Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Settlement Warfare is on the March

Fiery
Yes, the windows would be the main advantage of this new system. IMO sieging companies have to have matching windows, at least the same start time if not the same length.
Bob
For PvP windows, we'd like to make those match that of the defending settlement. It's possible that we can get in a code fix that will simply set the PvP windows for Siege Engine hexes equal to that of the neighboring settlement instead of the owning company. If it turns out we can't do that easily, then we'd been considering requiring that the attackers set their PvP windows to match the defender as best they can.
Flari-Merchant
Bob
For PvP windows, we'd like to make those match that of the defending settlement. It's possible that we can get in a code fix that will simply set the PvP windows for Siege Engine hexes equal to that of the neighboring settlement instead of the owning company. If it turns out we can't do that easily, then we'd been considering requiring that the attackers set their PvP windows to match the defender as best they can.
Well and good. I can certainly see the possibility of PVP fatigue otherwise. It should be noted that defender stress pressure on how often to attack those camps to remove them will be largely dictated by how fast the settlement's defenses are reducing. If they feel very pressured to get those camps burned fast and the windows are "plum crazy" then that would be a flaw, IMO. Much of that mitigated if the windows are concurrent. Keep also in mind that if a group can find and put a window(if they dictate the window) that is extremely inconvenient to the defender, it's all over anyway. At least if it is a prolonged affair and up to six parties can arrange some number of players to be around at odd times to defend those camps…
You have to remember that those of us left are partly(at least) here because PVP action is low and slow and casual.
Vakiri
Bob
Vakiri
It sounds to me like this is going to get implemented, no matter what is said here about the possible down sides.

I suggest that any changes along these lines be available on the test server first so that the effects can be investigated there before any of the changes are made to the live server. I suggest that include using a back
up copy of the data from the live server on the test server so that any player currently active would have the
same resources, stats, levels, etc.

If that can't be done, then restoring the game from a back up after a severe data or disk loss isn't feasible, so it
would be a good test of that as well.

The update will definitely be put up on the test server first, and we're always prepared to use our standard backup and restoration capabilities.

The update itself will actually be less risky than most previous updates. In essence, most of the big changes come from the GM-adjudicated rule changes, with the update focused on adding just enough content and functionality to support the siege rules. The actual changes to the build are also all very low risk, touching systems that are both well understood and easily tested.

Hm, it sounds like my suggestion wasn't clear.

I wasn't talking about the stability or ease of the changes, I was asking that the in-game effects of these changes be tested on the test server - run a seige there, with current characters, settlements, etc.

That is, how hard is it to actually seige a settlement, try to take it back, move seige equipment, etc.
Flari-Merchant
@ Bob
Can you share with us yet your thoughts on how simply moving Bulk Resources into the settlement will affect sieges? Will it be possible? Will there be times when it is not? Maybe if the "ring" of encirclement is broken? How will YOU be able to prevent that without coding problems?
Flari-Merchant
Alternative to multiple building destruction for siege victory.
Not sure if you can do this easily or not.

Stage One of Siege: Hexes are cleared of holdings and Siege Camps are placed. Bulk begins being reduced(daily or whatever) by the number and quality of Camps.
Stage Two of Siege: Once the Bulk Resources are exhausted, the value added by settlement structures is reduced(daily or whatever) by the number and quality of Camps. Instead of being destroyed, they are "turned off" as their pt value is overcome, by the Dev, if that is possible. Turned off in either a particular order set by the attacker or by the Dev but The Keep is exempt.
Stage Three of Siege: Next PVP window, after all other buildings are "off", there is a grand assault on the Keep just like capturing a holding. A new Keep must be constructed and placed by the successful besiegers, once they have finalized the takeover. This reactivates the buildings.

As I said, not sure if this is possible. Would be nice to have a finale "Last Stand" battle at the Keep. This could also open up possibilities for "plussing" up settlement buildings for more defensive value, including Keeps… and including resultant damage to buildings that have been through a siege.
Bob
Vakiri
Bob
Vakiri
It sounds to me like this is going to get implemented, no matter what is said here about the possible down sides.

