Seiging in MO2

[OreAird]

MORTAL SEIGING
In MO1 sieging was necessary. It was either undertaken through a grievance or to claim an area. The mechanics meant that the aggressor had to be serious and couldn’t just grief. However, when a war took place the losing side would lose everything! Which felt the same as griefing.

If you were on the losing side, all your effort and work would be gone. It would be completely lost with no way ever to get it back. All your banks, walls, workbenches, stables… Gone. It’s not just about the guild stone that can quickly be replaced.

This led to people quitting the game, take a break, and guilds to disperse.

MORTAL ONLINE II
We have the opportunity to accept huge changes in the game. Sieging feels like it needs to be one. I love what Henrik has said about guards, that they will need manual gearing, and time zone coverage in a natural way. However, I think there is one more step that can be taken.

EVERYTHING DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DESTROYED!​

If a City stone is defeated it should simply pass to the guild that does the most damage and starts at tier 1 again. This would give tonnes of benefits:

• The attacking guild would have a reason NOT to destroy everything.
• The defending guild would have the opportunity to rout, come back, and try and get their village/city back, the faster they do the lower the defenses.
• Player built Cities in the game in great locations that would last the test of time and become part of the game. They would grow and upgrade over time and change hands, but the original founders, even if it's lost, would still be proud of their creation and want to keep playing.
• Certain player-built cities would be constantly fought over and make wars a lot more meaningful.

@Henrik Nyström an idea for the food bank. Thanks for MO1 and MO2, this would be the icing on the cake I feel.

 

[Bordelli!]

What I'd love to see is small scale TC be more like early game LiF camps. Simple, cheap and easy to get started with almost no incentive to destroy it and could be used by outsiders as pit-stops through the Mortal 2 map.

I also like that Henrik is taking a hard look at walls and how they hurt MO1. Walls and banks should not be spammable, or should be incredibly expensive exponentially so that a guild has to take a lot of consideration into placing multiple banks and walls all over the place for safe farm zones.

 

[OreAird]

With my plan, those small scale TC zones could and would become reality. Small guilds could build and fight over them without the need for mega zergs

 

[Avonis]

Seems like a good idea, it'd be nice to have objectives like keeps change hands. It means less loss for the defenders so they can try and regain what they had, and less cost for the attackers to rebuild after.

 

[Svaar]

I also talked about about the same capture mechanic. That it is inappropriate to seize and destroy the entire village-city-castle. You need to grab it and use it. After the capture, I would add a timer, for example >>> 1-2 weeks in which the guild that lost control of the territory could try to revenge and capture it. When the city is gone, the losing side will have the motivation to take it over and over again. And yes, the mechanics when you lose the castle and the guild is destroyed, too, in my opinion, is not needed. The guild must remain in the game and its structure. We should only lose real estate and control over the territory.

I would also add the ability to capture locks once a week or once every 2 weeks. this would allow for more detailed planning of an attack on the castle, logistics, and so on. The capture of the castle must be done with the declaration of war (so that the entire game world displays a message: the "elephants" guild has declared war and will besiege the castle of the "crocodiles" guild on the 2nd at 14-00) <<<< this is as a rough example. This will give the game world a deeper immersion in the game and people will understand what is happening in the game world (like the pigeon mail sent out the message) .

The NPC guard idea is good but I'm afraid it won't work in this game. and people will leave the game after losing property.
And the construction of the castle itself should be motivated for the guild. It should give an advantage for the players, not only with a tax on the territory, but also, for example, in the craft of unique things that you can only do having your own castle.

I hope my English brings my idea to you))

 

[Evelyn Darkwave]

This has my support. It gives me similar vibes to Civ games where it's much more rewarding to siege out your opponent until they give in and you get the city as a spoil of war, as opposed to just completely destroying it. I think it'd be really neat to be like "You haven't seen the last of us, we'll be back to reclaim our castle some day!"

 

[Meridian]

Similar to, but more intricate than Dark Age of Camelot, capturing keeps and certain structures can be strategic, fun, and rewarding. Ore and I had a good discussion about this, and the ability to capture keeps rather than destroy would make it a more rewarding objective for the attackers, but also give the defenders a chance of reclaiming what they put their hard work into. Leveling up keeps and structures could open up various ramparts and counter-siege equipment for defending. Sabotaging wall mounted ramparts could be a strategic mechanic (1 hour burn timer or something) if the defenders feel like it’s a loss. Let’s make sieging less of a grief mechanic and more of a strategic decision that people will enjoy partaking in, no matter which side. MO1 sieging was torture.

 

[Meridian]

This has my support. It gives me similar vibes to Civ games where it's much more rewarding to siege out your opponent until they give in and you get the city as a spoil of war, as opposed to just completely destroying it. I think it'd be really neat to be like "You haven't seen the last of us, we'll be back to reclaim our castle some day!"

