George_Black wrote: » It's a bad design to make sieging instanced. I hope they change their minds at IS.
Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Depraved wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » he literally said 1 huge guild split into multiples...like a 2k player guild split into 93457485748 30 players guild. I added the "split into several guilds" point later, cause I forgot to do it at first, so no fault for nasty there. Depraved wrote: » NiKr I think whoever declares the siege will be able to select which guilds will participate as attackers, that will prevent 1 large guild from attacking themselves (unless they get to declare first) I linked Steven's comment on this later in the thread. It's pretty much first come first serve and the defending side would try and do the required quest asap. And then they can PK any other GL with the scroll, if they somehow were too slow. yeah and the attackers can also fight back and prevent themselves from being pked wait, how do you know how it works? as far as I know, the scroll is for declaring. like you do a long quest, get materials, etc, then you craft this scroll, you use it, and declare war...so whoever crafts the scroll first, gets to declare. the casting thing is just to capture the castle once you are in the siege. same as l2 Once a guild registers for the siege a scroll creation quest is initiated that guild members may participate in, and it becomes possible to lay the declaration scroll down as soon as the quest is completed.[40] Multiple guilds may register to attack and the first to complete the scroll and lay down the declaration may begin to have their members register to attack (there will be a cap).[40] The siege scroll deployment is a 5 min rooted cast that alerts the region at the cast initiation and names the caster that must be the guild leader.[40][41] If the guild leader is killed, the casting is interrupted.[42] The scroll will remain until it is recast. It will disappear if it is not cast within the declaration period.[43] The scroll may only be placed in a ring around the castle.[44] The quality of the scroll determines the proximity to the castle.[45]
Depraved wrote: » Depraved wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » he literally said 1 huge guild split into multiples...like a 2k player guild split into 93457485748 30 players guild. I added the "split into several guilds" point later, cause I forgot to do it at first, so no fault for nasty there. Depraved wrote: » NiKr I think whoever declares the siege will be able to select which guilds will participate as attackers, that will prevent 1 large guild from attacking themselves (unless they get to declare first) I linked Steven's comment on this later in the thread. It's pretty much first come first serve and the defending side would try and do the required quest asap. And then they can PK any other GL with the scroll, if they somehow were too slow. yeah and the attackers can also fight back and prevent themselves from being pked wait, how do you know how it works? as far as I know, the scroll is for declaring. like you do a long quest, get materials, etc, then you craft this scroll, you use it, and declare war...so whoever crafts the scroll first, gets to declare. the casting thing is just to capture the castle once you are in the siege. same as l2
Depraved wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » he literally said 1 huge guild split into multiples...like a 2k player guild split into 93457485748 30 players guild. I added the "split into several guilds" point later, cause I forgot to do it at first, so no fault for nasty there. Depraved wrote: » NiKr I think whoever declares the siege will be able to select which guilds will participate as attackers, that will prevent 1 large guild from attacking themselves (unless they get to declare first) I linked Steven's comment on this later in the thread. It's pretty much first come first serve and the defending side would try and do the required quest asap. And then they can PK any other GL with the scroll, if they somehow were too slow. yeah and the attackers can also fight back and prevent themselves from being pked
NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » he literally said 1 huge guild split into multiples...like a 2k player guild split into 93457485748 30 players guild. I added the "split into several guilds" point later, cause I forgot to do it at first, so no fault for nasty there. Depraved wrote: » NiKr I think whoever declares the siege will be able to select which guilds will participate as attackers, that will prevent 1 large guild from attacking themselves (unless they get to declare first) I linked Steven's comment on this later in the thread. It's pretty much first come first serve and the defending side would try and do the required quest asap. And then they can PK any other GL with the scroll, if they somehow were too slow.
Depraved wrote: » he literally said 1 huge guild split into multiples...like a 2k player guild split into 93457485748 30 players guild.
