

I've read them. Seems like it's setting up to be a zerg-fest for node sieges.

Depraved

ive wondered about that as well. it seems the cap will be on how many people register to attack or defend, but it cant be everybody due to some restrictions.

maybe whatever you have to do during the war will keep people spread out during the event

Dolyem

The key to deter zerging is to have multiple key objectives far enough from each other that you cant just group up and run from one to the next, nor just zerg defend a single objective. If you have several key objectives that are required for both the attackers and defenders, you force each side to split up to succeed. Its much easier said than done, but its a pretty solid principle to split the zergs. Basically design sieges as dividing your forces strategically and conquering, or be conquered if you just charge as one brutal force from objective to objective.
To maintain the massive battle feel, you could very well have a single main area meant to focus on higher numbers and just all out slaughter, but you still want several objectives surrounding it to affect that battle in significant ways. Anything like stealth/subterfuge/sabotage objectives, magical channeling/point of interest control objectives, supply objectives, PvE/boss objectives, etc. All of these can be offensive/defensive battles which can prevent or activate things depending on the side, or even mutual objectives that each side is fighting for the same boon.
But yea, just need to make it a sort of requirement to split up enough to succeed.

OlympusBurns

Dolyem wrote: »

The key to deter zerging is to have multiple key objectives far enough from each other that you cant just group up and run from one to the next, nor just zerg defend a single objective. If you have several key objectives that are required for both the attackers and defenders, you force each side to split up to succeed. Its much easier said than done, but its a pretty solid principle to split the zergs. Basically design sieges as dividing your forces strategically and conquering, or be conquered if you just charge as one brutal force from objective to objective.
To maintain the massive battle feel, you could very well have a single main area meant to focus on higher numbers and just all out slaughter, but you still want several objectives surrounding it to affect that battle in significant ways. Anything like stealth/subterfuge/sabotage objectives, magical channeling/point of interest control objectives, supply objectives, PvE/boss objectives, etc. All of these can be offensive/defensive battles which can prevent or activate things depending on the side, or even mutual objectives that each side is fighting for the same boon.
But yea, just need to make it a sort of requirement to split up enough to succeed.

I can dig it. My issue is that it becomes a numbers game at some point. If there isn't a set number vs a set number, then it becomes an issue of just getting more people on your side and less about skill or strategy.

Dygz

Something the devs may be already wanting to check on during Alpha 2.
Alpha 1 Sieges were capped.

OlympusBurns

If it ends up being capped, then that means some people will be excluded if more than the cap sign up. The person who lays down the scroll "cannot exclude anyone from joining the attack" so I wonder if they get to choose the roster but not who actually signs up for the roster. If not, It doesn't make sense to me that someone would go through all of the work to make a siege scroll and then run the risk of their friends not being able to participate in the node siege.

Tyranthraxus

A cap seems like a good idea - though I get your point: If you enter as a Defender and you learn that only 100 people have joined the defense while the full 500 have joined the offense, it's probably going to be a 1-sided slaughter. Hopefully they find some kind of balance for this, such as allowing a side that is vastly out-numbered to set NPC spawns, for their side - or maybe altering the castle for the battle to feature key "bottlenecks" that force attackers to have fewer choices, for breaching the defenses.

They have a few options. On the other hand? If there's THAT much will/manpower to overcome a castle or Node-city, maybe it's just right that the defense is destined to fall?

FuryBladeborne

@OlympusBurns
I would be very surprised if node sieges could have larger battles than castle sieges. Whenever IS has described the number of players in castle sieges, it has clearly been to put the maximum number of players possible on the battlefield.

Also, the current minimum aimed for is 250 vs 250 but IS wants to reach 500 vs 500. This is far ahead of any game like this. Even if there is some other fantasy MMORPG with similar numbers of players on one battlefield (which I don't know of one), the graphics on Ashes will be far beyond anything else in large scale battles.

Starting at 56:30 shows what I mean:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EFcUY_z3pk&t=3439s

I think there should be a question of whether the cap on node sieges will be lower than castle sieges.

Dolyem

I'd also add that a cap would be an issue if Intrepid intends to keep siege declaration cooldowns on metros at 2month cooldowns. Because with a cap, most players will never even experience those sieges more than likely.

