Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!

For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.

You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.

Cap on players for Node Sieges? Sets up for zergs

OlympusBurnsOlympusBurns Member
edited August 2023 in General Discussion
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?

Comments

  • I've read them. Seems like it's setting up to be a zerg-fest for node sieges.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    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
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    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.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • 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.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Something the devs may be already wanting to check on during Alpha 2.
    Alpha 1 Sieges were capped.
  • 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.
  • TyranthraxusTyranthraxus Member, Alpha Two
    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?



  • FuryBladeborneFuryBladeborne Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2023
    @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.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2023
    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.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • If "cap" exists, then zerg would just fill it entirely and win without fight. L.
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    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.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • FuryBladeborneFuryBladeborne Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2023
    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.
  • SpifSpif Member, Alpha Two
    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 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 :)
  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    edited August 2023
    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.
  • 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.
  • BabayugahBabayugah Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    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.

  • 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.
  • 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.
    Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
  • Percimes wrote: »
    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.

    Defenders will fill attacker side.
    Attackers will fill defender side.
    And they both crash their clients.
    Steven wins.

    If there are enough sieges on the map, the cap will not be reached.
    So a player might have the freedom to join wherever he wants.
    If there are too few sieges, then hopefully players enjoy the game.
  • TyranthraxusTyranthraxus Member, Alpha Two
    edited August 2023
    Neurath wrote: »
    There should be NPC Guards regardless, however, replacing people with AI in a situation where players dictate the future is a shit idea.

    @Neurath

    Aye, but it might be a feasible solution to a more-fair fight. Again, I support the perspective that if only 50 defenders sign up while the full 250 attackers sign up, then perhaps it's only fitting the Siege go to the attackers. However, yours truly feels that it might be more-fun or more-entertaining to the 50 defenders if they *perceive* the chance to win, with a reasonable amount of extra NPCs.

    ....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....

    There's a great monthly update video from a few months ago that addresses performance issues with sieges. Essentially, they run a game engine preview on how one of their computers runs with 1000 (it might have been 500, I don't have time atm to search for it) unique NPC's, versus the method they're strongly considering: having everyone else's characters look the *same* - to YOU.

    The second simulation ran a LOT smoother; When all the attackers and defenders generate visually the same to your perspective and ONLY your character looks unique, the simulation ran significantly faster.

    Without having to graphically generate 500 unique characters' items, armaments, character-feature customizations, etc? It's just that much easier on a player's computer - and I highly suspect that this is what we will end up with.

    Also, I wouldn't stress the Siege numbers overloading the to-be servers for the game, since it's been communicated that the primary purpose of the Alpha One was to stress-test the capacity of the servers. They did fine.



  • Percimes wrote: »
    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.

    Then their slot should open up for someone else to fill.

    Yeah I thought about this as well, or people joining the defense and not defending on purpose. People will do it if they can, that's why those who are actually willing/most likely to defend should have priority, Node Citizens and Patron Guild members, people who have contributed most to the node. For attackers it could be based on whoever used the siege scrolls associations (guild, alliance, node). There could be a lockout period, say 10-15 minutes, to enter the instance for those groups then open up to the public afterwards.
  • PercimesPercimes Member
    edited August 2023
    Additional thoughts.

    Grace period for people who's PC crashed, needed to reboot or who got disconnected. Considering these events are meant to happen during prime time, some people could be stuck in a login queue. How long before being kicked out of the roster.


    What are you guys thinking about "soft caps". People still able to join the defenders or attackers but, not being on the "official rosters", not getting any of the battlefield buffs, bonus and rewards. Locked out of the use of siege engines or admittance into the instanced parts. That sort of restrictions. Could this be an interesting possibility for sieges of city and metro nodes, where the citizenry could be well over the initial 250 players per side?
    Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
  • Percimes wrote: »
    People still able to join the defenders or attackers but, not being on the "official rosters", not getting any of the battlefield buffs, bonus and rewards. Locked out of the use of siege engines or admittance into the instanced parts. That sort of restrictions. Could this be an interesting possibility for sieges of city and metro nodes, where the citizenry could be well over the initial 250 players per side?

    I think would be better to restrict the side you can join based on relationship with the nodes.
    Players who belong to the same metropolis nation should not be able to siege eachother's nodes.
Sign In or Register to comment.