Seiging in MO2

[Teknique]

I think the emphasis on "value" of keeps is what needs work. Keeps need functional, social, and political value. Being able to capture keeps shouldn't devalue them and if it does, I feel keeps themselves don't hold enough value. I do enjoy this discussion!

As hym said there was a TC capture system already. I think people just felt worse when their TC was captured and taken away from them benefiting the enemy even more. It was actually more of an incentive for sieging because you could deconstruct the buildings for scraps, or keep and use them.

But as long as a keep is something of value people will attack you for it. Then people who react really negatively to losses will be in the same situation that they were in before, but perhaps to a lesser degree. I doubt it

 

[NINEN]

Things either have value or they don't.

If something can't be destroyed its value is lessoned because there is more of itself in existence.

Sure fighting all the time for tc that doesn't matter would be fun, just about as much fun as gloria victis.

First, stop drinking the cool-aid and think. Destroying an entire keep and then rebuilding it does not build value, and it makes it so sieges are actually more rare. Also, dont use Gloria Victis as an example, our siege system is a bit more complex than theirs. I agree though, no one wants a system where it turns over every day. There is no investment to sieging in Gloria Victis, unlike Mortal. Good try though.

In this situation, you get to fight even more because you can go back and siege right away.

 

[NINEN]

Poor idea, having special city stones isn't very realistic and sounds more like a band-aid. You didn't even explain what city stone tiers even mean. What you really need is a change to the TC capture mechanic. In MO1, once a TC asset did not receive an hourly tax it immediately started decaying, and once it was at 50% HP, a guild could claim it. What you are suggesting can easily be implemented by adding a period of time where the asset becomes unusable, but doesn't start decaying, not a long time, but more like 48 IRL hours, where only the original guild can reclaim the asset. When this grace period expires, then the asset will immediately transfer to whatever guild has control over the territory or start decaying at 5% HP per hour as it was in MO1 until someone claims it or it is destroyed. Don't forget that TC is one of the main gold sinks, so cities need to eventually crumble.

Also, people don't seem to realize that without F2P alts, sieges are going to become a lot easier to pull off because guilds won't have access to dummy repair builders.

TC Is not coming back, go back to nintendo

 

[Avonis]

No one is saying you can't flatten someones keep and salt the earth, we're saying for those who want to claim that keep and land themselves the option to capture the keep and it's walls, buildings etc exists. Maybe even when you do it removes the walls and makes basic wood ones or something. Value is subjective someone who wants to yeet a keep, and its structures out of existence because they don't like the owners place less value on it then someone who wants the land for themselves.

 

[Teknique]

First, stop drinking the cool-aid and think. Destroying an entire keep and then rebuilding it does not build value, and it makes it so sieges are actually more rare. Also, dont use Gloria Victis as an example, our siege system is a bit more complex than theirs. I agree though, no one wants a system where it turns over every day. There is no investment to sieging in Gloria Victis, unlike Mortal. Good try though.

In this situation, you get to fight even more because you can go back and siege right away.

And for how long do you propose the TC is indestructible?

One week?

One month?

or something just remains forever once its built?

What if I want to deconstruct my new keep or sell it?

Because the MO 1 capture system did these things in theory, we just used it to grief even more and thats all I expect out of this.

Could be wrong though.

 

[Avonis]

On the Gloria Victis mention, the sieges in that game had nowhere near the inital captial requirement that an MO siege requires. MO sieges take a lot of co-ordination and time to plan and gather what you need to do it.

 

[Avonis]

And for how long do you propose the TC is indestructible?

One week?

One month?

or something just remains forever once its built?

What if I want to deconstruct my new keep or sell it?

TC is getting nuked, Henrik already said that it was bad and it sucked. We don't like TC we don't want TC, we want to be able to capture a keep as well as flatten it if we choose.

 

[NINEN]

@Teknique

Are we reading the same thread.

 

[Meridian]

And for how long do you propose the TC is indestructible?