Depraved wrote: » NiKr I think whoever declares the siege will be able to select which guilds will participate as attackers, that will prevent 1 large guild from attacking themselves (unless they get to declare first)
Strevi wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Depraved wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » he literally said 1 huge guild split into multiples...like a 2k player guild split into 93457485748 30 players guild. I added the "split into several guilds" point later, cause I forgot to do it at first, so no fault for nasty there. Depraved wrote: » NiKr I think whoever declares the siege will be able to select which guilds will participate as attackers, that will prevent 1 large guild from attacking themselves (unless they get to declare first) I linked Steven's comment on this later in the thread. It's pretty much first come first serve and the defending side would try and do the required quest asap. And then they can PK any other GL with the scroll, if they somehow were too slow. yeah and the attackers can also fight back and prevent themselves from being pked wait, how do you know how it works? as far as I know, the scroll is for declaring. like you do a long quest, get materials, etc, then you craft this scroll, you use it, and declare war...so whoever crafts the scroll first, gets to declare. the casting thing is just to capture the castle once you are in the siege. same as l2 Once a guild registers for the siege a scroll creation quest is initiated that guild members may participate in, and it becomes possible to lay the declaration scroll down as soon as the quest is completed.[40] Multiple guilds may register to attack and the first to complete the scroll and lay down the declaration may begin to have their members register to attack (there will be a cap).[40] The siege scroll deployment is a 5 min rooted cast that alerts the region at the cast initiation and names the caster that must be the guild leader.[40][41] If the guild leader is killed, the casting is interrupted.[42] The scroll will remain until it is recast. It will disappear if it is not cast within the declaration period.[43] The scroll may only be placed in a ring around the castle.[44] The quality of the scroll determines the proximity to the castle.[45] For castle sieges there will be just a a declaration flag. I think castle sieges are easy to initiate unlike the node sieges which require many resources. The fourth week is declaration week, where other guilds have the opportunity to lay down their declaration flag or to sign up as a defender of the castle.[30][5]
Daggial wrote: » I really hope the limit stays at 250x250. An alliance of 3-4 small/medium sized guilds can have a chance to take on a megaguild with this number. It would be not possible if the limit increases to 500.
NiKr wrote: » Nerror wrote: » I think the main limiter will have to come from the cost of the declaration scroll. Castle sieges aren't just for anyone who shows up to attack. An attacking guild has to complete a quest to get the scroll, and that could be an expensive endeavour. On top of that, they might not be the first there to declare, and even if they are, if they don't manage to defend the guild leader during those 5 minutes it takes to lay down the declaration scroll, another guild may beat them to the punch. How big of a cost would it have to be though? If it's too much - you're limiting any smaller guilds from banding together and trying to siege a castle as one group, while the defending guild has the castle money (on top of general profits from being as huge guild). If it's not big enough to do that - the defending guild easily covers it.
Nerror wrote: » I think the main limiter will have to come from the cost of the declaration scroll. Castle sieges aren't just for anyone who shows up to attack. An attacking guild has to complete a quest to get the scroll, and that could be an expensive endeavour. On top of that, they might not be the first there to declare, and even if they are, if they don't manage to defend the guild leader during those 5 minutes it takes to lay down the declaration scroll, another guild may beat them to the punch.
StevenSharif wrote: » On the matter of the declaration flag/scroll for castle sieges. Guild registration opens for the siege. Once a guild registers for the siege a scroll creation quest is initiated that guild members may participate in, and it becomes possible to lay the declaration scroll down as soon as the quest is completed. Multiple guilds may register to attack and the first to complete the scroll and lay down the declaration may begin to have their members register to attack (there will be a cap) The siege scroll deployment is a 5 min cast that alerts the region at the cast initiation and names the caster that must be the guild leader.
tautau wrote: » Potentially relevant is the fact that siege fights are fun. The players who own a castle like to have fun. Sure, they like the wealth of a castle and there is a temptation of a 'sure thing' to hold on to the castle... BUT ...a substantial proportion of the members of a guild strong enough to take a castle like castle battles. Right? Many of them will be unhappy if their guild leadership deprives them of the fun of a castle battle when they play a 'sure thing' strategy where nobody really gets to fight. By the next month, the guild might start losing lots of members, members who don't get that much of the wealth of having a castle, because those guys are playing AoC so they can be in big castle battles and have Fun. In other words, a majority of players will probably WANT battles, even if there is a chance of losing. Guild leaders who deprive membership of fun may not lead much of a guild very long.
