Maybe it would work. If it's so easy though, wouldn't it make it only possible to siege down an entirely inactive guild? With how long it takes for the buffs to wear off it would seem the attacking guild could never camp all of the control points long enough. I don't think SV could ever balance it, just as they struggled to in MO1.
Outposts as the Mechanic to Prevent Ninja Sieges
- Thread starter Kaemik
- Start date
If you needed to get all buffs to 0 to take a keep, then yes it would be impossible to siege an active guild. Again numbers are not the point but going into theoretics of how I might balance it, once the defending force has less than 50% bonuses it would be practical to make a push on their keep with overwhelming force. As it goes lower than 50% the force needed would be progressively less overwhelming to the point that say the attackers might even have the advantage if they have more control of the area than the defending force.
Actually in thinking on this system a bit more. One possible bonus would be at least for the simple/original version, all outposts are quarries. The defending group sends boulders from quarries back to their keep in the form of materials to reinforce and make wall repairs, strengthening the damage resistance of the walls and making the walls autorepair at a certain rate when damaged.
If you take outposts as an aggressor you can set up a siegecamp that gets your bonuses as free boulders that regenerate at a particular rate.
At some percentage of control as an aggressive faction (I'm thinking 60-70% if the defenders account for the other 30-40%) the rate at which free boulders are generated, and the rate at which the walls auto-repair equals out. Beyond that point you actually are getting more free boulders than they are getting auto-repairs. As in, if you just sit there firing your free boulders forever and they can't push you out of your siege camp, you'll eventually win. Mind you that would be an exceptionally slow undertaking if you bring none of your own most likely.
So basically the reason you would never want to push a keep at 100% is that between their super high auto-repairs/damage resistance and your complete lack of free ammo to fire, it would be REALLY expensive and require a huge amount of logistics to move all the boulders. But at the break-even point between free boulders and free repairs it wouldn't be any more expensive than it is now, and past that point it gets easier than it is now making it very easy to clear out keeps of inactive groups.
If you take outposts as an aggressor you can set up a siegecamp that gets your bonuses as free boulders that regenerate at a particular rate.
At some percentage of control as an aggressive faction (I'm thinking 60-70% if the defenders account for the other 30-40%) the rate at which free boulders are generated, and the rate at which the walls auto-repair equals out. Beyond that point you actually are getting more free boulders than they are getting auto-repairs. As in, if you just sit there firing your free boulders forever and they can't push you out of your siege camp, you'll eventually win. Mind you that would be an exceptionally slow undertaking if you bring none of your own most likely.
So basically the reason you would never want to push a keep at 100% is that between their super high auto-repairs/damage resistance and your complete lack of free ammo to fire, it would be REALLY expensive and require a huge amount of logistics to move all the boulders. But at the break-even point between free boulders and free repairs it wouldn't be any more expensive than it is now, and past that point it gets easier than it is now making it very easy to clear out keeps of inactive groups.
Addressing this here since it's the more relevant thread. So in the system proposed I'd hope for each keep to have somewhere in the range of 20 associated outposts depending on how large the area associated with a keep is intend to be. The outpost points should be spread fairly evenly across the associated territory.
The system proposed in the OP was suggested for it's simplicity. This is actually something I could see them getting running by the time mechanics such as sieges become relevant. It's the reason I scrapped the more complex idea I had posted in a couple other threads. A moderate improvement on a simpler system players here are familiar with is better for launch than some grandiose idea of sieges playing out as an epic strategy game.
In future versions of the system things like outposts that serve as a mini base for a smaller guild while they're online, and the ability to pledge fealty to other guilds so that a larger guild could contract smaller ones to defend certain outposts or take outposts to support their siege of another group would be a good idea to implement.
As much as I love those ideas I don't think they are practical for now. But setting this up now will make it easier to implement down the line.
______
In terms of how it balances it out, big groups do have an advantage because of more members. But in Crowfall, I finished top 3 (Including at least one campaign where I had top captures) among total outpost captures in multiple campaigns, and I never belonged to the top guild / biggest zerg at any point. It was very much fighting an uphill battle at many points, but there is a huge amount of room for a small group of dedicated individuals to make a massive impact in a system like this.
In a huge single server persistent game like this, I don't think there will be one group that has the power to control the map. And in any system where there are multiple large groups vying for control, there is room to make your mark as small guild with supreme dedication and excellent players.
If you're asking for a system where small groups aren't fighting an uphill battle, you'll get no suggestions from me as I believe they should be if they're looking to make big political players like TC involvement.
Small guild also want to build their own villages at the position they desire. And not only hold outposts "mini base" during the time they're online. By giving the "real" building only to keep owners it would lock off a big part of the community from this content completely.
In my opinion a "tier" system for free buildings would be better. Tier 1 is some cheap structures with not that great durability, which everyone could afford. But also not that durable. Let's say to build a small tent hunting outpost. And maybe T2 and T3 buildings which cost a lot more to build, but are also more solid.
