Outposts as the Mechanic to Prevent Ninja Sieges

[Kaemik]

The Mechanics I'm Suggesting:

1. Outposts Should Give Buffs to Keeps that Make Direct Assault Nearly Impossible, Even if No Defenders are Online.

Why? Because doing this shifts the focus from direct keep assaults to more prolonged battles over outposts. There are many smaller battles that can culminate in a final climactic battle as opposed to just the final push against the siege. It leads to more PvP content overall and helps prevent ninja sieges in that defending guilds will know there is a battle coming when people begin to push their outposts.

People who love small group PvP should also love this as an active battle for outpost control would likely focus around small groups as opposed to zerg vs. zerg while people who like the big battles will still get that in the final assault on the keep.

2. The Buffs Shouldn't Be an On/Off Switch, They Should Build and Decay Over Time.

Why? Because the implication otherwise is either outposts will be insanely tedious to flip, or that this won't prevent ninja sieging. If say, the buffs are at 100% after three days of holding all outposts, and at 0% after three days of not holding any outposts, then this gives a bit of lead-in time for the assaulted faction to either defend and reclaim their outposts and/or prepare for the siege on their keep. Hopefully that gives a long period of really intense small group fights for the more contested sieges.

I'd also point out that the buffs may not need to be a linear process. If three days is the time for 100% to 0% that doesn't necessarily mean one and a half days would be the time to 50%. It can be curved to fit the desired affect on siege balance.

3. Outposts Should be Fairly Cheap to Rebuild

Why? Because otherwise it becomes a war of say, an NA guild goes and wipes an EU guild's outposts every time they go to bed to just make the costs rack up. That's not the point of this system. The point of this system is to see which guild has the power to control the area outside the keep in question more consistently and to create fights. So while some cost is appropriate it shouldn't bankrupt a guild to rebuild outposts that get wiped during their off hours.

4. Outpost Points Should be Set Just Like Keep Points

Why? Because then the devs can set points that they think will lead to engaging fights, as opposed to players setting points that will be the biggest pain the butt to take. It's a big of loss of player freedom, true. But it makes sense for the same reason it makes sense that they are going to limit where we can place the keeps themselves.

5. Outpost Should Have Alarms When Attacked, and Specific Names / Other Ways to Identify Which Outpost is Under Attack

Why? Because it will lead to more fights if players can quickly identify which outposts are under attack and send reinforcements. The advantage isn't overwhelming without maps though, you still actually kind of have to know which outpost is which.

________________________________

No timers. More fights. No ninja sieges. Attackers having to spend time to destroy or claim something that took time to build.

However the time they need to invest is time fighting instead of time grinding so it's not tedious if what you want is PvP. It should actually be a ton of fun. Those are the reasons I suggest this system.

 

[Rhias]

You know that you basically describe the TC towers, but renaming it to Outpost?
TC towers gave a buff to keep defense in MO1.
Only difference is that you want fixed positions for them, instead of free placement?

 

[Teknique]

You know that you basically describe the TC towers, but renaming it to Outpost?
TC towers gave a buff to keep defense in MO1.
Only difference is that you want fixed positions for them, instead of free placement?

Yeah nearly identical to the TC tower system.

but not everything about TC towers was bad. If they were done just a little bit better.

 

[Kaemik]

They had point 2 as well? Because I'd consider point 2 the most essential point on the list. Point 3 also is very important to how the system would feel overall.

 

[ElPerro]

What stops ppl from ninja sieging the towers too

 

[Kaemik]

What stops ppl from ninja sieging the towers too

Point 2 and 3

Like they can do it. But it's not going to mean much if they don't follow through and keep pressure on over a longer time.

 

[Kaemik]

You know that you basically describe the TC towers, but renaming it to Outpost?

An unconscious advocation of other mechanics I want. Eventually I'd like to see it fleshed out into a system where it's more than just towers. Like you might have something like a spot next to a lot of ore that you can put a mining outpost to lower the decay rates on rocks for friendly miners, or a lumbercamp near some ironwood trees etc. Make the system where people care about these points beyond just their effect on keeps. Low priority ideas for now but it's why I call them outposts rather than towers.

