Lack of offline protection will cost the game

[ElPerro]

There was a way to use Elementalist Magic to get over walls( They removed it after 1 siege). It basically work as ladder... it make you go over the wall and that it but let me tell you why they removed it.

They removed this 'Claiming wall Mechanic" which was probably not even intended, because people get siege by the inside. Another guild will get into your walls and if nobody notice and even if they notice 1 or 2 guys and kill them. If the the guild get like 20 people logg off into your walls all ready to siege... well your fuck mate, you cant even get out to defend, you cant do shit basically. It just give no chance for the defender if the attacker is wise.

People have probably use it more than I think but it get removed shortly after PYRE get siege by RPK by the inside and stole all the relics.

Your body stays in the world now if you dont log in an inn or your own house, like rust. Nobody wants 50 koto logged out inside their keep mate.

And as long as mounts dont tele thru walls and theres a strict weight limit for ladders, it will be imposible to siege from the inside, only be able to raid for pvp.

 

[MolagAmur]

The simple solution to prevent people from sieging from the inside is to not allow the construction of siege weapons inside the walls unless you are in the guild that owns the territory. They already have the radius system in MO1 with the TC. It would be easy to code. Once there is a hole in the walls surrounding the keep, then there is no longer a restriction.

Imagine there in an invisible red circle thats the diameter of the keep walls. Once the wall has a hole in it the invisible circle turns green and you can now construct on it. Easy

This would make raiding with ladders effective.

 

[Grack]

I know henrik talked about how he didn't want timed windows, and how he thinks guards will be good enough. I'm going to go on record and say the AI is potato quality and in no way will be agile enough to provide sufficient protection against off line raids. Players don't want to go to sleep one night, and wake up the next to nothing. Look how that turned out for games like Atlas/LO. I'm not sure what the solution is outside of siege windows and the like, but the lack of offline protection and the hope that clumsily put together AI is not the solution or the answer to having a long term sustainable population.

Back in the day when it came to big sieges you almost always knew roughly. You needed time to prep, that looks obvious when you start to see alot of activity in your area with trasport animals and a bunch of enemies floating around. You normally knew you had pissed somebody off so it normally wasn't a big surprise. Guilds with assets normally have defense pacts and allies, so to attack you need friends as well. The more people you try to recruit into your siege the more likely word gets out and you tip off the people you're trying to siege.

Once you know its coming most guilds with anything worth losing have members from around the world with quick access to phone numbers and alerts systems, so once it starts everybody knows asap. If you're not a big group you will always be vunerable to the big groups regardsless if you're online or not, so normally if you want assets you have many friends or agreements in which case a bigger friend will be there to defend you.

These things tend to work out natrually.

(edit) In my experience the siege isn't the thing that actually kills you, its the actions you took and the deals you made before the fight is at your door that seals your fate. Most groups try to avoid throwing rocks because they know once it starts sooner or later all those people they took from will be ready to be at their own door the second they have enemies who can do so. You beat 5 guilds with 10 players down to the ground when a bigger guild your size starts throwing rocks they suddenly find themselves with 50 willing volunteers only wanting revenge for payment.

So again in this way you sorta see it coming usually.

 

[Eldrath]

There was a topic covering this exact sentiment.

Should Mortal Online 2 Have "Siege Windows"?

A "siege window" refers to a set period of time when a player or guild's assets are vulnerable. Outside of this vulnerability window, those houses or keeps or whatnot are unable to be sieged. It's an idea that plenty of other games have used (Darkfall, Gloria Victus, Eve, Shadowbane, etc) and...

www.mortalonline2.com

IMO they should enhance the organic part of defense and offense instead of trying to force a gimmicky siege battle with a time window.

Speaking in general terms I think a siege should consist of 3 stages:

1. Preparation and taking hold
You prepare the siege by moving those things you need in favourable position. You might want to have gear available in the next NPC city for example. You also will have to sort out the logistics of the "special" resouces. Those would be "siege timber" and "stone boulders" etc. I think you should be able to prepare some of that, but it should be something that is hard to hide. Once wagons are introduced they would be good indicator. Something that make it very clear to someone watching that you are not transporting wool.

