In the suggestion I have made, those people will not exist.
You said "Ashes is a game when there's always a penalty for the loser". I said that in node sieges (the only other sieges in the game) the people who join the siege from the initial scroll don't have that penalty.
Like I keep telling Mag, when he mistakes the 2 designs, I say here again, node sieges and castle sieges are different things.
But node sieges are also the biggest example of "the losers don't always have a penalty for simply losing". The same would apply to attackers in caravans (gear decay is nowhere near comparable to a proper penalty, let alone what the defenders stand to lose). We don't know the extent of guild war losses, as compared to the cost of declaring them, and same with node wars. There's also monster coin events, where the player-mobs have a siege-like goal, but I'd assume they can be stopped from achieving it, which would mean they "lose", but we got no idea what that loss entails.
In other words, no, Ashes is not a game where "losers are always penalized", especially when it comes to pvp events. I think that's the entire damn point of said events. Steven wants people to want to pvp on both sides, so penalizing someone who's already lost would strongly dissuade people from even participating.
For example, your line of questioning about what happens if no one kills any of the raid encounters and will the siege still continue with no one present - obviously if no one kills the encounters (and thus no one gets an invitation to the siege), the siege fails before it even starts. Then the whole thing starts again from picking another lead. Since the process from the start of picking a lead until the siege proper would be a month, that process can begin again immediately.
Declaration period is only the week before the siege itself, not a month. But I'm assuming you're suggesting it be a month instead here. So the declaration period would then also be a month.
Or are you, at this point, suggesting an entire system rework for how the sieges are set up?
Asking if the penalty is for all members or just the guild; the point of the penalty is the function of preventing them from being able to be lead for 6 months, how that happens is unimportant, just assume it happens for now.
I asked about members because a guild could be dissolved and remade by the same people and the 6 months wouldn't matter one bit.
And it exactly because I'm thinking "what a good designer would do", that I said "I assume you're implying that all members of the guild will be penalized".
By all means, if you think you have a suggestion for how to prevent the owner of a castle from simply stacking the attacking side with their own people in a ffa siege, I'm here for it. If not, the only option is to expect the attacker to do this, or to alter castle siege attacks to be organized.
I never said it was possible to completely prevent. The literal OP says so from the start.
I gave my suggestion there as well. A system where the defending side would need to have 15 40-member guilds, who can all clear a raid (and that's if the sieges are 250- per side). They would need to do those raids before any other guild can as well, because it would still be a first come first serve system. If they use the guilds that could've been used in defense - the bosses fuck them up (and I later even suggested the possibility of npcs taking back the castle). If the castle nodes weren't built up (because the defending guild were super sure they'd have the slots) - the bosses would fuck it up even harder. And if the scheme was repeated several times - there's a multiplier on the bosses' strength, so defense is yet harder still.
But all of that still only matters if the defending guild has a dozen fully built sub-guilds, none of which are on the defense side. And then, if this is the case - this fractured mega guild is now easier to be dealt with in the other parts of the game, because mass pvp is now harder for them (friendly fire and all that).
And NONE of that would be required in your suggestion. The defending guild simply pays/does whatever it needs to get the Lead guild slot and then doesn't let anyone through. The bosses don't get killed, so they don't spawn. And the defending guild doesn't even need to fracture itself into pieces to exploit the system.
I guess if instead of the siege failing, when no guild qualifies for it, the attacking side could be completely filled by those bosses and they'll wreak havoc on the castle (and again, ideally take it back to npcs, if they "win"). But you didn't suggest this, so I didn't assume that this was part of your suggestion.
But my suggestion already included this feature, so I would still see 0 damn point in letting players dictate who can and cannot join a siege.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I gave my suggestion there as well. A system where the defending side would need to have 15 40-member guilds, who can all clear a raid (and that's if the sieges are 250- per side).
No, they would need 1 40 man guild that can clear a boss in order to imbalance the defending side by 16 slots.
If they can get 2 such raids together, they can imbalance the attackers by 32 slots. If they can get 3, that is 48 slots. This is something that is quite trivial, and so is reasonable to assume every defending guild could achieve, and eliminates almost 20% of the attacking force.
Your suggestion - while a good base - had nothing at all to prevent castle defenders from imbalancing an attacking force.
As you point out, you even said as much.
That is what my alteration to your suggestion was intended to address. With those alterations, the only reasonable way a castle defender can influence the attacking side is via politics.
It would be easier to completely eliminate a siege using your system than mine, as all yours needs is 600 characters. That said, I would wager quite happily that all it would really need is 300, because I've yet to see an encounter for a game system like this that actual skilled players can't kill with half the maximum number of players, and I don't see Ashes as being a game that would prevent people attempting something with fewer people than recommended.
Quite honestly, my guild of 30 - 50 players usually has 300+ characters capable of raiding if we are playing a game for more than a year. This really isn't a hard obsticle to overcome - and for a guild of 300, it is trivial.
In the vein of asking questions that really don't need to be asked or answered, in your scenario, what happens if the defending guild manages to kill 30 of these encounters in a month?
If the tax is too high, you can obviously move - however, forcing others to move is also oppression.
but what if the tax is high in % but as a flat number ends up being so low it might as well not even exist, is that still oppressive?
also, idk if taxes are oppressive...maybe they r irl or unfair
Tax rate doesn't matter.
The point of a castle is to take earned gold from other players.
Then you have the notion that if you are the leader of a guild with a castle, access to some events and buildings is at your discression.
I mean, even the wiki specifically lists
Exert control and pressure over one of the five economic regions.
as one of the benefits of owning a castle.
You really have no argument that oppressing others isn't the point of castles. The only question is the level to which that oppression happens.
I think the wiki refers to that as a competition form. if my taxes are lower, people are going to use my stations, not yours. its like when companies compete against each other for customers or workers...they arent pressing anyne.
but anyways, lets say that the discussion is about the level of oppression. again, what if it ssoo small that it doesn't matter? i think it would only matter if you could stop others from progressing (acquiring gear or leveling for example). which you could do in ways that don't involve owning a castle.
but anyways, lets say that the discussion is about the level of oppression. again, what if it ssoo small that it doesn't matter? i think it would only matter if you could stop others from progressing (acquiring gear or leveling for example). which you could do in ways that don't involve owning a castle.
At this point, I would ask why this is a discussion you consider worth having.
It isn't as if anyone is saying this needs to change - it is just being stated as a point of fact.
No, they would need 1 40 man guild that can clear a boss in order to imbalance the defending side by 16 slots.
If they can get 2 such raids together, they can imbalance the attackers by 32 slots. If they can get 3, that is 48 slots. This is something that is quite trivial, and so is reasonable to assume every defending guild could achieve, and eliminates almost 20% of the attacking force.
And if they still have the people to fill out the defense side - cool. The potential imbalance of the forces is somewhat cleared by 15 attacking bosses, that the attackers can play around and utilize. And in my suggestion these bosses would be respawning, so it's not like the defenders can just zerg each boss real quick and be done with them.