I suggest that any changes along these lines be available on the test server first so that the effects can be investigated there before any of the changes are made to the live server. I suggest that include using a back
up copy of the data from the live server on the test server so that any player currently active would have the
same resources, stats, levels, etc.

If that can't be done, then restoring the game from a back up after a severe data or disk loss isn't feasible, so it
would be a good test of that as well.

The update will definitely be put up on the test server first, and we're always prepared to use our standard backup and restoration capabilities.

The update itself will actually be less risky than most previous updates. In essence, most of the big changes come from the GM-adjudicated rule changes, with the update focused on adding just enough content and functionality to support the siege rules. The actual changes to the build are also all very low risk, touching systems that are both well understood and easily tested.

Hm, it sounds like my suggestion wasn't clear.

I wasn't talking about the stability or ease of the changes, I was asking that the in-game effects of these changes be tested on the test server - run a seige there, with current characters, settlements, etc.

That is, how hard is it to actually seige a settlement, try to take it back, move seige equipment, etc.

Unfortunately, we don't currently have a feasible way to duplicate the state of the live server on the test server. However, I will be simulating a siege as best I can on the test server, and will invite anyone interested to participate in various parts of it. I can use GM commands to approximate some of the live server influence numbers and such to see what kinds of problems crop up.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Bob
Can you share with us yet your thoughts on how simply moving Bulk Resources into the settlement will affect sieges? Will it be possible? Will there be times when it is not? Maybe if the "ring" of encirclement is broken? How will YOU be able to prevent that without coding problems?

I'll take inventory of the settlement's bulk goods at the time the siege is declared, and that will be the maximum amount of bulk goods that need to get destroyed before moving on to the structures. There won't be anything preventing the settlement from bringing in more, I just won't count them.

Providing some kind of opportunity to bring in a limited amount of bulk goods when the settlement isn't fully surrounded is an interesting possibility and I'm open to it. Would need to be careful to keep it from turning into an easy way to just break the siege briefly every week or so and stock back up completely, but it does add a nice incentive for the attackers to keep all 6 hexes sieging and for the defenders to clear at least one of them. And if nothing else, at least a lot of bulk goods are getting destroyed.
Vakiri
Bob
Unfortunately, we don't currently have a feasible way to duplicate the state of the live server on the test server. However, I will be simulating a siege as best I can on the test server, and will invite anyone interested to participate in various parts of it. I can use GM commands to approximate some of the live server influence numbers and such to see what kinds of problems crop up.

This confuses me. If you can restore the state of the live server from a backup of that data, why can't you restore such a backup on the test server ?

If you can't restore the state of the live server from a backup, you need to work on that before working on much of anything else, I'd say.

So I guess I'm missing something.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
Alternative to multiple building destruction for siege victory.
Not sure if you can do this easily or not.

Stage One of Siege: Hexes are cleared of holdings and Siege Camps are placed. Bulk begins being reduced(daily or whatever) by the number and quality of Camps.
Stage Two of Siege: Once the Bulk Resources are exhausted, the value added by settlement structures is reduced(daily or whatever) by the number and quality of Camps. Instead of being destroyed, they are "turned off" as their pt value is overcome, by the Dev, if that is possible. Turned off in either a particular order set by the attacker or by the Dev but The Keep is exempt.
Stage Three of Siege: Next PVP window, after all other buildings are "off", there is a grand assault on the Keep just like capturing a holding. A new Keep must be constructed and placed by the successful besiegers, once they have finalized the takeover. This reactivates the buildings.

As I said, not sure if this is possible. Would be nice to have a finale "Last Stand" battle at the Keep. This could also open up possibilities for "plussing" up settlement buildings for more defensive value, including Keeps… and including resultant damage to buildings that have been through a siege.

For stage two, I believe I can turn off buildings, but I suspect they might turn back on at the next downtime, or alternatively might get instantly destroyed if the weekly support payment gets missed. I can look into it, but if we go down this "rebuilding" route, I was mostly just planning to post a quick daily status saying "the following buildings are considered damaged and will need to be rebuilt after the siege ends to prevent them from falling over."

For stage three, a battle at the keep is pretty much exactly what we were hoping to implement, but it's too much work right now. Certainly a possible addition for later.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post