Korela

If "cap" exists, then zerg would just fill it entirely and win without fight. L.

Songcaller

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

A cap seems like a good idea - though I get your point: If you enter as a Defender and you learn that only 100 people have joined the defense while the full 500 have joined the offense, it's probably going to be a 1-sided slaughter. Hopefully they find some kind of balance for this, such as allowing a side that is vastly out-numbered to set NPC spawns, for their side - or maybe altering the castle for the battle to feature key "bottlenecks" that force attackers to have fewer choices, for breaching the defenses.

They have a few options. On the other hand? If there's THAT much will/manpower to overcome a castle or Node-city, maybe it's just right that the defense is destined to fall?

There should be NPC Guards regardless, however, replacing people with AI in a situation where players dictate the future is a shit idea.

FuryBladeborne

Korela wrote: »

If "cap" exists, then zerg would just fill it entirely and win without fight. L.

With a cap, then the other side can also fill to the cap and have an equal numbers battle. No cap is what makes it likely for a zerg to overwhelm by numbers alone.

Spif

Node sieges are going to have to have a cap of some sort. There will also be rules of some sort for who can join on which side. The NW method was cumbersome, but necessary. Spies can easily ruin strategy.

It's not reasonable to allow the attackers to outnumber the defenders 500 to 100 unless the defenders have a huge natural advantage. And that would happen, since the only people who have a tangible reason to defend the node are the Citizens of that node and their close friends. Looting after a failed defense is going to draw a lot of people. Even the vassals could easily decide they want their node to shine and join the attack.

Korela

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

Korela wrote: »

If "cap" exists, then zerg would just fill it entirely and win without fight. L.

With a cap, then the other side can also fill to the cap and have an equal numbers battle. No cap is what makes it likely for a zerg to overwhelm by numbers alone.

Surely, zerg just sleeps and lets other side fill the cap. Surely, building a system based on the fact that the side with the advantage in numbers will not abuse a system that directly works with numbers is a very good method

Voeltz

Having a cap is the only resolution I see, otherwise zerg guilds can roll through entire regions destroying everything and overwhelm people with sheer numbers if they want to. I think the cap should be based on the stage of the node though because there will likely be a lot less Defenders for small villages/towns. There will still be plenty of things to do during a siege event outside, such as fighting over Freeholds and fighting around the node. One thing that would commonly happen in Warhammer Online during a Capital City Siege is groups would guard the entrance to prevent attackers from getting into the City. This happened because Defenders had guaranteed access to their city and attackers only had one way to enter. In Ashes case, I can see this happening with either Attackers or Defenders, whoever has more numbers.

OlympusBurns

Voeltz wrote: »

Having a cap is the only resolution I see, otherwise zerg guilds can roll through entire regions destroying everything and overwhelm people with sheer numbers if they want to.

Yeah exactly. I think it's probably more likely than not going to be capped. The problem is if I lay down the siege scroll, I'm going to be mad if I put in all the effort to do it and somehow my friends don't get on the roster. This will probably need to be addressed in A2.

Rostering for the node wars will likely make "less-PVP-inclined-individuals" (me trying to not to say carebear) mad because they'll get excluded from the rosters. I'm fine with people not getting slotted if they're not good enough.

Voeltz wrote: »

I think the cap should be based on the stage of the node though because there will likely be a lot less Defenders for small villages/towns.

That makes a lot of sense.

Babayugah

Dygz wrote: »

Something the devs may be already wanting to check on during Alpha 2.
Alpha 1 Sieges were capped.

There were no Node Sieges in Alpha One.

Raven016

Voeltz wrote: »

Having a cap is the only resolution I see, otherwise zerg guilds can roll through entire regions destroying everything and overwhelm people with sheer numbers if they want to.

The cap is for performance reason.
More than 10k players are supposed to roll through entire regions.
At least 20% of them will be interested to defend their metropolis.
What will happen inside the siege area remains to be seen. And maybe tested. I hope.

Percimes

What should be done when someone on the roster either leave the battlefield or log off?

I can see people filling the attacker's side and not actively participate, taking a spot to reduce the attacking force. Or other shenanigans of that sort.

And there are legitimate reasons for login off. Emergencies, unexpected events, etc.

Child Item