And, as I keep saying, if the defenders are successful in their defense - the bosses get stronger each siege.
That is what my alteration to your suggestion was intended to address. With those alterations, the only reasonable way a castle defender can influence the attacking side is via politics.
How is literally letting the defenders prevent other guilds from participating and instead anointing their own sub-guilds directly "addresses the issue"?
It would be easier to completely eliminate a siege using your system than mine, as all yours needs is 600 characters. That said, I would wager quite happily that all it would really need is 300, because I've yet to see an encounter for a game system like this that actual skilled players can't kill with half the maximum number of players, and I don't see Ashes as being a game that would prevent people attempting something with fewer people than recommended.
All your system needs to fuck up a siege is a SINGLE guild. You said they could even take siege several interests from the same guild, at which point the defending ally would just pick dudes from a single other defending ally.
And if bosses are in fact that easy, then all the other guilds can beat them as easily too, which means it comes down to prep and skill. If the defending alliance is truly so strong - cool, they'll keep the castle until the bosses are so damn strong that they take it.
Quite honestly, my guild of 30 - 50 players usually has 300+ characters capable of raiding if we are playing a game for more than a year. This really isn't a hard obsticle to overcome - and for a guild of 300, it is trivial.
And if the defending side puts in that much time to accomplish this - great. I'd probably address this by "bosses become X times stronger if their respective party didn't show up to the siege", so if the defending guild just used alts to fill out the slots - the attackers will have stronger bosses.
In the vein of asking questions that really don't need to be asked or answered, in your scenario, what happens if the defending guild manages to kill 30 of these encounters in a month?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you talking about the instanced bosses that let you join the siege attack?
I'm pretty sure I said they give nothing and drop nothing. They simply exist to put pressure on the defenders during the siege, because defenders already have the benefit of defending positions, so I'd prefer if attackers had a balancing tool.
Defenders can also make those bosses not as powerful by simply doing their job of leveling up castle nodes and using more taxes for the defenses. If the defending side manages to do all of that (which means repelling attacks of potentially 1/5 of the server) AND get their 15 guilds into the siege - great, they are so damn powerful that only the bosses themselves would be able to beat them. I'd be totally fine if the boss scaling gives the defenders 4 repetitive wins of the siege (so they keep the castle benefits for 6 months).
Also, I say this AGAIN, the declaration period only lasts ONE WEEK. And farming of the bosses would take place in the very first seconds of that week. And it would finish as soon as 16 guilds beat the bosses. That's it. There's no more bosses, no more declarations, none of that. It's the same "first come first serve" system as right now, it simply needs a different action to be taken, and this action prevents the most obvious damn abuse of the current system.
The potential imbalance of the forces is somewhat cleared by 15 attacking bosses,
That isn't how balance works.
Either sieges are balanced around a full attacking side and the bosses against a full defending side, or when this does happen the attacking side is going to stomp all over the defenders.
How is literally letting the defenders prevent other guilds from participating and instead anointing their own sub-guilds directly "addresses the issue"?
Who is suggesting that, because it sure isn't me...
All your system needs to fuck up a siege is a SINGLE guild.
This is factually incorrect.
Also, I say this AGAIN, the declaration period only lasts ONE WEEK..
When people are talking about ideas and shit, you don't get to make this argument.
If you do, then all I need to do to render your argument completely null and void is point out that there are no PvE raid encounters that people need to kill in order to be taken along on raids.
The thing is, I wouldn't do that - you are suggesting changes. Where some of your changes conflict with current systems, the logical assumption is that those systems also change - even if you have not explicitly said as much.
Either sieges are balanced around a full attacking side and the bosses against a full defending side, or when this does happen the attacking side is going to stomp all over the defenders.
We'll have to see how they design "balance" in sieges. Because by default the defending side always has the advantage, due to being in a defending position.
And like I said, the bosses themselves would be balanced by defender's prep, so it's not like they'll be immediately OP or let the attackers win instantly.
The only role the lead guild plays in a siege is in accepting expressions of interest from other guilds. It is something of a gatekeeper in some regards, but in a way where it needs to let through that gate the most capable, reliable players in order to make the siege have a chance.
When people are talking about ideas and shit, you don't get to make this argument.
If you do, then all I need to do to render your argument completely null and void is point out that there are no PvE raid encounters that people need to kill in order to be taken along on raids.
The thing is, I wouldn't do that - you are suggesting changes. Where some of your changes conflict with current systems, the logical assumption is that those systems also change - even if you have not explicitly said as much.
We've been talking about my idea and your idea. You asked me "in YOUR scenario...". I answered - my scenario changes nothing else but the registering part of the system.
It's you who brought the "logical assumption that everything else changes" - I never stated that. And if you're then trying to argue against my suggestion from the point of your own made up "logical assumptions" - that's on you, not on me.
I've been trying to understand your full suggestion and have been asking you questions about it, to have a fuller picture. So far you've said "Intrepid will have designers that will solve this", "you shouldn't care about this potential exploit of my system, cause someone else will solve it", "you should have blind faith in the Intrepid designers".
To me, that is an example of how not to discuss ideas and suggestions. I always propose my with the intention of getting holes poked into them by commenters. And those holes would not only provide me with a better understanding of what others think, but would also provide Intrepid with all the potential holes in their own planned designs.
Saying "just don't care about that for now, cause it'll get magically solved later" is poor form imo.
If you want to explain the way you came to those "logical assumption" from my suggestion - you're free to do so, and I'll respond to them by seeing what they mean for my suggestion or if they are in fact as logical as you seem to think them to be.
After seeing multiple pages of this and talking about pve. Pve needs to be kept out of sieges and it needs to just be a random selection of guilds like i had already said before, with the proper high resource sink / cost to dec and to own the castle.
After seeing multiple pages of this and talking about pve. Pve needs to be kept out of sieges and it needs to just be a random selection of guilds like i had already said before, with the proper high resource sink / cost to dec and to own the castle.
True. But we will be able to hire NPC guards.
Maybe those guards could be minotaurs?
After seeing multiple pages of this and talking about pve. Pve needs to be kept out of sieges and it needs to just be a random selection of guilds like i had already said before, with the proper high resource sink / cost to dec and to own the castle.
True. But we will be able to hire NPC guards.
Maybe those guards could be minotaurs?
What i mean as in needing to do all this pve stuff to even do the siege, not about if there are pve mobs helping in the siege.
After seeing multiple pages of this and talking about pve. Pve needs to be kept out of sieges and it needs to just be a random selection of guilds like i had already said before, with the proper high resource sink / cost to dec and to own the castle.
True. But we will be able to hire NPC guards.
Maybe those guards could be minotaurs?
What i mean as in needing to do all this pve stuff to even do the siege, not about if there are pve mobs helping in the siege.
Yes, I also prefer castle sieges to remain more on PvP side than moving toward PvX. At least that was my understanding about these activities since the very beginning.
But is fun to explore possibilities. Maybe they can be useful at some point.
After seeing multiple pages of this and talking about pve. Pve needs to be kept out of sieges and it needs to just be a random selection of guilds like i had already said before, with the proper high resource sink / cost to dec and to own the castle.
