Nobody ever said they shouldn't be destroyable we said it should be an option.
Seiging in MO2
- Thread starter OreAird
- Start date
TC was a system added in after the walls, with the controls towers and all that shit which was a mess. Of course there will be placeable walls and buildings as before but it's gonna be under a different system. IDK if you ever interacted with the TC system it wasn't just hur dur place wall where i want hur dur, the control towers and taxes and all the shit that made up TC isn't coming back as it was. We don't care about TC this post isn't about TC it's about keeps changing hands, and giving people the option to not flatten a keep if they so choose. Y'all are all running around in circles chasing your owns tails with points as if you think you're making some grand statement. We've got one guy in here just repeating "keeps should be destroyable" over and over when nobody is disagreeing with him, infact we agreed with that exact point many times.
As stated by Henrik he wants player cities to be the main cities, these will most likely appear around keep spots. We simply think if you want to take a keep and all that's under it instead of blowing it up that should be an option, Before anyone says "keeps should be destroyable hur dur brain cells gone" OPTION key word OPTION Mortal Online is a game about options or choices here another one we'd like, as well as the OPTION to completely flatten a keep and all the stuff around it if we so CHOOSE. I can't dumb the point down anymore then i've just said here. If you still don't get it, well i simply give up on you.
Now if they choose to implement it in someway of that city stone as talked about before so it doesn't require a keep that's fine and cool, you choose to make a city stone and gain whatever those benefits may be with the risk of someone blowing in and capturing that stone then taking ownership of the city under the stone, or turning it all to dust.
It's not about taking any choice away it's about adding a new one, to capture things instead of just burning it all down. With the options to burn everything to the ground as we could before. I only see it working with keeps because the keep building could be what you "capture" then giving you the walls and buidlings under it, idk how it'd work with palis besides some specific building in there being the main building or whatever.
Can you please explain how this is different from the current MO1 system?
Yes, you destroy the keep building in MO1. But if you build a new keep (or house) fast enough, you could capture all the buildings.
So it's no longer TC, but TC V2. Got your point.
That's like the node lines. MO2 has no longer node lines. But instead streaming lines. But to the player they behave the same - you reach them and lag out for a few seconds.
Walls will be free placed within stone radius but not like the old tower system and TC, Henrik has said this. He also alluded to major ways smaller villages will be able to use walls.
Either way the major concept here is to have a capture mechanism so all the assets don't need to be destroyed.
A city stone is so guilds could have more than 1 pallisade/keep depending on guilds size, rather with alt guilds. We all know with this size map all the big guilds are going to do that. The city stone would the same as guild stone radius.
Either way the major concept here is to have a capture mechanism so all the assets don't need to be destroyed.
A city stone is so guilds could have more than 1 pallisade/keep depending on guilds size, rather with alt guilds. We all know with this size map all the big guilds are going to do that. The city stone would the same as guild stone radius.
Last edited:
Yeah we tried to discuss the implications of a capture system but your boys kept getting hung up on the word tc.
I’ll recap I don’t think capture will lessen the emotional impact that you’re referring to, but I also don’t object to it.
I think it just might. Having lost a few and won a few myself I would have felt much better when I lost if I had the chance to take it back. My suggested system allows for a natural way for the defences to be weakened for a short period so if you have the means you can counter attack or leave and prepare for a larger assult.
Either way I can see this leading to smaller sieges rather than all-out server wars.
Either way I can see this leading to smaller sieges rather than all-out server wars.
Could people stop using the word griefing for sieges. At this point all you are saying is that: someone is doing something you don't like.
It's clear that there is some political grudges taken over from MO1 when you talk like that.
Player conflict and interaction are the core of what a hardcore sandbox should be about. Calling any if those griefing is problematic at best and intentionally political at worst.
If you annoyed someone enough that they got people together, farmed the materials and spend the time to blow up your keep - they are not griefing.
It's clear that there is some political grudges taken over from MO1 when you talk like that.
Player conflict and interaction are the core of what a hardcore sandbox should be about. Calling any if those griefing is problematic at best and intentionally political at worst.
If you annoyed someone enough that they got people together, farmed the materials and spend the time to blow up your keep - they are not griefing.
If it’s an option we will still elect to do what’s most practical or what hurts you the most.
You’ll need a more carebear system to solve the emotional problem
We got hung on the word TC because placing walls at keeps and control towers to cap towns existed BEFORE TC and now it will exist after it, TC was a patch that came out changing the whole land owning system completely. Y'all keep using TC as your basis when it's already been said it's being nuked like said before. We can't keep talking about control towers and the old system when it's been explicitly said by the developers it's not coming back.
Last edited:
On the point of griefing it doesn't matter what you want to call it but intentionally wiping a keep is wasting your own resources to do so for no benefit, you don't need to do it to "win" the siege and personally i always blew to keep and let everything fall by itself. You're never going to fix people crying over lost gear and buildings, but it'd be nice for us who want to take the keep to be able to retain what's there. If we did capture someone elses keep and not 0 it, it'd give the previous owners a chance to take it back also.
Last edited:
to lay siege to a castle in the same game, LIF had to lay siege to castles for months and it was a cool gameplay when people gathered in hour X knowing that they had two hours to break through the walls and get inside. All guilds of the alliance collected resources and carried them to the besieging or defending side, pulling their resources. sometimes on the way, their caravans hit, thereby cutting off the supply, and it was cool. preparing for the siege took time and required the calculation of the heads and officers of the guilds. bring materials, set up camp, defend its walls, and so on. why not apply a circuit that works? but make small adjustments. as practice shows, the castle is not worth destroying it is worth capturing, this will motivate the losing side to try to capture it back. the guild and buildings should not be interconnected, I mean after the loss the guild should not be dismantled, this mechanic is superfluous.
the purpose of the siege should not only be to break the castle, but also to collect all the contents of the warehouses of the castle, this is a kind of bonus and the finish of the siege.
the purpose of the siege should not only be to break the castle, but also to collect all the contents of the warehouses of the castle, this is a kind of bonus and the finish of the siege.
Last edited:
I also played LIF MMO and enjoyed the really long drawn out sieges as you describe and the benefits at the end of whatever was there was now yours. I don't think we're gonna get those kinds of drawn out week long sieges but the benefit of potentially owning the keep and its buildings at the end is enticing. I agree a guild and the buildings shouldn't be one and should change hands as a new guild takes the keep and therefore the land. But as i've said before i don't want to take player choices away i want to see them increased, so you blow the keep siege won you can either own it or delete it.
Honestly out of the hundreds of MMOs i've tried LIF MMO had the most fun siege mechanics and land ownership for me personally. The sieges required a lot of planning and felt a lot better then MO, even the enemies terrain was built to stop you walking kegs to a wall or getting a treb down in range. Obviously we aren't going to get these siege mechanics and terrain altering ability but i think there's lessons to be learned for what happened after the siege was a success.
I feel like relying on cheese ball AI to protect your stuff when you're offline is probably not going to end well.