 

[Rhias]

They had point 2 as well? Because I'd consider point 2 the most essential point on the list. Point 3 also is very important to how the system would feel overall.

No, but the quantity of towers was rather big. So usually it took several days/weeks to get all the towers down.

 

[Kaemik]

No, but the quantity of towers was rather big. So usually it took several days/weeks to get all the towers down.

So was it at all a thing where you would go and bust a bunch of towers while people were offline, and then they would go rebuild them, and then you would go bust more, and then would rebuild them until one side ran out of gold or patience?

If so I think that would constitute the most meaningful difference. Limited points that are cheap to rebuild with the focus being on what percentage of the time they are being controlled by which group. It's a system designed to create conflict because whoever is winning fights when both sides are online has the upper hand.

 

[Teknique]

So was it at all a thing where you would go and bust a bunch of towers while people were offline, and then they would go rebuild them, and then you would go bust more, and then would rebuild them until one side ran out of gold or patience?

If so I think that would constitute the most meaningful difference. Limited points that are cheap to rebuild with the focus being on what percentage of the time they are being controlled by which group. It's a system designed to create conflict because whoever is winning fights when both sides are online has the upper hand.

That's exactly how it worked.

Eventually however spritism allowed you to place a tower somewhere super obscure high up on a mountain and then wall/portal blocker it off making it unreachable, but thats neither here nor there.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

There should never be a mechanic that entirely denies danger.

Again. The realistic solution is to make sieging less painful and tedious and stream lining the jankiness of it all whilst increasing the base HP of assets since walls won't be so prevalent.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

Also small scale PvP happening around a keep during a siege?

Thats also just unrealistic. But then again. They're talking a full rework of the system but I'll believe it when I see it.

Most sieges were heavy defense or heavy offense with a group a sallying out to fight.

Walls / gates have an immediate way of just denying a fight.

 

[Speznat]

There should never be a mechanic that entirely denies danger.

Again. The realistic solution is to make sieging less painful and tedious and stream lining the jankiness of it all whilst increasing the base HP of assets since walls won't be so prevalent.

100% agree with that.

I guess Henrik alread yplanned something like this. I atleast hope. but lets see what he has come up with.

 

[Teknique]

Also small scale PvP happening around a keep during a siege?

Thats also just unrealistic. But then again. They're talking a full rework of the system but I'll believe it when I see it.

Most sieges were heavy defense or heavy offense with a group a sallying out to fight.

Walls / gates have an immediate way of just denying a fight.

I think he's referring to people showing up for pvp.

 

[Kaemik]

It's a multi-phase thing. Small group PvP over outposts. If the attacking group fighting over the outposts is successful, then they can weaken the keep sufficiently to make a push against it. Given the slow build-up and slow decline of the bonuses, once you make the push on the keep you can fairly safely recall all forces from outposts to take part in the final siege whichever side you are on.

I never suggested the two things would happen at the same time. Small group PvP over outposts leads into zerg vs zerg over the keep itself.

 

[Kaemik]

There should never be a mechanic that entirely denies danger.

And there isn't one suggested here. Your opponents could make a push on you at any moment to begin the conflict needed to siege your keep. It just won't be something resolved quickly. If they're going for a blitzkrieg campaign of taking your keep as fast as possible by dominance of outposts around your base they still might launch their attack at 3am and open by flipping 100% of your outposts to begin a major drain of your bonuses.

The difference is if they launch it at 3 am and you notice a few hours later there your keep isn't going to be gone, you can scramble your forces to mount a defense and if you are stronger in the field you will push them back. If you have a complex network of allies and players from all timezones and can notice any attack fairly immediately, then you can deny them this advantage by mounting a defense faster.

I can see why some smaller groups might not like this as it means they can never independently take keeps from larger groups. But let's assume you're in a theoretical group that will never have the strength to build, defend, or independently destroy a keep. We'll call them... Brotherhood Without Banners. Such groups can still prosper in the given system. If they are good at small group PvP they'll be invaluable in outpost harassment and they can link up with larger groups to make pushes on keeps.

