Should Mortal Online 2 Have "Siege Windows"?

[Kaemik]

The problem I see that any siege system has to address is that these games are trying to simulate virtual lives and empires but people have real-world lives to live. Any system that resolves the outcome too fast means that a player who is willing to drop everything and be on the moment a siege is happening is worth many times a player who works their gaming schedule around their real life.

And this isn't even the classic casual vs. hardcore debate.

Let's say player A plays 5+ hours a day, uses their time efficiently when they are on, and is a top tier combatant. But also set aside some scheduled time for their job, family time, and hanging out with friends IRL.

Player B plays 1-2 hours a day and spends the rest of their day playing steam games, screws around ganking people most of the time they are on, and is an average skill player. But player B doesn't have real-life commitments, their guild leader has their phone number, and they will show up in 15 minutes or less any time of day if they get a call from their guild leader saying "we are under siege".

In most siege systems, player B is more useful to your guild's ability to take and defend territory. Yet I would define player A as a much more hardcore and dedicated player overall.

That's the entire problem with any siege system that is resolved too quickly. To me, the holy grail of siege systems is systems upon systems that make MMOs unfold like a grand strategy game where the only way important points like keeps are lost is due to disparities are found in consistent player efforts over time. Politics play into that, player skills are going to decide many of the battles that play into that. But you need your player As just as much or more than you need your Player Bs.

 

[Rhias]

Please reschedule the siege. Player A got more important RL stuff to do.

 

[Kaemik]

Well yes, but no. Sieges as we see them in movies and video games are these huge climactic fights of soldiers crashing together and whoever's still standing at the end wins. That was the far minority of sieges in the ancient and medieval world. Most sieges of well-defended positions could last months.

Fun > Realism but I think these blitzkrieg sieges of "Oh we lost the town while you were offline" are really only most fun for the players that can actually be there for them. This is supposed to be a niche title and with full loot PvP it always will be, but as far as I understand they're trying to reach a broader audience. How about people who are ok with full loot PvP but not willing to drop everything they have planed at a moment's notice for a video game?

I know for instance in Conqueror's Blade they had sieges every Saturday and Tuesday. Saturday is D&D night, Tuesday is when we spend time with my fiance's family. School and work are what keep us from moving those obligations around. I was put like 30 hours a week into the game with 0% siege attendance there for a while because life is more important and I refuse to schedule my life around a game. Similar problem with ArcheAge and its content schedules.

Wouldn't it be more fun for practically everyone if you had constant skirmishes over smaller less important points and general trends of those many smaller battles along with things like the economy and player-politics was is what decided who takes and loses major things like keeps? That makes keeps something you can take pride in and invest in. Not like cities in Darkfall where the entire map changed hands if someone had a particularly loud flatulence. And in that game you had like 24 hours forewarning before every siege. Sometimes forewarning isn't good enough when the whole things going to go down within a 1-2 hour event you may or may not make it to.

 

[Rhias]

Actually a system where you can capture NPC villages would be also interesting. So that there is something to fight over without immediate material loss. Like e.g. you can control the troll cave from MO1, and they will provide you a priest, some NPC's and maybe a white rabbit foot once in a while. The build some kind of "support" value for you. It can be lowered by killing those NPC's, and as long as they support you those NPC's will also fight for you. It can be raised by doing "work" for them e.g. killing their enemys (would be dark steintroll from the MO1 example).

 

[Zyconnic]

Isn't sieges supposed to be the big endgame PvP thing in MO for most players?
So wouldn't it be optimal to get as many players to experience it as possible?

The siegesystem in MO1 encouraged players to ninjasiege to achieve the greatest result with the lowest effort - like a lot of systems in MO but that's another topic. I hope we wont go back to a system where you can siege at any time you want without some sort of "siege window" option for the defender.
A siege declaration might be an idea where it opens a 24hour window for the attacker to damage the keep+walls with siege engines. There should be a warning for the defender in advance and the declaration should cost something and only last a limited number of hours.

 

[bbihah]

Well yes, but no. Sieges as we see them in movies and video games are these huge climactic fights of soldiers crashing together and whoever's still standing at the end wins. That was the far minority of sieges in the ancient and medieval world. Most sieges of well-defended positions could last months.