This is the phase were the aggressors can either be sneaky or try to take control of the area. The defenders can be vigilant, or asleep.

2. Siege camp
The attackers build a siege camp. I imagine a structure that works similar to how the original housing system worked. A fairly big foundation (like a flat area with a ditch around it, maybe stakes etc.) and a chest to have resources in. You build it like a house, you can prevented by being killed, getting your resources stolen or even someone bringen siege weapons and shooting your camp. I think this is a part where special resources COULD come in.

I think it would be cool if character with certain skill sets can make those on the spot and if there was some kind of group effort involved (like lifting big logs or something, compareable to the old battering ram). Basically good organisation should be rewarded, compared to sheer numbers.

3. Battle
The siege camp stands and you build siege engines. You push/drag/teleport those towards the enemy and begin the actual attack. I´m not the one to provide any details on this. Generally I feel guards should not play a big role and good organisation should be rewarded on both sides.


I have not assigned any time frame to each phase because that is up to SV. There is a lot of factors to consider. I think in terms of actual game play the 1. and 3. phase will be the most interesting, while the siege camp will be mostly about the tension of all your efforts possibly being reversed.

I think regardless of implementation this system will favour the defender, just as a siege window or declaration will. I think the flexibility of it will allow for variation on outcomes with small groups though.

---

This would also "solve" building a siege engine inside a walled area. Then we can finally have climbing and ladders.

 

[MolagAmur]

Sieges should favor the defender though so thats fine.

 

[Yeonan]

How it should be.

I'd really prefer they didnt have arbitrary things like this that take sand out of the box.

That strikes me as the lazy route, instead of adding ways to get over walls they are just saying "nope, keeps only"

 

[MolagAmur]

I'd really prefer they didnt have arbitrary things like this that take sand out of the box.

That strikes me as the lazy route, instead of adding ways to get over walls they are just saying "nope, keeps only"

I disagree. Walls everywhere made the landscape extremely ugly. Id also prefer to not have to climb every single wall while out on a roam just to see whats inside.

Walls were just bad man. The days before walls existed were much more interesting and you actually saw people out in the world.

 

[Eldrath]

I don´t see a reason to limit walls to keeps if you have a good way to get over them.

According to the vast majority of players that supported the old TC system no one would build walls anyway if you could climb over them.

On the other hand SV did listen to those players even while that system strangled their game to death. So maybe it´s safer to just go without walls.

 

[Yeonan]

I disagree. Walls everywhere made the landscape extremely ugly. Id also prefer to not have to climb every single wall while out on a roam just to see whats inside.

Walls were just bad man. The days before walls existed were much more interesting and you actually saw people out in the world.

I understand your perspective and I don't disagree entirely; walls do have downsides. But much like a siege windows, removing sand from the box also has costs.

No walls serves to devalue politics. Maybe that's fine for some people, that's fair enough.

But from my point of view it takes away one of the incentives of being neutral. Numerous times I came across a walled area, contacted the owning guild, and was granted access. Without walls that scenario doesn't play out. And that's disappointing to me because one of the few perks of neutrality is off the table.

Don't get me wrong; I don't want walls for the sake of walls. If there isn't a way to circumvent them then it's probably best they aren't in. I'd just prefer to see SV be more creative as opposed to removing them entirely.

 

[Eldrath]

No walls serves to devalue politics. Maybe that's fine for some people, that's fair enough.

It´s the opposite. Vulnerability is what makes humans cooperate. Having to defend your territory yourself instead of relying on a safezone forces you to make decisions about people. This allows your guild to take multiple stances on visitors.

Developing trust like that is more impactful because it can exploited. Getting rid of someone requires more than just changing the password on the gate or removing them from some kind of list. It requires actual gameplay and maybe even a conversation.