Noaani wrote: » Something I think is worth putting out in to this discussion (it has been mentioned in passing, but not gone in to depth on) is that as a guild leader, your primary role is to ensure members of your guild enjoy their time in game. While some people would enjoy the fact that their guild has a castle, most players want the actual content that comes with that - the sieges. For the most part, if you are a guild leader and are preventing your guild from having access to content of any type, you are not doing your job. This ties in to why I don't see this whole thing as a problem. In order to pull this off, I think we all agree you need a good guild leader. A good guild leader would not deprive their guild of siege content. If a guild is good enough to actually take a castle, they will want the sieges that come with it. As such, the only way I see any guild actually attempting to engineer a siege so they are fighting themselves is if there literally isn't anyone able to offer up that contest in a siege.
Azherae wrote: » Strevi wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Depraved wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » he literally said 1 huge guild split into multiples...like a 2k player guild split into 93457485748 30 players guild. I added the "split into several guilds" point later, cause I forgot to do it at first, so no fault for nasty there. Depraved wrote: » NiKr I think whoever declares the siege will be able to select which guilds will participate as attackers, that will prevent 1 large guild from attacking themselves (unless they get to declare first) I linked Steven's comment on this later in the thread. It's pretty much first come first serve and the defending side would try and do the required quest asap. And then they can PK any other GL with the scroll, if they somehow were too slow. yeah and the attackers can also fight back and prevent themselves from being pked wait, how do you know how it works? as far as I know, the scroll is for declaring. like you do a long quest, get materials, etc, then you craft this scroll, you use it, and declare war...so whoever crafts the scroll first, gets to declare. the casting thing is just to capture the castle once you are in the siege. same as l2 Once a guild registers for the siege a scroll creation quest is initiated that guild members may participate in, and it becomes possible to lay the declaration scroll down as soon as the quest is completed.[40] Multiple guilds may register to attack and the first to complete the scroll and lay down the declaration may begin to have their members register to attack (there will be a cap).[40] The siege scroll deployment is a 5 min rooted cast that alerts the region at the cast initiation and names the caster that must be the guild leader.[40][41] If the guild leader is killed, the casting is interrupted.[42] The scroll will remain until it is recast. It will disappear if it is not cast within the declaration period.[43] The scroll may only be placed in a ring around the castle.[44] The quality of the scroll determines the proximity to the castle.[45] For castle sieges there will be just a a declaration flag. I think castle sieges are easy to initiate unlike the node sieges which require many resources. The fourth week is declaration week, where other guilds have the opportunity to lay down their declaration flag or to sign up as a defender of the castle.[30][5] Then could you clarify what you think this line means?The scroll may only be placed in a ring around the castle.[44] The quality of the scroll determines the proximity to the castle.[45]
NiKr wrote: » And this is why I loved L2's sieges. They were just open to whoever (but only the registered ones could get the castle). This led to a ton of scheming and politics and backstabbings and sudden alliances, with some of that stuff happening literally during the siege itself rather than preplanned. If some guild was way too strong and had pretty much no registered attackers - they were free to go to another castle and help whichever side of the siege. And rarely this could lead to this strong guild's castle getting sneakily taken, because a very tricky attacker managed to get inside the castle and cast the seal inside. I'm assuming that Steven wants to transfer this experience onto the node sieges, with them being the open ones. And maybe that's why node taxes can't be taken out by players. But considering that node sieges would mainly influence just the defending side (because I doubt that too many citizens would care much about sieging someone else's node), the politicking kinda goes away. Castle sieges could attract the bigger part of the server through involving a ton of guilds and would be the culminating "event" of every month, but with limited participants and potentially instanced sieges - none of that would happen. So unless metro sieges will somehow be happening every month - imo Intrepid will be missing out on one of the biggest attracters of the game. That kind of spectacle would not only attract players to the game, but would most likely interest streamers as well. And I'm sure that open castle sieges would be beyond laggy, but I think that the lagginess would be worth it (and metro sieges would be the same, so it's not like Intrepid's avoiding these kinds of situations).