Fun > Realism but I think these blitzkrieg sieges of "Oh we lost the town while you were offline" are really only most fun for the players that can actually be there for them. This is supposed to be a niche title and with full loot PvP it always will be, but as far as I understand they're trying to reach a broader audience. How about people who are ok with full loot PvP but not willing to drop everything they have planed at a moment's notice for a video game?

I know for instance in Conqueror's Blade they had sieges every Saturday and Tuesday. Saturday is D&D night, Tuesday is when we spend time with my fiance's family. School and work are what keep us from moving those obligations around. I was put like 30 hours a week into the game with 0% siege attendance there for a while because life is more important and I refuse to schedule my life around a game. Similar problem with ArcheAge and its content schedules.

Wouldn't it be more fun for practically everyone if you had constant skirmishes over smaller less important points and general trends of those many smaller battles along with things like the economy and player-politics was is what decided who takes and loses major things like keeps? That makes keeps something you can take pride in and invest in. Not like cities in Darkfall where the entire map changed hands if someone had a particularly loud flatulence. And in that game you had like 24 hours forewarning before every siege. Sometimes forewarning isn't good enough when the whole things going to go down within a 1-2 hour event you may or may not make it to.

Months? Plenty of sieges ended up taking years!


There does need to be some sort of mechanic that makes "sieges" more of the final stage of a war tilting either way, rather than something you plan in secret and pull off while everyone is sleeping.

 

[Ask]

I love the idea that ninja sieges are a thing, personally I don't think that's an issue with sieging. I think the old system in MO is just too bare bones. For the longest time you had 1 piece of equipment that could reliably take down a keep. Logistics were boring and a pain in the arse. Their were lots of good idea on the old forums that I would be disappointed if they didn't make it into this game. Such as ladders and siege camps. Especially considering the sheer size of the map. Can you imagine running boulders for one keep to another. **** that.

I think TC towers should have more importance and something that costs more and needs to be defended just like the keep. Some sort of system where a keep is only siege able once all the towers are down also. Still keeping the ability of ninja sieges but giving the defenders fair warning their under attack, It would need to be balanced of course. Along with NPC guards. If they are going to add them again then they should have their own building to be placed in and now 6 spawn per wall. I also like the idea of wall mounted ballista. Just have to wait and see.

 

[Breannor]

What we are sure :
1- people hate losing their home without beeing able to defend it because the attackers attach off hour.

What we want :
2- big fight

What we dont want :
3- too much pve involved in siege

My solution :
24h war time declaration before it is possible to attack keep with a 8h/12h window no possible attack set by defenders -> no off hour siege
Then defenders can prepare and have lots of people as well as attackers. -> big fight
PVE guard disapear after siege start -> no pve


This is not question to be hardore or not , this is the question to know if you want epic siege or just ninjasiege ...

 

[Eldrath]

In my experience heathens only want a big fight when they are certain they will win. Even if they get their big fights, loose and all their pixels are blown up they will still quit.

I think there are better ways to manage sieging than an artificial sieging windows and basically all of them have been brought up in Mortal Online 1.

Putting more important on actual player activity rather than abstract mechanics and NPCs (flagging, guards, blacklisting, walls) will also change the dynamics of sieging and ownersship.

 

[Kaemik]

Nah I'm totally cool with PVE being involved in sieges. I don't think the highest levels of territory control really the appropriate place for pure player vs. player battles decided over the course of a few hours. I've just never found the level of player involvement that goes into taking cities from groups in these types of games even begins to appropriately reflect the level of effort that went into building them.

Is there a time and a place for that? Yes. Absolutely yes. There should be content where small groups can go attack things 24/7 with the chance to take small pieces of territory and reasonable assurance of fights. And there should be content with big preschedules battles, no NPCs, and pure carnage that lasts an hour or two.

I'd just rather not have that be the same content that decides the fate of a holding many people have been working to build and improve for weeks, months, or years. I want that level of battle to be a huge investment of time and resources for the attackers just like it was for the defenders. Not only is it more realistic, not only is it fairer, but if sieges are such a huge undertaking I feel they will lend a much greater sense of grandeur and epic strategy to the game. The siege of Constantinople lasted 56 days. In The Illiad, the siege of Troy lasted 10 years. And we want to see the fates greatest cities in Mortal Online decided in a few hours while people are stuck at work or school? Where is the fun in that?

 

[Dracu]

nobody likes ninja sieges

 

[Rorry]

Isn't sieges supposed to be the big endgame PvP thing in MO for most players?
So wouldn't it be optimal to get as many players to experience it as possible?