True. But we will be able to hire NPC guards.
Maybe those guards could be minotaurs?
What i mean as in needing to do all this pve stuff to even do the siege, not about if there are pve mobs helping in the siege.
Yes, I also prefer castle sieges to remain more on PvP side than moving toward PvX. At least that was my understanding about these activities since the very beginning.
But is fun to explore possibilities. Maybe they can be useful at some point.
No, castle sieges have been quite PvX from the start (in terms of information we had available about them, and the Alpha-1 tests).
If anything, they've had some PvE elements diminished or removed (probably not though, I'll bet those are still planned).
This is generally necessary because it's too easy to convince or pay people to 'throw matches' and 'boost a player's reward'. The game system needs to have something it can control. Ashes might be able to do it with just the world manager and Event spawns, but then, would they really feel like peak PvP/X content, since the stronger influence on the content won't be PvP skill of either of the main two kinds?
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
We'll have to see how they design "balance" in sieges. Because by default the defending side always has the advantage, due to being in a defending position.
And like I said, the bosses themselves would be balanced by defender's prep, so it's not like they'll be immediately OP or let the attackers win instantly.
By design, the Defenders will not have the advantage if they can't fulfill the Caravan runs that progress their 3 Military Nodes. Probably won't have the advantage if fail to progress 2 out of the 3.
By design, the Defenders will not have the advantage if they can't fulfill the Caravan runs that progress their 3 Military Nodes. Probably won't have the advantage if fail to progress 2 out of the 3.
I was talking about "everything else equal - the defenders have an advantage cause they're defending". It's been true for the entirety of human history and I'm still on this forum and not in a russian gulag because it is still true today.
Yes, Intrepid will give both sides some form of levers and tools to try and push the advantage towards their side, which the bosses that I suggested would be for the attackers
p.s. on other points - what Azherae said. I know FOR A FACT that gamers will optimize the fun out of sieges. They will abuse, exploit and pay their way to an uncontested siege every damn time. I want to minimize the number of those situations and make it as hard as possible to execute.
After seeing multiple pages of this and talking about pve. Pve needs to be kept out of sieges and it needs to just be a random selection of guilds like i had already said before, with the proper high resource sink / cost to dec and to own the castle.
True. But we will be able to hire NPC guards.
Maybe those guards could be minotaurs?
What i mean as in needing to do all this pve stuff to even do the siege, not about if there are pve mobs helping in the siege.
Yes, I also prefer castle sieges to remain more on PvP side than moving toward PvX. At least that was my understanding about these activities since the very beginning.
But is fun to explore possibilities. Maybe they can be useful at some point.
No, castle sieges have been quite PvX from the start (in terms of information we had available about them, and the Alpha-1 tests).
If anything, they've had some PvE elements diminished or removed (probably not though, I'll bet those are still planned).
This is generally necessary because it's too easy to convince or pay people to 'throw matches' and 'boost a player's reward'. The game system needs to have something it can control. Ashes might be able to do it with just the world manager and Event spawns, but then, would they really feel like peak PvP/X content, since the stronger influence on the content won't be PvP skill of either of the main two kinds?
I missed in the wiki that section about Alpha 1.
This zone includes the following raid bosses.[88]
Elder Dragon of Flame
Elder Dragon of the Tundra
Elder Dragon of the Wood
These bosses will also appear in the open-world (outside the siege zone) with slightly different mechanics.[15]
I was more aware of PvP being described as castle sieges, caravans, guild wars, naval combat...
I would prefer node sieges to be more PvX than castle sieges.
There's another part about mini-bosses on both sides btw. And it's from 2018. My suggestion has been there from the very start, but simply had another form.
Also, we got 0 fucking clue what are the requirements for the Scroll quest. There's a fairly high chance that you might need to fight mobs there, either for mats or just for "the quests says so".
There's another part about mini-bosses on both sides btw. And it's from 2018. My suggestion has been there from the very start, but simply had another form.
Also, we got 0 fucking clue what are the requirements for the Scroll quest. There's a fairly high chance that you might need to fight mobs there, either for mats or just for "the quests says so".
The time will come when we will know and miss these discussions.
Or we will push for changes and the release will be postponed more and more.
I hope players who buy cosmetics can get two votes.
but anyways, lets say that the discussion is about the level of oppression. again, what if it ssoo small that it doesn't matter? i think it would only matter if you could stop others from progressing (acquiring gear or leveling for example). which you could do in ways that don't involve owning a castle.
At this point, I would ask why this is a discussion you consider worth having.
It isn't as if anyone is saying this needs to change - it is just being stated as a point of fact.
I wanted to go there because I think you are confusing pression with oppression.
but we don't have to xd
We'll have to see how they design "balance" in sieges. Because by default the defending side always has the advantage, due to being in a defending position.
And like I said, the bosses themselves would be balanced by defender's prep, so it's not like they'll be immediately OP or let the attackers win instantly.
The thing to keep in mind with balance - there is always a target end result.
Adding these encounters to the siege on the attacking side doesn't alter the target end result - if Intrepid wants 25% of siege attacks to be successful, then they will balance sieges so that this is the case, with or without these encounters.
Where balance can be thrown though is in how many people are on each side. If the attackers have 250 and the defenders only have 200, that makes it much harder for the defenders, because the balance will be set at 250 per side (it has to be).
So, even with these encounters, being able to take up slots on the attacking side is an incredibly powerful move for the defenders.
Then what did you mean by "gatekeeper" here?
You are at the point where I have no idea at all what you are talking about.
Yes, the lead guild could well be a gatekeeper - however, my comment here was in relation to this being the defending guild. You said the defending guild could prevent others from participating, which is not true - the lead guild could, but not the defending guild.
You seem to be completely hung up on some false assumption that I can not as yet identify. This is likely due to you wanting to focus on unimportant details rather than taking in the whole picture. So, I'll state it again.
A lead guild is put in charge of organizing a siege.
That lead guild then sets interested parties off to kill specific raid encounters to assist in the siege, and those guilds that are successful then earn spots in the siege.
If the organization for the siege fails, the lead guild is prevented from being lead guild for 6 months.
From this point, every "issue" you have claimed to point out is in relation to a detail - specifically in relation to a developer opting for the worst possible implementation.
Ignore details for now, they can be filled in later. For now, look at the system as a whole. With the need to fill in a few details, the system eliminates castle owners from taking up slots in a siege on their castle by putting control of who is present in the hands of players - however it does this by opening up a politics based route for shenanigans which is (in my opinion).
It is worth pointing out that your suggestion also removes the notion of random players joining a castle siege, but opens them up to the attacker being easily able to take large portions of the attacking force with no real means for other players to stop this happening. The defending guild can also opt to kill which ever of the encounters they feel they can best defend against, making their defense even easier still (easier than if actual opposition filled the siege). It arguably makes it easier for the defender to eat up a portion of the siege
but anyways, lets say that the discussion is about the level of oppression. again, what if it ssoo small that it doesn't matter? i think it would only matter if you could stop others from progressing (acquiring gear or leveling for example). which you could do in ways that don't involve owning a castle.