These are the kind of interactions that create politics and a living world. Giving everyone their little instance to hang out is not.

This is literally the argument we made a few weeks after TC was introduced and I think everything that happened afterwards shows that our prediction was correct.


If you are a known friendly entity to the village, why would they not let you use it?

 

[Handsome Young Man]

Guards should be able to have their patrol times changed then set - that way it leaves a window open with them down and it causes players a need to scout to find out when.

I still think AI guards are bad though. For assets.

 

[Yeonan]

It´s the opposite. Vulnerability is what makes humans cooperate. Having to defend your territory yourself instead of relying on a safezone forces you to make decisions about people. This allows your guild to take multiple stances on visitors.

Developing trust like that is more impactful because it can exploited. Getting rid of someone requires more than just changing the password on the gate or removing them from some kind of list. It requires actual gameplay and maybe even a conversation.

These are the kind of interactions that create politics and a living world. Giving everyone their little instance to hang out is not.

This is literally the argument we made a few weeks after TC was introduced and I think everything that happened afterwards shows that our prediction was correct.


If you are a known friendly entity to the village, why would they not let you use it?

There are different layers of trust, its not binary.

Letting someone visit a town you control is different than letting them hang around your keep.

I'm not advocating impassable walls, I'm saying there has to be a better solution than no walls at all.

 

[Meos]

I love it how this discussion has been the same circle dance for a decade by now.

 

[Speznat]

My only concern is.

If you have an easy way to go over the walls. Than noone in thier right mind would build walls. Or am i wrong?

 

[Eldrath]

My only concern is.

If you have an easy way to go over the walls. Than noone in thier right mind would build walls. Or am i wrong?

Depends entirely on a multitude of other systems. SV seems intend to change the log out mechanic, making it probably impossible/hard to log óut in a hostile area. A correctly working AI will change the dynamics. If you have to snipe down all the guard patrolling on the wall before scaling it, them calling the alarm and you then being exposed while climbing - it suddenly isn´t easy anymore.

It SHOULD be a difficult decision to have or not have walls. Open towns should be a possibility, with all the problem that comes with that.

 

[Zbuciorn]

Ideally there would be enough of a player base for keep owning guilds to be able to recruit members from all over the world. That way they could cover the different timezones with actual players.

Balancing recruitment so most of time zones are covered should be part of strategy for guilds which want to invest in building expensive structures.If you build something without means of protecting it that should be your own risk.

 

[ElPerro]

My only concern is.

If you have an easy way to go over the walls. Than noone in thier right mind would build walls. Or am i wrong?

This was the age old argument against walls in MO1, but alot has changed:

1) Mounts will not go thru walls anymore, this means you wont be able to build siege weapons from the inside. Walls will still protect against sieges and that should really be their main benefit, not creating safezones.

2) You wont be able to logout inside the walls. This means no more rats that can log in at anytime to grief and log back out. You should know if there are enemies inside your walls, which ties to my next point.

3) There should be some kind of loud noise when you deploy a siege ladder. I remember in Darkfall just hearing someone cast that spell that launched you over walls really got the adrenaline going, especially if you were crafting. If you had no walls then ppl could just sneak up on you while crafting like in Kran and kill you easily.

 

[Rorry]

Back in the day when it came to big sieges you almost always knew roughly. You needed time to prep, that looks obvious when you start to see alot of activity in your area with trasport animals and a bunch of enemies floating around. You normally knew you had pissed somebody off so it normally wasn't a big surprise. Guilds with assets normally have defense pacts and allies, so to attack you need friends as well. The more people you try to recruit into your siege the more likely word gets out and you tip off the people you're trying to siege.

Once you know its coming most guilds with anything worth losing have members from around the world with quick access to phone numbers and alerts systems, so once it starts everybody knows asap. If you're not a big group you will always be vunerable to the big groups regardsless if you're online or not, so normally if you want assets you have many friends or agreements in which case a bigger friend will be there to defend you.