Noaani wrote: » I don't think Steven is trying to replicate the experience of either L2 or Archeages sieges here. I think he is trying to take both of those games and fix the issues with their siege content.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » I don't think Steven is trying to replicate the experience of either L2 or Archeages sieges here. I think he is trying to take both of those games and fix the issues with their siege content. Oh, I'm not against him changing the mechanics or features that he has liked in other games. It's just that purely involvement-wise, most people would only care about the siege of their own node cause they have a connection to it and an investment in it. And I don't think that any given node will have too many sieges within a month. So while it is true that players who're interested in purely the gameplay of a siege itself could probably find one at most times, due to there being 85 nodes, no one outside of that pool of people would really care about other nodes' sieges. And unless node mayors are all involved in guilds and have some deep politicking amongst themselves, I doubt that too many guilds would care for node sieges either. Though obviously that'll have to be proven wrong or right after release. But my main point in this particular context is that of a missing spectacle. We'll have 3 assured node sieges spread over 3 weeks leading up to the castle one. In theory, those node sieges would function as any other node siege, which would mean that anyone can come there and fuck shit up. This would then mean that those 3 assured sieges could attract a toooon of people (namely the ones who'd want to topple the castle defending strong guild). Yet after those 3, potentially big, sieges we'll get just a limited (maybe even instanced) siege of a castle. To me that seems weird at best and a bad design at worst, and most definitely kinda backwards. And that backwardness is only amplified by my worry that bigger guilds, that are already more likely to hold those castles, would then use the system in their favor and limit the amount of attackers to the best of their ability. And I would personally prefer that to not be the case.
Noaani wrote: » If you instead look at castle sieges as being for the <10% of top end PvP players, something others aspire to but are unlikely to ever achieve, the way we understand sieges in Ashes to work makes sense - at least to me.
NiKr wrote: » But that is exactly my point though The 500-member guild would just have two 250-member guilds, one that holds the castle and the other that always attacks it. Hell, I'd assume they'll just have 40-men guilds to fully benefit from the guild perks. But that in no way prevents them from being the ones to fully fill out the attacker list on the siege and prevent any proper guild from taking the castle away from them.
WarpedViper wrote: » Man I would LOVE to see 250 people work together without a single one of them wanting to take the power for themselves or start a counter guild on their own to completely destroy the system. Honestly when was the last time you saw 250 players working together perfectly to farm gold without anyone getting greedy or anything going wrong? I don't think you have to worry at all. And if you actually do have a time when that many people worked perfectly together I would love some proof because that deserves a spot in gaming history.
NiKr wrote: » WarpedViper wrote: » Man I would LOVE to see 250 people work together without a single one of them wanting to take the power for themselves or start a counter guild on their own to completely destroy the system. Honestly when was the last time you saw 250 players working together perfectly to farm gold without anyone getting greedy or anything going wrong? I don't think you have to worry at all. And if you actually do have a time when that many people worked perfectly together I would love some proof because that deserves a spot in gaming history. Not to brag, but I led such a guild on one of L2 private servers. And I'm far from being a great GL, so I'm sure there's people out there who could control 500 players with relative ease and no worries about being overtaken by their subordinates. Sadly I don't think I have any screenshots from that time, so you're free to not believe me.
Noaani wrote: » Yeah, but was that guild a top 10% PvP guild, and were you actively preventing your guild from meaningfully participating in the games top tier PvP content?