At this point, I would ask why this is a discussion you consider worth having.
It isn't as if anyone is saying this needs to change - it is just being stated as a point of fact.
I wanted to go there because I think you are confusing pression with oppression.
but we don't have to xd
Right, so you wanted a semantic argument as to to the difference between pression and oppression, in relation to how far people in an online setting would go.
So, even with these encounters, being able to take up slots on the attacking side is an incredibly powerful move for the defenders.
And, as I keep saying, the counter to that is bosses becoming stronger, if the castle has been in the same hands for several sieges in a row. That's the feature that addresses the defending side blocking slots over and over again.
Yes, the lead guild could well be a gatekeeper - however, my comment here was in relation to this being the defending guild. You said the defending guild could prevent others from participating, which is not true - the lead guild could, but not the defending guild.
You say that I'm looking at the details too much and not seeing the big picture, while you've noticed my accidental slip up of saying "defending guild" instead of "defending side/sub-guild/ally" and have clung onto that.
I'll explain my argument again. In your suggestion the Lead guild can control who gets to join the siege, correct? If guild A is the owner of the castle, and is an outside-of-the-game megaguild - they'll have guilds A-1, A-2, A-etc.
All this guild A has to do is to ensure that A-1 get the Lead guild position. That's it. Now A-1 can appoint A-2 and all the other sub-guilds as the ones who'll be doing the siege, BECAUSE YOU GAVE THE LEAD GUILD THAT POWER.
The guild A group of sub-guilds wouldn't need to be strong enough to clear bosses. They wouldn't need to be right there at the start of the declaration period to be the first ones to beat the bosses. Hell, they wouldn't even need to be in different sub-guilds, because you said that multiple siege interests can be taken from one guild.
You have literally given players the ability to prevent others from participating, but you did so not through "we did this first so you can no longer do it" (as the current and my proposed systems do) but through "I have the power to choose, and I chose not to let you in".
Ignore details for now, they can be filled in later. For now, look at the system as a whole. With the need to fill in a few details, the system eliminates castle owners from taking up slots in a siege on their castle by putting control of who is present in the hands of players - however it does this by opening up a politics based route for shenanigans which is (in my opinion).
I've been looking at the system as a whole and have told you several times how it will be abused. You have disregarded my claims as "unimportant details" and have completely refused to acknowledge them.
Again, I post my ideas for other people to poke holes in them, so we can collectively come to a better design. I poke holes in other suggestions for the same reason. You obviously don't post for the same reasons as me, and when some holes are poked in your ideas you just say "that shit is not important and designers will solve it SOMEHOW, that I don't know how" (or maybe you simply refuse to reciprocate my desire to have an in-depth conversation about these ideas).
You're quite similar to Mag in this current context, and it's no wonder that he has liked a few of your comments in this thread. Both he and you (at least in this topic) refuse to go deeper into a discussion by claiming that EVERGENIUS DESIGNERS will solve it all and it's pointless to even discuss things.
I disagree, which is why I've been discussing everything in as much detail as I can, and why I've been asking questions to get to the bottom of those details and design ideas.
It is worth pointing out that your suggestion also removes the notion of random players joining a castle siege, but opens them up to the attacker being easily able to take large portions of the attacking force with no real means for other players to stop this happening.
It's very easy to stop this. Do better than the defending alliance. That's it. Be better prepared, be more skilled/geared/coordinated - and you'll win. There's no one stopping ANY guild on the server, from joining the castle siege, but themselves. In your suggestion there's literally a guild of people doing that.
The defending guild can also opt to kill which ever of the encounters they feel they can best defend against, making their defense even easier still (easier than if actual opposition filled the siege). It arguably makes it easier for the defender to eat up a portion of the siege
Funny that you yourself used "defending guild" here instead of any other term for the greater body of players representing the defending guild
But yes, the defending alliance would definitely choose the bosses that they deem "the easiest". And this particular part of the suggestion I'll definitely leave to the Intrepid designers, simply because I'm already too tired of trying to explain my point to everyone, while some are either ignoring the issue or don't believe it's even an issue or don't interact the idea itself - so even if I could come up with dozens of bosses and info mechanics (like the attackers all knowing who chose which boss before the siege starts), and all the other stuff that would address this particular abuse of the system, but I'll leave this to the devs, cause it's obvious that you've left your own suggestion for them to fix.
So, even with these encounters, being able to take up slots on the attacking side is an incredibly powerful move for the defenders.
And, as I keep saying, the counter to that is bosses becoming stronger, if the castle has been in the same hands for several sieges in a row. That's the feature that addresses the defending side blocking slots over and over again.
And since you have done nothing at all to stop the defending side from participating in the attack, the counter to your counter is that the defending side will simply siege their own castle and take it over with their other guild, resetting this difficulty scaling.
You say that I'm looking at the details too much and not seeing the big picture, while you've noticed my accidental slip up of saying "defending guild" instead of "defending side/sub-guild/ally" and have clung onto that.
No, just like you I am considering the term "defending guild" to include any and all sub guilds and allied guilds.
What I am saying is that none of those guilds would be able to be the lead guild without the guild being in near total control.
All this guild A has to do is to ensure that A-1 get the Lead guild position.
This is the part where your thought process falls apart. It isn't hard to make this something that is not able to be "ensured". It could still be possible, with a lot of work, but not "ensured".
The simple way (in terms ot idea, not implementation) to make this something that can't be ensured is to make the selection process for lead guilds something that is also in the hands of players - a vote by node officials (mayors, patron guild leaders, religion leaders, social organization leaders etc) either in every node that is under the influence of that castle, or potentially every node on the server. This has the added ramifications of there being occasional situations where the winner of a mayoral competition in some random tier 3 node could tip the balance of votes for a caslte siege, and alter the direction of the entire server. It is also something that is all but impossible for anything other than the largest of guilds to be able to ensure will go the way they want.
I've been looking at the system as a whole and have told you several times how it will be abused. You have disregarded my claims as "unimportant details" and have completely refused to acknowledge them.
That is because your concerns have all relied on the notion that the defending guild could also somewhat easily be the lead guild.
Yeah, I'm dismissing any such issues as being not applicable.
And since you have done nothing at all to stop the defending side from participating in the attack, the counter to your counter is that the defending side will simply siege their own castle and take it over with their other guild, resetting this difficulty scaling.
This would be on players to combat because this would be nearly impossible to prevent, unless we go with Lead guild system where only that guild can take the castle and the suggestion below to minimize the chances that the Lead guild is a defender ally.
The simple way (in terms ot idea, not implementation) to make this something that can't be ensured is to make the selection process for lead guilds something that is also in the hands of players - a vote by node officials (mayors, patron guild leaders, religion leaders, social organization leaders etc) either in every node that is under the influence of that castle, or potentially every node on the server. This has the added ramifications of there being occasional situations where the winner of a mayoral competition in some random tier 3 node could tip the balance of votes for a caslte siege, and alter the direction of the entire server. It is also something that is all but impossible for anything other than the largest of guilds to be able to ensure will go the way they want.
