What did you think of the siege dragons in A1?

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

SirChancelot

McShave wrote: »

What about if there is a world boss close to the node or castle being sieged that was not killed recently before the siege starts, and it shows up and starts killing both armies. Nice bit of lore friendly content and adds a bit of complexity to the battle. It might be difficult to make sure the dragon is appropriately threatening to both side, but I think it could be fun.

I do like that idea, drawn to the sounds of battle and whatnot

getpatxi

the idea of 3 targets (dragons, golem ...) that when killing from a buff it's boring
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 ......

George_Black

Nerror wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I'm gonna go out there and be that person.

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 The only reason I bring this up is because you make some declarative statements that are just completely wrong, based on my experience.

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.

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.

GrilledCheeseMojito

George Black wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I'm gonna go out there and be that person.

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 The only reason I bring this up is because you make some declarative statements that are just completely wrong, based on my experience.

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.

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.

George_Black

Another person that doesnt get it. Done here

Child Item