These siege timers sound a lot like the wardec requests we used to have in MO1. They never worked. I am very curious to see how they’ll prevent allies from mutually declaring fake sieges on each other in order to prevent actual enemies from doing it.
Imo any system that requires acceptance from the defensive party is flawed at the core. Nobody wants to accept a siege, and they will use any possible way to avoid doing it.
The second character is fine as long as its tied to the first in some recognizable way. They should share surname and also murdercounts.
I fully trust that Starvault and Henrik will someway, somehow find a way to fuck this up when all they need to do is copy Darkfall/Shadowbane system.These siege timers sound a lot like the wardec requests we used to have in MO1. They never worked. I am very curious to see how they’ll prevent allies from mutually declaring fake sieges on each other in order to prevent actual enemies from doing it.
Imo any system that requires acceptance from the defensive party is flawed at the core. Nobody wants to accept a siege, and they will use any possible way to avoid doing it.
The second character is fine as long as its tied to the first in some recognizable way. They should share surname and also murdercounts.
My CURRENT understanding of whats in the code internally is that third parties can join sieges no issue. So even if allies try this, someone can come in during that time and siege.These siege timers sound a lot like the wardec requests we used to have in MO1. They never worked. I am very curious to see how they’ll prevent allies from mutually declaring fake sieges on each other in order to prevent actual enemies from doing it.
Imo any system that requires acceptance from the defensive party is flawed at the core. Nobody wants to accept a siege, and they will use any possible way to avoid doing it.
The second character is fine as long as its tied to the first in some recognizable way. They should share surname and also murdercounts.
…..Solo siege?…. Wtf are you smoking?Would be nice if they made it easier for solo to siege.
Solo-Sieges arent really necessary. Lockpicking and stealing from strongholds/houses would be nice for solos to get revenge. I agree with the carebear-argument. Big guilds can respawn almost anywhere because there doesnt seem to be a limit to how many structures a guild can own and only very little restrictions to where. They can therefore regear everywhere and dont have much risk involved in their gameplay. Wall off camps and shoot the mobs from your house... "hardcore and immersive".This game is increasingly Survival Difficulty if your solo and Carebear Themepark if your in a big guild. Hardly anyone ever sieges anyway. They just RMT Keeps.
Would be nice if they made it easier for solo to siege. Like you want to get revenge on someone and know where their SH is, but unless you pay a fortune to a large guild to Mang it, there is nothing you can really do about it.
On the other hand build an SH or medium house as a solo somewhere like the jungle and good chance some bored neckbeard guild will mang it at no cost to them almost because if they all chip in with RMT it costs almost nothing for them.
…..Solo siege?…. Wtf are you smoking?
Keep owning and keep sieging is end game large scale group content. All sieging should be medium to large group content. Gtf auta here.
You absolutely can destroy towers as a solo. My guild has had it happen many times. One enemy built a house next to our tower just so he could log in and hit the tower for a few minutes and log out before we could respond. We actually had to siege the house it got so annoying having to constantly respond to this one guy hitting the tower.I dunno if I agree. Knocking down a tower should be something you can brute force like days of old. It's a good check against the largest zergs being OP. Doesn't mean they can't go on a rampage and kill everyone, but stuff will even out (so we imagine.)
That's why I said it would be nice to be able to hit someone's supplies or something to cause them problems but it wouldn't knock them out of the game or even make them less functional. It would just be nipping at their heels. Which is important. Solo tho, maybe not... a little group with hammers? imo they should be able to be a nuisance.
Otherwise it's just waiting game for when a big siege happens.
Third party siege is gg. I really hope they do make the siege area a war zone. I also wish they made the dec just open up the war zone after a certain time, and close after a certain time. Setting a window does have problems, cuz you can make it as hard as possible. Even if the only thing you get to do is set a time, it's more power than you should have.
People say "How is it fair for people to make you get up at 3am to defend a siege?" Well, how is it fair for people to make you get up at 3am to siege haha.
Thank you for the feedback Robmo. However, enemies would not be able to know what that siege window is, unless it is publicly displayed somewhere. Will it be?My CURRENT understanding of whats in the code internally is that third parties can join sieges no issue. So even if allies try this, someone can come in during that time and siege.
I don't see this changing, but it could, I would wait for patch notes
This is the problem of having a world wide server.