And was it so hard to simply say this^ instead of this \/?
Well, you still haven't presented how exactly you foresee these Lead guilds to be chosen, so it's difficult to evaluate how well either of those scenarios can go down.
The method of how a guild becomes the lead guild is less important (as in - totally unimportant) as the methods by which a guild can be excluded from being this lead guild.
The only point that matters is that the lead guild needs to have invested time or resources in to attain this position.
If others are fine with a democratic vote for who should be the lead guild during a siege - I'd be totally fine with having a Lead guild system for sieges.
If only you had not dismissed my questions for details and had instead just presented your suggestion in full. We could've skipped the 2 pages of useless back&forth
I can't read minds and I'm not an omnipotent being that holds all the possible knowledge in its head. Democratic voting for that position didn't even pop into my mind throughout all this time, which is exactly why I asked the question and why I keep asking questions on different topics.
I would still prefer if castle ownership didn't give a massive snowball to the owners, but then the snowball itself would highly depend on experiential data from people participating in the entire system. There's always a chance that the owner guild is so good that they're let to remain in control for years, but we'd need more info on the things that guild would need to provide to the citizens for them to always be completely satisfied with their lords.
And was it so hard to simply say this^ instead of this \/?
There are a number of ways of doing it that I was thinking over. I wanted to exclude other options before deciding on which one I considered better.
I knew there were ways to ensure the lead guild wasn't the defender or a sub/ally guild of the defender, which is why I said the details of how were unimportant. It was a function that was able to be achieved, and so discussion on the whole need not be hung up on that one detail.
The fact that you didn't listen to that and instead decided to get hung up on what you were told was an unimportant detail is why we have had these two pages of back and forth.
Regardless, with all of the above in mind, I assume you are somewhat more positive to the minor alterations I've suggested to your foundation idea in the OP.
The main variable I have in my head in relation to the whole suggestion is in regards to who gets to vote on the lead guild.
There is an argument that it could just be those in the castles economic area, as they are the ones that are most affected by the actions of the castle owning guild. If they are happy with how things are being run, they may well vote for no lead guild.
On the other hand, there is the game design based desire for outside invaders to come in and take over the castle, which would not at all consider the local populations desires.
I knew there were ways to ensure the lead guild wasn't the defender or a sub/ally guild of the defender, which is why I said the details of how were unimportant. It was a function that was able to be achieved, and so discussion on the whole need not be hung up on that one detail.
This is exactly why people go into arguments with you quite often. You come up with some kind of answer in your head, but then not only don't share that answer, but explicitly state that the answer is not important or that you don't want to explain it.
Except that when people want an answer from someone (usually indicated by them asking a question), but instead they get a "it's not important, so I won't tell you" - they immediately think that the responder is either avoiding the topic on purpose (which usually brings up more questions) or simply doesn't know the answer but doesn't want to show it (which usually brings up doubts in the responder's abilities).
So saying stuff like "disregard the thing you wanna know, because I just told you to disregard it" has the exact opposite effect of what you want it to have. You obviously have too big of an ego to care about "doubt about your abilities", so instead you either get hate for these kinds of responses or get more questions, that you then continue to ignore, which inevitably leads to hate, because the other side of the discussion gets tired/annoyed of trying to pry the answer out of you. I'm too dumb, stubborn and naïve to usually just stop as soon as I see that my questions are being ignored, which is why I keep pushing until I'm completely exhausted or I finally get the answer.
Regardless, with all of the above in mind, I assume you are somewhat more positive to the minor alterations I've suggested to your foundation idea in the OP..
I'd prefer to test out both systems throughout a prolonged period of time, but I'm 99% sure that Intrepid won't give a single flying fuck about either of our ideas, so we ain't testing shit.
But yes, I now understand the reasoning and the limitation of abuse in your suggestion, which makes me think about it in a much better light. I still prefer my suggestion cause I love equal opportunity for the people, but if something very similar to your idea was implemented I won't be against it (as long as it's supported by democratic voting of the royal subjects).
There is an argument that it could just be those in the castles economic area, as they are the ones that are most affected by the actions of the castle owning guild. If they are happy with how things are being run, they may well vote for no lead guild.
On the other hand, there is the game design based desire for outside invaders to come in and take over the castle, which would not at all consider the local populations desires.
Both can be addressed by the local populous. The outside guild would simply need to promote themselves as the "best replacement". This would all be the best kind of political fun that I'd love.
But as I said, I'd need to see what kind of things, in practice, the castle owners need to do to keep the support of their subjects up. Is it big investments in nodes? Is it protection from any kind of pvp/pk/invasion? Is it timely addressing of big pve problems? Is it sharing of boss spoils or particular directions of storylines? Etc etc etc. None of those are known, so it's difficult to say how likely it is that the owners won't just be kept in the castle permanently, which would mean that they'll get insane bonuses to their rewards.
Except that when people want an answer from someone (usually indicated by them asking a question), but instead they get a "it's not important, so I won't tell you" - they immediately think that the responder is either avoiding the topic on purpose (which usually brings up more questions) or simply doesn't know the answer but doesn't want to show it (which usually brings up doubts in the responder's abilities).
Sure, in many cases this is true.
You should know by now though, after years of discussion, that the above rarely if ever applies to me. If I am not giving an answer it is for one of three reasons (all of which you know and have seen), I am baiting the other poster in to their false assumption as far as I can get before I bring in the obvious answer, the answer is easily available via either research or general knowledge on the topic and I want the other poster to find it themselves, or I am still working through a few options that could all answer the question at hand.
I'd prefer to test out both systems throughout a prolonged period of time, but I'm 99% sure that Intrepid won't give a single flying fuck about either of our ideas, so we ain't testing shit.
Of course they won't.
Both suggestions take options away from the leader of the guild that owns the castle, and since that is the position Steven thinks he would be in, that is the perspective the game is being designed for. If the suggestion was that the leader of the guild that owned the castle could nominate the lead guild - or even better name each of the participants in the attacking siege - I'd expect to have Stevens attention.
or I am still working through a few options that could all answer the question at hand.
Don't think I've ever seen this directly stated as you did in here. Even when you don't interact with a thread for a long time, you usually say "I wanted to see what others say" rather than "I was thinking about the best answer".
Baiting and research is great, but not when we're talking about made up ideas. Well, at least when I'm talking about them, cause if I come up with something - I haven't experienced it before, hence why I "came up with it" rather than simply give an example from some other game.
And if I see another idea (or a change/suggestion for mine) and it's not presented as "this game did it this way" - I'll think that the person has also come up with something, rather than taking an example from somewhere (cause imo not saying that it's an example is just poor form of communication).
And, as I said, I can't read minds, so when I see an idea that I got no clue the details of - I'll ask questions about it. Those question can be answered in all kinds of ways, from "I'm thinking about the best way to form it" to "I just took it from this piece of media", and everything in-between. "It's not important" is the least productive of those possible answers
So from now on I'll try to remember that this third option exists.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This would be on players to combat because this would be nearly impossible to prevent, unless we go with Lead guild system where only that guild can take the castle and the suggestion below to minimize the chances that the Lead guild is a defender ally.