The siegesystem in MO1 encouraged players to ninjasiege to achieve the greatest result with the lowest effort - like a lot of systems in MO but that's another topic. I hope we wont go back to a system where you can siege at any time you want without some sort of "siege window" option for the defender.
A siege declaration might be an idea where it opens a 24hour window for the attacker to damage the keep+walls with siege engines. There should be a warning for the defender in advance and the declaration should cost something and only last a limited number of hours.

I like the idea of a siege declaration better than a siege window. Just require a guild to declare that they will begin to siege after 24 hrs, then if they don't damage any assets with a boulder another 12 etc. hours after that they lose massive prominence or whatever replacement we have in MO2. If after they begin they don't damage any asset with a boulder within 4hrs, or 6hrs etc. the siege declaration is retired and in order to siege the attacking guild must begin the process anew.

 

[Dracu]

I like the idea of a siege declaration better than a siege window. Just require a guild to declare that they will begin to siege after 24 hrs, then if they don't damage any assets with a boulder another 12 etc. hours after that they lose massive prominence or whatever replacement we have in MO2. If after they begin they don't damage any asset with a boulder within 4hrs, or 6hrs etc. the siege declaration is retired and in order to siege the attacking guild must begin the process anew.

i like this idea!

 

[Eldrath]

Why not make the preparation for a siege fairly obvious? As in you have to build a siege camp, possibly transport things, spend time creating siege engines?

So if the target guild is active enough to claim the territory, they should be able to notice that they will be sieged.

I think this will be much more organic way and seperate guilds that are basically dead from those that are playing the game.

 

[Rorry]

Why not make the preparation for a siege fairly obvious? As in you have to build a siege camp, possibly transport things, spend time creating siege engines?

So if the target guild is active enough to claim the territory, they should be able to notice that they will be sieged.

I think this will be much more organic way and seperate guilds that are basically dead from those that are playing the game.

The problem with this is we do not know what sieging will be like. In MO1 this would make a siege of a guild/nutcup of equal strength pretty much impossible since the defensive options were so strong.

 

[Kaemik]

In Darkfall you had to drop a siege stone to declare a siege. 24 hours after a siege stone was dropped the siege would go live. For the first hour of the siege, the siege stone could be destroyed. If the siege stone survived the first hour of siege the attackers could attack the bindstone of the enemy city. If the bindstone stood an hour after it went vulnerable, or the siege stone was destroyed (It was still vulnerable during the attack) then the defender won. If the bindstone was destroyed the attacker won.

It was a fun system that lead to a lot of good battles. And IMO was a great way to decide the fate of hamlets. But the map changed pretty dramatically from week to week and you never really had the sense a city was home for too long as you were unlikely to hold it for more than a month or two tops. Was completely normal to come home to. "We lost/took two cities while you were at work today."

Why do the same thing that's been done a million times before when we could lobby for something considerably more epic?

 

[Eldrath]

The problem with this is we do not know what sieging will be like. In MO1 this would make a siege of a guild/nutcup of equal strength pretty much impossible since the defensive options were so strong.

A siege window or declaration works the same way. If you have a nutcup they will always mobilize their strength for these kind of things regardless of the system you choose.

In my mind having in-game preparation leaves some room to outsmart the nutcup, while a siege window or declaration will play into their hands.

But obviously we lack any of the specifics and I doubt that SV knows what they are going to do about it.

 

[Yeonan]

spend time creating siege engines

Probably the best solution.

Believable and active game mechanics should always take priority over arbitrary timers or limits.

This probably wouldn't prevent every single "ninja siege" but it'll make it harder to pull off and much more rare.

 

[Rorry]

A siege window or declaration works the same way. If you have a nutcup they will always mobilize their strength for these kind of things regardless of the system you choose.

In my mind having in-game preparation leaves some room to outsmart the nutcup, while a siege window or declaration will play into their hands.

But obviously we lack any of the specifics and I doubt that SV knows what they are going to do about it.

Do you mean for the in game preparation to be invincible then? Because preparing for a siege is already a lot of work , then the actual siege is very long. Having to build and defend siegeworks then siege for 10 hours against the defensive tools from MO1 is probably going to end all sieging except a large group against a small one.

 

[ThaBadMan]

I want a siege declaration system, then I also want a free to join system for mercenaries.
But mainly the siege declaration where you place a camp, banner or whatever and in x amount of hours the siege starts.