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

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

McMackMuck

@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.

Noaani

winner909098 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.

Jamation

Noaani wrote: »

winner909098 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.

Noaani

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.

Jamation

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.

Noaani

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.

Jamation

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.

Noaani

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.

Jamation

We won't see eye to eye and that's not a problem.

But anyways, how about those sieges.

akabear

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%)

Noaani

akabear wrote: »

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%)

Indeed, there are a lot of factors that make up how valuable an employee is.

Their extra curricular activities while studying (unless directly related to the field they are attempting to find work in) are not one of those factors.

As such, and bringing it back to the reason we went off on this tangent, extra curricular activities are nothing more than a students choice of how to use up some of the free time that they have.

Literally the only time I can see this not being the case is if you study somewhere and then attempt to get a job locally, under a boss that studied at the same institition. The misplaced sense of loyalty that some people have to tertiary institutions may - in that edge case - slightly improve your odds at getting a job. However, since this is all local, there are probably better ways you could have spent that time, like getting to know that company and that boss while still studying.

akabear

Back on topic.. I guess what I do not want to see in sieges is singular breach places on a castle.
Stylized siege weapons that are incongerous to the overall game concept (so not how New World did theirs)

Frostshot1

As long as there are mechanics to place siege weapons, Arrow carts & Catapults, and repair walls. It should be entertaining. So long as the balance is there.

McMackMuck

akabear wrote: »

Back on topic.. I guess what I do not want to see in sieges is singular breach places on a castle.

I agree, there needs to be multiple ways into the castle otherwise the siege becomes a linear defense (=dull meat grinder). I would like to see multiple attack vectors which need work to set up, where any one of them can lead to victory.

Noaani

To me, there are three main ways I would want to be able to enter a city or castle.

I would want to be able to tunnel under a wall to collapse it. I would want to be able to break a wall or gate with a projectile or ram, and I would want to be able to go over it with a ladder or tower (even though that isn't what siege towers actually were).

Largely, sieges involved a lot of earthworks in the past. Whether digging, making ramps or filling in trenches/moats. I am unsure how this aspect of a siege can be translated to an activity that is supposed to only take a few hours.

akabear

Ah.. you remind me now of the first time I did a seige in Mount and Blade and then ESO.. ah the joy.

Definately.

And a rock, paper, sissors for each method with good and bad points to engage strategy

maouw

Destructible environment.
layered upgrade systems.
Intuitive Combat.
Interdependencies.

It doesn't exist.
Ashes gets pretty close tho, so I'm hyped!!

Totally posted in the wrong thread! HAHAHA
move along, nothing to see here.

Child Item