These things tend to work out natrually.

(edit) In my experience the siege isn't the thing that actually kills you, its the actions you took and the deals you made before the fight is at your door that seals your fate. Most groups try to avoid throwing rocks because they know once it starts sooner or later all those people they took from will be ready to be at their own door the second they have enemies who can do so. You beat 5 guilds with 10 players down to the ground when a bigger guild your size starts throwing rocks they suddenly find themselves with 50 willing volunteers only wanting revenge for payment.

So again in this way you sorta see it coming usually.

It was like this until the TC patches, since then everything changed. At one point we no longer could log out boulders on free to plays or mail them, etc. so we had to figure out different ways. Some were visible still, but not all. My guild would bring all the boulders with us for a siege sometimes and so there was no noticeable prep.

IMO they should enhance the organic part of defense and offense instead of trying to force a gimmicky siege battle with a time window.

Speaking in general terms I think a siege should consist of 3 stages:

1. Preparation and taking hold
2. Siege camp
3. Battle

In a way, many sieges in recent time followed this pattern with houses as siege camps.
It didn't seem very balanced because of how quick houses are to build and how much hp they have making them harder to destroy than build, so that will be something that SV will have to take into account if they introduce siege camps.

This was the age old argument against walls in MO1, but alot has changed:

1) Mounts will not go thru walls anymore, this means you wont be able to build siege weapons from the inside. Walls will still protect against sieges and that should really be their main benefit, not creating safezones.

2) You wont be able to logout inside the walls. This means no more rats that can log in at anytime to grief and log back out. You should know if there are enemies inside your walls, which ties to my next point.

3) There should be some kind of loud noise when you deploy a siege ladder. I remember in Darkfall just hearing someone cast that spell that launched you over walls really got the adrenaline going, especially if you were crafting. If you had no walls then ppl could just sneak up on you while crafting like in Kran and kill you easily.

Will there not be spells which let you pull loot through walls anymore either? And how sure are we that mounts won't get through walls, even if SV doesn't want them too. Or that their bags won't be able to open though walls? Believing this takes a lot of faith.

Will there not be tc inns? I guess they could be for guild members only, which I am against (guild only bankers and priests and etc, too.)

A loud noise is a good idea.

 

[Eldrath]

In a way, many sieges in recent time followed this pattern with houses as siege camps.
It didn't seem very balanced because of how quick houses are to build and how much hp they have making them harder to destroy than build, so that will be something that SV will have to take into account if they introduce siege camps.

Sure, but houses being used that way also increased the paranoia because any house could be a potential "siege camp". This made having "neutral" entities close to your territory a big problem. Having a timber/boulder/wagen/siege camp mechanic adds a certain degree of safety. It should be obvious that someone is building a siege camp compared to the house. Obviously they can still decide to build it further away or try to hide it, but that should come with the trade off of a longer and more difficult siege "battle".

Mind you with my proposal "ninja" sieges could still happen. But then if all of that preparation and building is going on without any one noticing ... maybe living on your own wasn´t the best idea. Then it comes back to risk vs. reward (living alone = more resources/living in a community = less resources) and diplomacy.

 

[Rorry]

Sure, but houses being used that way also increased the paranoia because any house could be a potential "siege camp". This made having "neutral" entities close to your territory a big problem. Having a timber/boulder/wagen/siege camp mechanic adds a certain degree of safety. It should be obvious that someone is building a siege camp compared to the house. Obviously they can still decide to build it further away or try to hide it, but that should come with the trade off of a longer and more difficult siege "battle".

Mind you with my proposal "ninja" sieges could still happen. But then if all of that preparation and building is going on without any one noticing ... maybe living on your own wasn´t the best idea. Then it comes back to risk vs. reward (living alone = more resources/living in a community = less resources) and diplomacy.

Yeah, true. It would be better. It may save the houses of the innocent.