How would players know that it's an (out-of-game) sub-guild attacking the Castle?
Comments
Like I keep telling Mag, when he mistakes the 2 designs, I say here again, node sieges and castle sieges are different things.
But node sieges are also the biggest example of "the losers don't always have a penalty for simply losing". The same would apply to attackers in caravans (gear decay is nowhere near comparable to a proper penalty, let alone what the defenders stand to lose). We don't know the extent of guild war losses, as compared to the cost of declaring them, and same with node wars. There's also monster coin events, where the player-mobs have a siege-like goal, but I'd assume they can be stopped from achieving it, which would mean they "lose", but we got no idea what that loss entails.
In other words, no, Ashes is not a game where "losers are always penalized", especially when it comes to pvp events. I think that's the entire damn point of said events. Steven wants people to want to pvp on both sides, so penalizing someone who's already lost would strongly dissuade people from even participating.
Declaration period is only the week before the siege itself, not a month. But I'm assuming you're suggesting it be a month instead here. So the declaration period would then also be a month.
Or are you, at this point, suggesting an entire system rework for how the sieges are set up?
I asked about members because a guild could be dissolved and remade by the same people and the 6 months wouldn't matter one bit.
And it exactly because I'm thinking "what a good designer would do", that I said "I assume you're implying that all members of the guild will be penalized".
I never said it was possible to completely prevent. The literal OP says so from the start.
I gave my suggestion there as well. A system where the defending side would need to have 15 40-member guilds, who can all clear a raid (and that's if the sieges are 250- per side). They would need to do those raids before any other guild can as well, because it would still be a first come first serve system. If they use the guilds that could've been used in defense - the bosses fuck them up (and I later even suggested the possibility of npcs taking back the castle). If the castle nodes weren't built up (because the defending guild were super sure they'd have the slots) - the bosses would fuck it up even harder. And if the scheme was repeated several times - there's a multiplier on the bosses' strength, so defense is yet harder still.
But all of that still only matters if the defending guild has a dozen fully built sub-guilds, none of which are on the defense side. And then, if this is the case - this fractured mega guild is now easier to be dealt with in the other parts of the game, because mass pvp is now harder for them (friendly fire and all that).
And NONE of that would be required in your suggestion. The defending guild simply pays/does whatever it needs to get the Lead guild slot and then doesn't let anyone through. The bosses don't get killed, so they don't spawn. And the defending guild doesn't even need to fracture itself into pieces to exploit the system.
I guess if instead of the siege failing, when no guild qualifies for it, the attacking side could be completely filled by those bosses and they'll wreak havoc on the castle (and again, ideally take it back to npcs, if they "win"). But you didn't suggest this, so I didn't assume that this was part of your suggestion.
But my suggestion already included this feature, so I would still see 0 damn point in letting players dictate who can and cannot join a siege.
If they can get 2 such raids together, they can imbalance the attackers by 32 slots. If they can get 3, that is 48 slots. This is something that is quite trivial, and so is reasonable to assume every defending guild could achieve, and eliminates almost 20% of the attacking force.
Your suggestion - while a good base - had nothing at all to prevent castle defenders from imbalancing an attacking force.
As you point out, you even said as much.
That is what my alteration to your suggestion was intended to address. With those alterations, the only reasonable way a castle defender can influence the attacking side is via politics.
It would be easier to completely eliminate a siege using your system than mine, as all yours needs is 600 characters. That said, I would wager quite happily that all it would really need is 300, because I've yet to see an encounter for a game system like this that actual skilled players can't kill with half the maximum number of players, and I don't see Ashes as being a game that would prevent people attempting something with fewer people than recommended.
Quite honestly, my guild of 30 - 50 players usually has 300+ characters capable of raiding if we are playing a game for more than a year. This really isn't a hard obsticle to overcome - and for a guild of 300, it is trivial.
In the vein of asking questions that really don't need to be asked or answered, in your scenario, what happens if the defending guild manages to kill 30 of these encounters in a month?
I think the wiki refers to that as a competition form. if my taxes are lower, people are going to use my stations, not yours. its like when companies compete against each other for customers or workers...they arent pressing anyne.
but anyways, lets say that the discussion is about the level of oppression. again, what if it ssoo small that it doesn't matter? i think it would only matter if you could stop others from progressing (acquiring gear or leveling for example). which you could do in ways that don't involve owning a castle.
At this point, I would ask why this is a discussion you consider worth having.
It isn't as if anyone is saying this needs to change - it is just being stated as a point of fact.
And, as I keep saying, if the defenders are successful in their defense - the bosses get stronger each siege.
How is literally letting the defenders prevent other guilds from participating and instead anointing their own sub-guilds directly "addresses the issue"?
All your system needs to fuck up a siege is a SINGLE guild. You said they could even take siege several interests from the same guild, at which point the defending ally would just pick dudes from a single other defending ally.
And if bosses are in fact that easy, then all the other guilds can beat them as easily too, which means it comes down to prep and skill. If the defending alliance is truly so strong - cool, they'll keep the castle until the bosses are so damn strong that they take it.
And if the defending side puts in that much time to accomplish this - great. I'd probably address this by "bosses become X times stronger if their respective party didn't show up to the siege", so if the defending guild just used alts to fill out the slots - the attackers will have stronger bosses.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you talking about the instanced bosses that let you join the siege attack?
I'm pretty sure I said they give nothing and drop nothing. They simply exist to put pressure on the defenders during the siege, because defenders already have the benefit of defending positions, so I'd prefer if attackers had a balancing tool.
Defenders can also make those bosses not as powerful by simply doing their job of leveling up castle nodes and using more taxes for the defenses. If the defending side manages to do all of that (which means repelling attacks of potentially 1/5 of the server) AND get their 15 guilds into the siege - great, they are so damn powerful that only the bosses themselves would be able to beat them. I'd be totally fine if the boss scaling gives the defenders 4 repetitive wins of the siege (so they keep the castle benefits for 6 months).
Also, I say this AGAIN, the declaration period only lasts ONE WEEK. And farming of the bosses would take place in the very first seconds of that week. And it would finish as soon as 16 guilds beat the bosses. That's it. There's no more bosses, no more declarations, none of that. It's the same "first come first serve" system as right now, it simply needs a different action to be taken, and this action prevents the most obvious damn abuse of the current system.
Either sieges are balanced around a full attacking side and the bosses against a full defending side, or when this does happen the attacking side is going to stomp all over the defenders. Who is suggesting that, because it sure isn't me... This is factually incorrect. When people are talking about ideas and shit, you don't get to make this argument.
If you do, then all I need to do to render your argument completely null and void is point out that there are no PvE raid encounters that people need to kill in order to be taken along on raids.
The thing is, I wouldn't do that - you are suggesting changes. Where some of your changes conflict with current systems, the logical assumption is that those systems also change - even if you have not explicitly said as much.
