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

Another issue: if siege equipment can be taken from a mule, it can be destroyed instantly by that character. That seems wrong to me - a single character should not be able to instantly destroy such a large item.

This also might be resolved by making siege equipment a mobile like a mule rather than an item like a sword. Then, it could take effort and time to destroy, akin to a tower from the Nhur Athemon escalations.
Father Bronin
If we can siege PC cities, what about the NPC cities? Assuming the "Great Cataclysm" will not be happening, can we start this system by taking those out as well?
My first impressions are that GW is shooting for something a bit more abstract to start with rather than something that requires a lot of new art and code writing. Things like the guard tower and barracks holding models. As things are, we can carry a large Cathedral in our pocket and flop it down just like that.

What I am most excited about is that this shows me that GW can make and add new recipes and items to the game with a little bit of effort. Also that maybe they are done with NOT DOING THINGS to improve the game because they are concerned potential investors will not like the changes.
Father Bronin
If we can siege PC cities, what about the NPC cities? Assuming the "Great Cataclysm" will not be happening, can we start this system by taking those out as well?
It has already happened. All the EE buildings are gone and we had to rebuild the player settlements from scratch. I am not sure what else was expected.
Yes, I understand that GW would prefer not creating new art and code at this point - but I think implementing this kind of siege warfare without such would be problematic and have (unintended) bad side effects given the state of the game right now, so I'm pointing out some of those issues and suggesting some possible (perhaps partial) solutions.

And GW's small staff presumably wants our input or they would not have asked - and they may not have thought of some of the possible side effects people are mentioning here.

I'm also hoping that they are looking thru the existing issues reported in-game and elsewhere, including one I recently reported that should be fairly easy to fix - though it is pretty subtle and most players probably haven't noticed it, so it may not be too high on the list.
With so many systems not implemented yet (blacklists, permissions for crafting and banking, A.I. for Guards like pathing/patrolling, individual Building levels, upgradable defenses for Holdings and settlements, Reputation system not having any real impact) Sieging will be nothing more then the rampant exploiting of an empty World full of abandoned cities.

You basically hand over the rest of the game to a few people that have all the resources to begin with, only to create an even more lopsided situation. Again, the game has no players, there are no defenses, there are no avenues to retaliate, or gather allies, or strike a deal with that trade-partner; no Diplomacy other then the inbred dealings of the few current owners.

Sieging and taking a settlement was supposed to be implemented at a point on the timeline, that was projected to already have tens of thousands of people playing, with many more features already implemented that would actually allow such an impactful and important feature to be implemented, and balanced.

Currently we have neither the players, nor those features, to let something like Settlement Sieging work in *any* intended way.

Ryan Dancey, where are you when we need you. smile

Honestly, I think they are giving up on the game, and just throwing the few active and loyal players a bone with this, as some sort of sunsetting feature. Which I guess is kinda nice from Lisa and Bob.
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
I am in agreement with Tyncale on this.
TOO many needed support features are missing to make this system balanced and fair.
And given the game's current state, it'll be driving a bus over it.

Now I can understand that adding this could help in getting investors to join by showing work being done, but for remaining fragments of the player base this could drive away a good chunk of the remaining player base, thus making the game appear as a black hole to investors.
There are definitely some missing or incomplete features that would be needed to make this a perfectly balanced feature. On the other hand, we have several other balance problems in the game that can be largely attributed to the inability to meaningfully attack another settlement. Our goal here is to alleviate those existing balance problems by introducing settlement warfare, and also to mitigate the potential settlement warfare balance problems all of you are so helpfully raising as best we can using a mix of policies and mechanics. We're trying not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good here, but we're still trying to get as much good as we can within the limits of what can be done at this time. I can't thank you all enough for voicing your concerns here. As this lovely three-day weekend comes to a close, we'll have more constructive discussions about possible changes.

Also, if any of you are reticent to discuss any concerns publicly, just email and we can discuss things privately.
In any case, something so radically altering the status quo as this might do, has been the final blow to many an MMO. There are plenty of examples of drastic changes like this going bad. Very much appreciate that you are open to feedback on this idea.
Also consider this:
-This is another mechanic for settlement level play rather than a mechanic for everyday player experience improvement.
-If it were to become reality and utilized very much(which I have my doubts about), it will be pushing more PVP combat level play on a current player base that really does not like such PVP, in general. That would probably be a bad choice right now.
-I may be very wrong, but I do not think that you can get this done in a way that offers immediate rewards to those that use it. Unless that can be done at the same time or VERY SOON after implementation, it probably will not be much used at all.
So(and I could be wrong about this because… no specifics yet) this is really a new feature that could force PVP on players that want little of it, does almost nothing to improve individual play, and is not rewarding so will be used little if at all. Reads like a recipe to be either a waste of valuable time or a disaster or both.

* Get ammunition in or fix ranged attacks that cause stationary BS.
* Introduce ways for smaller groups to homestead. <–Get them invested in territory and "ownership"
* Line of sight. Let's have some. smile
* Gushers
* New recipes that offer variations on gear stats when using say… Blended Iron Blanks instead of Dwarven Steel blanks <—single example. Make them SUPER RARE though.
* Mule drawn carts and "mule spawn doors" on holdings.
* Make sure that all feats are working as intended.
* Throw some damn convenience things into the game store.
–Name change
–Exp respec
–Extra character slots that can earn xp
–Goblin mule skins, otherwise known as "Goblin Porters" <–Credit for this to Glinder She was first to suggest it to me or within my hearing range. smile
–Race change
* Make tools for GM devised adventures like "undeciphered treasure maps" or NPC job offers or even clues to find "outside the map hexes" that are "Dungeons" <–hexes that are not part of the map but can be entered at certain temporary locations.
* How about(rather than Settlement take overs) make "raiding" possible. Invert the 25% loss from character death to 25% lootable from captured holdings. You capture a holding and you have the option to either loot or destroy but not both.
there are no defenses

There won't be any dedicated defenses specific to settlement warfare, but as I mentioned in a separate post, there are several layers of "defenses" (holdings/outposts, stockpiled bulk goods, higher settlement level, more buildings) you can put up to slow down and hopefully dissuade any attackers.

there are no avenues to retaliate

Retaliation will be difficult, but on the other hand, one of the biggest complaints we've had all along is that nobody could really retaliate against anyone because it's impossible to dislodge even the most minimally active settlement. The biggest issue here of course is retaliation by a settlement after it gets destroyed. One thing we're hoping will allow for some quick retaliation is the requirement to surround the settlement with holdings and outposts in order to claim it. That will give lots of opportunities to destroy outposts in order to block the claim. Make it hard enough on the attackers to claim the settlement and perhaps they'll stop trying, after which you can reclaim the settlement yourself just by surrounding it. Also, if your enemies stretch themselves too thin, they'll have trouble defending themselves when you're ready to retaliate.

Admittedly, you'd probably need to find another settlement to join temporarily in order to have some support, but that just reinforces the need for every settlement to have some allies to help them out in times of trouble. Speaking of which…

[can't] gather allies, or strike a deal with that trade-partner; no Diplomacy

True, we don't have a lot of in-game systems for these kinds of things and it can be difficult to coordinate feuds and such with your allies. Fortunately, there are many out-of-game ways to coordinate, as you've all had to do all along. I also believe that as we talk through the alliance problems specific to settlement warfare we can find some simple ways to alleviate them.
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post