I must admit I never played Crownfall at all. However, from reading the stuff it sounds similar to Guild Wars 2 World vs World. And this might work out great if you're planning to divide your community into a few large "factions". I played a lot of GW2 WvW and I really enjoyed it.
But I think this would change what MO stands for: a true sandbox where you can do whatever you want, wherever you want it. And all this static preset outposts seem to not fit in. It's already enough that keeps are in preset locations (and some of them in MO1 really sucked).
In my opinion a "tier" system for free buildings would be better. Tier 1 is some cheap structures with not that great durability, which everyone could afford. But also not that durable. Let's say to build a small tent hunting outpost. And maybe T2 and T3 buildings which cost a lot more to build, but are also more solid.
I must admit I never played Crownfall at all. However, from reading the stuff it sounds similar to Guild Wars 2 World vs World. And this might work out great if you're planning to divide your community into a few large "factions". I played a lot of GW2 WvW and I really enjoyed it.
But I think this would change what MO stands for: a true sandbox where you can do whatever you want, wherever you want it. And all this static preset outposts seem to not fit in. It's already enough that keeps are in preset locations (and some of them in MO1 really sucked).
I'm not against the idea of a tier between outposts and keeps that's more defensible than an outpost and catered more to smaller guilds. Isn't that somewhat of the function houses serve though?
Whatever the case. Some kind of hamlet thing is fine by me. Just not something I would include in a siege mechanic for keeps to be rolled out any time soon.
Their three faction ruleset was one of many intended for the final campaigns. The campaign I last played worked on a guild vs. guild ruleset at was significantly more fun IMO.
Whatever the case. Some kind of hamlet thing is fine by me. Just not something I would include in a siege mechanic for keeps to be rolled out any time soon.
Their three faction ruleset was one of many intended for the final campaigns. The campaign I last played worked on a guild vs. guild ruleset at was significantly more fun IMO.
Last edited:
Ninja sieging of houses is as much a problem, as of keeps. Actually ninja-sieging of houses is a bigger one, since keep owning guilds are bigger and got more coverage around the whole day.
You're solution is only addressing half of it (keeps), and only the less relevant part.
There should be a system, which protects both houses and keeps equally. And of cause not some god damn time windows.
You're solution is only addressing half of it (keeps), and only the less relevant part.
There should be a system, which protects both houses and keeps equally. And of cause not some god damn time windows.
Ninja sieging of houses is as much a problem, as of keeps. Actually ninja-sieging of houses is a bigger one, since keep owning guilds are bigger and got more coverage around the whole day.
You're solution is only addressing half of it (keeps), and only the less relevant part.
There should be a system, which protects both houses and keeps equally. And of cause not some god damn time windows.
My proposed solution does not prohibit other mechanics that make houses harder to take. Overall I think the effort that goes in to destroying something should be comparable to the effort that goes into building. Therefore, assuming it takes a lot more work to build a keep than a house in MO2 (and I think it should) keeps should be the most difficult thing to capture/destroy in the game.
I'm still in favor of applying similar ideas to houses provided they scale well. If you'd like to propose something I'm interested to hear.
Last edited:
Actually, you could just piggyback at this system. You would have to make the ability for multiple guilds to ally in sooner but then make it so buffs/debuffs for outpost control apply to all members of an alliance with houses in the area. So as a smaller guild you could either choose to support the guild the rules the keep, align yourself with a competitor, or even create an independent faction of your own.
The downside to that is as an independent faction you're going to draw a lot of fire as having independents who control outposts in your keep's area will directly harm your ability to defend your keep. You could also have independent areas that are outside the influence of any keeps but still have outposts intended for smaller groups seeking independence. Potentially these areas would be a good position to do something like hamlets. Mini-keeps that control smaller areas and have less outposts. You would need to balance having those areas still being of some value to control, and not enough value that guilds who can and should be taking keeps would want to go claim them for themselves.
No matter what happens though, you can't beat politics and ambition. If my guild controls a keep and there is a nearby hamlet or housing area that a hostile faction is seeking to control, I would advise we try to find a friendly faction with interest and support their claim instead. Such is the nature of these types of games though. Smaller groups will always have less weight to throw around in a game like this but that doesn't mean they have no weight to throw around if they are creative.
The downside to that is as an independent faction you're going to draw a lot of fire as having independents who control outposts in your keep's area will directly harm your ability to defend your keep. You could also have independent areas that are outside the influence of any keeps but still have outposts intended for smaller groups seeking independence. Potentially these areas would be a good position to do something like hamlets. Mini-keeps that control smaller areas and have less outposts. You would need to balance having those areas still being of some value to control, and not enough value that guilds who can and should be taking keeps would want to go claim them for themselves.
No matter what happens though, you can't beat politics and ambition. If my guild controls a keep and there is a nearby hamlet or housing area that a hostile faction is seeking to control, I would advise we try to find a friendly faction with interest and support their claim instead. Such is the nature of these types of games though. Smaller groups will always have less weight to throw around in a game like this but that doesn't mean they have no weight to throw around if they are creative.