And like I said, the bosses themselves would be balanced by defender's prep, so it's not like they'll be immediately OP or let the attackers win instantly.
Then what did you mean by "gatekeeper" here? If the Lead guild is not a "gatekeeper" then what is its function? And if it's not a single Lead guild, then why haven't you said so previously?
We've been talking about my idea and your idea. You asked me "in YOUR scenario...". I answered - my scenario changes nothing else but the registering part of the system.
It's you who brought the "logical assumption that everything else changes" - I never stated that. And if you're then trying to argue against my suggestion from the point of your own made up "logical assumptions" - that's on you, not on me.
I've been trying to understand your full suggestion and have been asking you questions about it, to have a fuller picture. So far you've said "Intrepid will have designers that will solve this", "you shouldn't care about this potential exploit of my system, cause someone else will solve it", "you should have blind faith in the Intrepid designers".
To me, that is an example of how not to discuss ideas and suggestions. I always propose my with the intention of getting holes poked into them by commenters. And those holes would not only provide me with a better understanding of what others think, but would also provide Intrepid with all the potential holes in their own planned designs.
Saying "just don't care about that for now, cause it'll get magically solved later" is poor form imo.
If you want to explain the way you came to those "logical assumption" from my suggestion - you're free to do so, and I'll respond to them by seeing what they mean for my suggestion or if they are in fact as logical as you seem to think them to be.
True. But we will be able to hire NPC guards.
Maybe those guards could be minotaurs?
What i mean as in needing to do all this pve stuff to even do the siege, not about if there are pve mobs helping in the siege.
Yes, I also prefer castle sieges to remain more on PvP side than moving toward PvX. At least that was my understanding about these activities since the very beginning.
But is fun to explore possibilities. Maybe they can be useful at some point.
No, castle sieges have been quite PvX from the start (in terms of information we had available about them, and the Alpha-1 tests).
If anything, they've had some PvE elements diminished or removed (probably not though, I'll bet those are still planned).
This is generally necessary because it's too easy to convince or pay people to 'throw matches' and 'boost a player's reward'. The game system needs to have something it can control. Ashes might be able to do it with just the world manager and Event spawns, but then, would they really feel like peak PvP/X content, since the stronger influence on the content won't be PvP skill of either of the main two kinds?
Yes, Intrepid will give both sides some form of levers and tools to try and push the advantage towards their side, which the bosses that I suggested would be for the attackers
p.s. on other points - what Azherae said. I know FOR A FACT that gamers will optimize the fun out of sieges. They will abuse, exploit and pay their way to an uncontested siege every damn time. I want to minimize the number of those situations and make it as hard as possible to execute.
I missed in the wiki that section about Alpha 1.
This zone includes the following raid bosses.[88]
Elder Dragon of Flame
Elder Dragon of the Tundra
Elder Dragon of the Wood
These bosses will also appear in the open-world (outside the siege zone) with slightly different mechanics.[15]
I was more aware of PvP being described as castle sieges, caravans, guild wars, naval combat...
I would prefer node sieges to be more PvX than castle sieges.
Also, we got 0 fucking clue what are the requirements for the Scroll quest. There's a fairly high chance that you might need to fight mobs there, either for mats or just for "the quests says so".
The time will come when we will know and miss these discussions.
Or we will push for changes and the release will be postponed more and more.
I hope players who buy cosmetics can get two votes.
I wanted to go there because I think you are confusing pression with oppression.
but we don't have to xd
Adding these encounters to the siege on the attacking side doesn't alter the target end result - if Intrepid wants 25% of siege attacks to be successful, then they will balance sieges so that this is the case, with or without these encounters.
Where balance can be thrown though is in how many people are on each side. If the attackers have 250 and the defenders only have 200, that makes it much harder for the defenders, because the balance will be set at 250 per side (it has to be).
So, even with these encounters, being able to take up slots on the attacking side is an incredibly powerful move for the defenders. You are at the point where I have no idea at all what you are talking about.
Yes, the lead guild could well be a gatekeeper - however, my comment here was in relation to this being the defending guild. You said the defending guild could prevent others from participating, which is not true - the lead guild could, but not the defending guild.
You seem to be completely hung up on some false assumption that I can not as yet identify. This is likely due to you wanting to focus on unimportant details rather than taking in the whole picture. So, I'll state it again.
A lead guild is put in charge of organizing a siege.
That lead guild then sets interested parties off to kill specific raid encounters to assist in the siege, and those guilds that are successful then earn spots in the siege.
If the organization for the siege fails, the lead guild is prevented from being lead guild for 6 months.
From this point, every "issue" you have claimed to point out is in relation to a detail - specifically in relation to a developer opting for the worst possible implementation.
Ignore details for now, they can be filled in later. For now, look at the system as a whole. With the need to fill in a few details, the system eliminates castle owners from taking up slots in a siege on their castle by putting control of who is present in the hands of players - however it does this by opening up a politics based route for shenanigans which is (in my opinion).
It is worth pointing out that your suggestion also removes the notion of random players joining a castle siege, but opens them up to the attacker being easily able to take large portions of the attacking force with no real means for other players to stop this happening. The defending guild can also opt to kill which ever of the encounters they feel they can best defend against, making their defense even easier still (easier than if actual opposition filled the siege). It arguably makes it easier for the defender to eat up a portion of the siege
Right, so you wanted a semantic argument as to to the difference between pression and oppression, in relation to how far people in an online setting would go.
Nope, I'll pass.
You say that I'm looking at the details too much and not seeing the big picture, while you've noticed my accidental slip up of saying "defending guild" instead of "defending side/sub-guild/ally" and have clung onto that.
I'll explain my argument again. In your suggestion the Lead guild can control who gets to join the siege, correct? If guild A is the owner of the castle, and is an outside-of-the-game megaguild - they'll have guilds A-1, A-2, A-etc.
All this guild A has to do is to ensure that A-1 get the Lead guild position. That's it. Now A-1 can appoint A-2 and all the other sub-guilds as the ones who'll be doing the siege, BECAUSE YOU GAVE THE LEAD GUILD THAT POWER.
The guild A group of sub-guilds wouldn't need to be strong enough to clear bosses. They wouldn't need to be right there at the start of the declaration period to be the first ones to beat the bosses. Hell, they wouldn't even need to be in different sub-guilds, because you said that multiple siege interests can be taken from one guild.
You have literally given players the ability to prevent others from participating, but you did so not through "we did this first so you can no longer do it" (as the current and my proposed systems do) but through "I have the power to choose, and I chose not to let you in".
I've been looking at the system as a whole and have told you several times how it will be abused. You have disregarded my claims as "unimportant details" and have completely refused to acknowledge them.
Again, I post my ideas for other people to poke holes in them, so we can collectively come to a better design. I poke holes in other suggestions for the same reason. You obviously don't post for the same reasons as me, and when some holes are poked in your ideas you just say "that shit is not important and designers will solve it SOMEHOW, that I don't know how" (or maybe you simply refuse to reciprocate my desire to have an in-depth conversation about these ideas).