It's just that the strength and effort needed to destroy something is more on par with the strength and effort needed to build something than in most games that feature territory control. And the process of destruction is much more engaging and PvP oriented than smashing towers while people are offline.

 

[Rorry]

And there isn't one suggested here. Your opponents could make a push on you at any moment to begin the conflict needed to siege your keep. It just won't be something resolved quickly. If they're going for a blitzkrieg campaign of taking your keep as fast as possible by dominance of outposts around your base they still might launch their attack at 3am and open by flipping 100% of your outposts to begin a major drain of your bonuses.

The difference is if they launch it at 3 am and you notice a few hours later there your keep isn't going to be gone, you can scramble your forces to mount a defense and if you are stronger in the field you will push them back. If you have a complex network of allies and players from all timezones and can notice any attack fairly immediately, then you can deny them this advantage by mounting a defense faster.

I can see why some smaller groups might not like this as it means they can never independently take keeps from larger groups. But let's assume you're in a theoretical group that will never have the strength to build, defend, or independently destroy a keep. We'll call them... Brotherhood Without Banners. Such groups can still prosper in the given system. If they are good at small group PvP they'll be invaluable in outpost harassment and they can link up with larger groups to make pushes on keeps.

It's just that the strength and effort needed to destroy something is more on par with the strength and effort needed to build something than in most games that feature territory control. And the process of destruction is much more engaging and PvP oriented than smashing towers while people are offline.

Why would this be more engaging and pvp oriented than smashing towers while people are offline ? How does changing towers to outposts accomplish that and why won't people destroy them while the other group is offline?

 

[Kaemik]

Dude, I already answered the question in the OP and when someone else asked it.

Points 2 and 3.

If you only push while the other group is offline then:
A. The other group is offline all the time. In which case they deserve to lose their keep / not be able to take yours.
B. You aren't ever going to get anywhere because the buffs build and decay over time and only controlling outposts when they are offline won't sufficiently weaken them.

It's more engaging because if one group is just rolling over / completely offline you flip all the outposts once and then go do other stuff. But generally, if both sides are actively committing to the attack / defense there would be a constant back and forth, and that back and forth would be about contesting the points.

So there is either no tedium and it's actually incredibly easy to take/defend a keep or there are going to be active fights. One or the other. As per point 3 the aim-of the game isn't to bankrupt them through outpost rebuild costs. The name of the game is to control all of the outposts in the area you want to claim/defend as close to 24/7 as you can manage. That prettymuch requires fighting when both sides are online.

 

[Rorry]

No, it doesn't have anything that will stop people from destroying your outposts every night while you're asleep, even if you don't lose everything that way you still spend your entire playing time rebuilding them every day. We have already had this system and it is not fun.
You assume that the only reason people will destroy them is to destroy your keep. It doesn't work that way.

Edit:Added. I am not saying your idea is a bad one, I advocated for a system of fixed control points in MO1 myself. It just doesn't do anything to stop ninja siegeing overall.

 

[Kaemik]

No, it doesn't have anything that will stop people from destroying your outposts every night while you're asleep, even if you don't lose everything that way you still spend your entire playing time rebuilding them every day.

This is entirely based on an assumption they cost too much and take too much time to rebuild.

Suppose it takes say, 5-10 minutes to flip via whatever the flip mechanic is (Destruction, kill all the guards, etc). Once you control the area it takes 1 minute and 200 wood to repair it, turning it to your guild's side. Does that address your concern?

I don't like to throw out numbers because then people get bogged down debating those specific numbers. But the important concept is flipping should be most of the work and the repair part barely a factor.

Heck throw the numbers out entirely, there is no destruction just a spot you raise and lower a banner. If that addresses your concern then this system can too.

And I actually am kind of assuming there will be destruction of outposts all the time. A lot of groups will do it just to get fights. It's really just a matter of making sure the rebuild costs are right, it takes an appropriate level of effort to claim/destroy them, the buffs bleed down appropriately, and the system curves the loss of buffs appropriately.