One week?

One month?

or something just remains forever once its built?

What if I want to deconstruct my new keep or sell it?

They CAN be completely destroyed, but a strategic option for the attacker (if the intent wasn't to grief the defender) would be to preserve as much of the standing structure as possible to capture. The defender would also be able to sabotage their wall-mounted siege ramparts if they feel it's a risk. Just adds more dynamics and strategy to this portion of the game.

 

[Rhias]

If sieging TC is rewarded it will encourage bigger guilds to bully smaller ones, and take over their stuff just for profit.
Be careful what you wish for.

 

[NINEN]

We do not care about TC. We are discussing the fact that Keeps should be re-capturable. This does not involve TC.

 

[Teknique]

We do not care about TC. We are discussing the fact that Keeps should be re-capturable. This does not involve TC.

Same shit man, if you've captured someone's keep you've also captured their TC. We use the term interchangeably. It doesn't change anything about the discussion a building is a building no matter what system it falls under.

 

[Avonis]

Same shit man, if you've captured someone's keep you've also captured their TC. We use the term interchangeably. It doesn't change anything about the discussion a building is a building no matter what system it falls under.

As we've said before the TC system isn't coming back, keeps are. We want the option to capture a keep, possibly with its buildings and walls. If you choose to flatten the place ok that's fine, if you took the most efficent path to the keep and cause minimal destruction like was said before why can't we capture it re-key the doors and take it. We don't want to capture control towers as that system is being nuked because it sucked.

 

[NINEN]

 

[Teknique]

As we've said before the TC system isn't coming back, keeps are. We want the option to capture a keep, possibly with its buildings and walls. If you choose to flatten the place ok that's fine, if you took the most efficent path to the keep and cause minimal destruction like was said before why can't we capture it re-key the doors and take it. We don't want to capture control towers as that system is being nuked because it sucked.

I’m responding in context of the op which talks about capturing a guild stone and how sad every one is when they lose.

I’m saying that this capture system won’t change the emotions behind it much.

You want to capture keeps sure why not. I’m honestly all for it.

My experience with a capture system is the big strong guild has more options and more free buildings to sell.

in conclusion people will still be sad. Just because something doesn’t have to be destroyed doesn’t mean you won’t lose it when it’s destroyed deconned or sold.

Peace

 

[Rhias]

We do not care about TC. We are discussing the fact that Keeps should be re-capturable. This does not involve TC.

If a City stone is defeated it should simply pass to the guild that does the most damage and starts at tier 1 again.

Maybe we're replying to different threads. But at least this one clearly talks about citys (and not only keeps).

As we've said before the TC system isn't coming back, keeps are. We want the option to capture a keep, possibly with its buildings and walls. If you choose to flatten the place ok that's fine, if you took the most efficent path to the keep and cause minimal destruction like was said before why can't we capture it re-key the doors and take it. We don't want to capture control towers as that system is being nuked because it sucked.

What's the difference between a keep with buildings and walls and TC?
Right, there is none. In MO1 any house/keep/tower with walls and buildings around was called TC.

 

[Avonis]

Maybe we're replying to different threads. But at least this one clearly talks about citys (and not only keeps).


What's the difference between a keep with buildings and walls and TC?
Right, there is none. In MO1 any house/keep/tower with walls and buildings around was called TC.

Those things existed before TC and now TC is being nuked they'll exist again without it. He's our guild leader we had the talk with him we know his meaning, it started on keeps the city stone thing was just an idea of what could be in a keep and what got passed over to the people who capture it.

 

[NINEN]

 

[Rhias]

Those things existed before TC and now TC is being nuked they'll exist again without it. He's our guild leader we had the talk with him we know his meaning, it started on keeps the city stone thing was just an idea of what could be in a keep and what got passed over to the people who capture it.

So you think SV will implement keeps in MO2 with static walls instead of free placeable ones (which would be TC)?

 

[Handsome Young Man]

Keeps need to be destroyable.