You're quite similar to Mag in this current context, and it's no wonder that he has liked a few of your comments in this thread. Both he and you (at least in this topic) refuse to go deeper into a discussion by claiming that EVERGENIUS DESIGNERS will solve it all and it's pointless to even discuss things.
I disagree, which is why I've been discussing everything in as much detail as I can, and why I've been asking questions to get to the bottom of those details and design ideas.
It's very easy to stop this. Do better than the defending alliance. That's it. Be better prepared, be more skilled/geared/coordinated - and you'll win. There's no one stopping ANY guild on the server, from joining the castle siege, but themselves. In your suggestion there's literally a guild of people doing that.
Funny that you yourself used "defending guild" here instead of any other term for the greater body of players representing the defending guild
But yes, the defending alliance would definitely choose the bosses that they deem "the easiest". And this particular part of the suggestion I'll definitely leave to the Intrepid designers, simply because I'm already too tired of trying to explain my point to everyone, while some are either ignoring the issue or don't believe it's even an issue or don't interact the idea itself - so even if I could come up with dozens of bosses and info mechanics (like the attackers all knowing who chose which boss before the siege starts), and all the other stuff that would address this particular abuse of the system, but I'll leave this to the devs, cause it's obvious that you've left your own suggestion for them to fix.
What I am saying is that none of those guilds would be able to be the lead guild without the guild being in near total control.
This is the part where your thought process falls apart. It isn't hard to make this something that is not able to be "ensured". It could still be possible, with a lot of work, but not "ensured".
The simple way (in terms ot idea, not implementation) to make this something that can't be ensured is to make the selection process for lead guilds something that is also in the hands of players - a vote by node officials (mayors, patron guild leaders, religion leaders, social organization leaders etc) either in every node that is under the influence of that castle, or potentially every node on the server. This has the added ramifications of there being occasional situations where the winner of a mayoral competition in some random tier 3 node could tip the balance of votes for a caslte siege, and alter the direction of the entire server. It is also something that is all but impossible for anything other than the largest of guilds to be able to ensure will go the way they want.
That is because your concerns have all relied on the notion that the defending guild could also somewhat easily be the lead guild.
Yeah, I'm dismissing any such issues as being not applicable.
And was it so hard to simply say this^ instead of this \/?
If others are fine with a democratic vote for who should be the lead guild during a siege - I'd be totally fine with having a Lead guild system for sieges.
If only you had not dismissed my questions for details and had instead just presented your suggestion in full. We could've skipped the 2 pages of useless back&forth
I can't read minds and I'm not an omnipotent being that holds all the possible knowledge in its head. Democratic voting for that position didn't even pop into my mind throughout all this time, which is exactly why I asked the question and why I keep asking questions on different topics.
I would still prefer if castle ownership didn't give a massive snowball to the owners, but then the snowball itself would highly depend on experiential data from people participating in the entire system. There's always a chance that the owner guild is so good that they're let to remain in control for years, but we'd need more info on the things that guild would need to provide to the citizens for them to always be completely satisfied with their lords.
I knew there were ways to ensure the lead guild wasn't the defender or a sub/ally guild of the defender, which is why I said the details of how were unimportant. It was a function that was able to be achieved, and so discussion on the whole need not be hung up on that one detail.
The fact that you didn't listen to that and instead decided to get hung up on what you were told was an unimportant detail is why we have had these two pages of back and forth.
Regardless, with all of the above in mind, I assume you are somewhat more positive to the minor alterations I've suggested to your foundation idea in the OP.
The main variable I have in my head in relation to the whole suggestion is in regards to who gets to vote on the lead guild.
There is an argument that it could just be those in the castles economic area, as they are the ones that are most affected by the actions of the castle owning guild. If they are happy with how things are being run, they may well vote for no lead guild.
On the other hand, there is the game design based desire for outside invaders to come in and take over the castle, which would not at all consider the local populations desires.
Except that when people want an answer from someone (usually indicated by them asking a question), but instead they get a "it's not important, so I won't tell you" - they immediately think that the responder is either avoiding the topic on purpose (which usually brings up more questions) or simply doesn't know the answer but doesn't want to show it (which usually brings up doubts in the responder's abilities).
So saying stuff like "disregard the thing you wanna know, because I just told you to disregard it" has the exact opposite effect of what you want it to have. You obviously have too big of an ego to care about "doubt about your abilities", so instead you either get hate for these kinds of responses or get more questions, that you then continue to ignore, which inevitably leads to hate, because the other side of the discussion gets tired/annoyed of trying to pry the answer out of you. I'm too dumb, stubborn and naïve to usually just stop as soon as I see that my questions are being ignored, which is why I keep pushing until I'm completely exhausted or I finally get the answer.
In this case I at least got the answer.
I'd prefer to test out both systems throughout a prolonged period of time, but I'm 99% sure that Intrepid won't give a single flying fuck about either of our ideas, so we ain't testing shit.
But yes, I now understand the reasoning and the limitation of abuse in your suggestion, which makes me think about it in a much better light. I still prefer my suggestion cause I love equal opportunity for the people, but if something very similar to your idea was implemented I won't be against it (as long as it's supported by democratic voting of the royal subjects).
But as I said, I'd need to see what kind of things, in practice, the castle owners need to do to keep the support of their subjects up. Is it big investments in nodes? Is it protection from any kind of pvp/pk/invasion? Is it timely addressing of big pve problems? Is it sharing of boss spoils or particular directions of storylines? Etc etc etc. None of those are known, so it's difficult to say how likely it is that the owners won't just be kept in the castle permanently, which would mean that they'll get insane bonuses to their rewards.
You should know by now though, after years of discussion, that the above rarely if ever applies to me. If I am not giving an answer it is for one of three reasons (all of which you know and have seen), I am baiting the other poster in to their false assumption as far as I can get before I bring in the obvious answer, the answer is easily available via either research or general knowledge on the topic and I want the other poster to find it themselves, or I am still working through a few options that could all answer the question at hand. Of course they won't.
Both suggestions take options away from the leader of the guild that owns the castle, and since that is the position Steven thinks he would be in, that is the perspective the game is being designed for. If the suggestion was that the leader of the guild that owned the castle could nominate the lead guild - or even better name each of the participants in the attacking siege - I'd expect to have Stevens attention.
Baiting and research is great, but not when we're talking about made up ideas. Well, at least when I'm talking about them, cause if I come up with something - I haven't experienced it before, hence why I "came up with it" rather than simply give an example from some other game.
And if I see another idea (or a change/suggestion for mine) and it's not presented as "this game did it this way" - I'll think that the person has also come up with something, rather than taking an example from somewhere (cause imo not saying that it's an example is just poor form of communication).
And, as I said, I can't read minds, so when I see an idea that I got no clue the details of - I'll ask questions about it. Those question can be answered in all kinds of ways, from "I'm thinking about the best way to form it" to "I just took it from this piece of media", and everything in-between. "It's not important" is the least productive of those possible answers
So from now on I'll try to remember that this third option exists.