Exactly. MO1 sieging was more of a grief mechanic that didn’t belong in a game that people play to enjoy. It griefed the attackers and the defenders, lol.

 

[lord_yoshi]

Poor idea, having special city stones isn't very realistic and sounds more like a band-aid. You didn't even explain what city stone tiers even mean. What you really need is a change to the TC capture mechanic. In MO1, once a TC asset did not receive an hourly tax it immediately started decaying, and once it was at 50% HP, a guild could claim it. What you are suggesting can easily be implemented by adding a period of time where the asset becomes unusable, but doesn't start decaying, not a long time, but more like 48 IRL hours, where only the original guild can reclaim the asset. When this grace period expires, then the asset will immediately transfer to whatever guild has control over the territory or start decaying at 5% HP per hour as it was in MO1 until someone claims it or it is destroyed. Don't forget that TC is one of the main gold sinks, so cities need to eventually crumble.

Also, people don't seem to realize that without F2P alts, sieges are going to become a lot easier to pull off because guilds won't have access to dummy repair builders.

 

[NINEN]

I love this idea, Its definitely better than the old system.

 

[bubbles]

I'd like to see ruins of old buildings

 

[Meridian]

Poor idea, having special city stones isn't very realistic and sounds more like a band-aid. You didn't even explain what city stone tiers even mean. What you really need is a change to the TC capture mechanic. In MO1, once a TC asset did not receive an hourly tax it immediately started decaying, and once it was at 50% HP, a guild could claim it. What you are suggesting can easily be implemented by adding a period of time where the asset becomes unusable, but doesn't start decaying, not a long time, but more like 48 IRL hours, where only the original guild can reclaim the asset. When this grace period expires, then the asset will immediately transfer to whatever guild has control over the territory or start decaying at 5% HP per hour as it was in MO1 until someone claims it or it is destroyed. Don't forget that TC is one of the main gold sinks, so cities need to eventually crumble.

Also, people don't seem to realize that without F2P alts, sieges are going to become a lot easier to pull off because guilds won't have access to dummy repair builders.

What isn’t realistic (what ever realism is in this game) is having to level buildings and rebuild rather than simply capture them and build a new gate or “re-key” doors to obtain ownership. IMO, the only thing that should be bound property of a guild is the keying of the gate/doors for guild access and regulation. Maintaining the free-nature of a sandbox, keep structures placed should not be bound to any guild but static unbound structures similar to ruins (that should be able to be built back up). Natural decay of structures is good, and they should be able to be maintained and repaired by anyone, just like they could be attacked by anyone. Once decayed into ruins, other guilds can rebuild it and make it their own.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

Someone who no-lifed MO1 at the end using TC (Not me, if you're one of these people please speak up to confirm / deny), didn't TC capture already exist lol?

You literally just blew up the house / keep holding the stone, then when the TC fell below a certain % threshold you'd capture it with a TC tower or build a new house and expand the guild stone.

I'm almost certain this already existed.

Also, the problem wasn't people destroying things. The problem was is you have a 'global' game where people play at different times, and even still you'd have people defy their own schedules just to siege to avoid engagements. Because engagements in sieging usually led to super duper unfun things like guard spam, pet spam, fire arrow peaking, and later in the game elementalism spam through the fucking walls.

I believe SV have learned over time now that TC tower placements need to not be stacked onto mountain peaks then walled in. TC towers should have WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more HP, like you need to actually 'siege' the TC tower rather than just fire arrow it / bash it. Even if you do siege it, it should take a while.

TC itself. So walls, buildings, etc. They also need to have higher HP. It sounds counter productive from the first game, but blowing things up wasn't the hard part. The hard part is the aggressors had almost every disadvantage except 'when' (Day / time) they sieged.

The sieging was also tedious, boring, and super unfun. I'm not going to name names but a certain someone who 'supported' a boring sieging system said that "Sieging shouldn't be a fun process, it should be boring and annoying to do." Which it does make sense, to a degree. But this a game after all.

Am I calling for a casualized sieging experience where MO assets turn into pseudo-Rust raids? No. I actually think the aggressors need to be able to have some ability to set up a forward operations base of sorts, a siege camp in which they can operate out of. Don't have the same retarded system of moving boulders from point A to point B and off loading them on characters, or in the later iterations of the game; building a NEW HOUSE on the spot and filling it with chests and planting boulders in it (Players literally would construct 'boulder houses' on siege sights to make this less painstaking.) be the only method of sieging.

Siege camps need to be what pumps out the boulders, the siege engines, etc. It would follow a timer and after X time another boulder would spawn from an NPC working; or siege engines could be ordered to be constructed and it would take Y time. How do you destroy the siege camp? The enemy group, on the defense if they are aware of it, need to sally out in force to destroy the camp. There should either be structures they must bash / fire arrow, and perhaps some static NPC's they need to kill that work in the camp.

Another idea that I think needs to come into play, siege engines need to NOT lose HP on use. Siege engines should have to be destroyed by the opposing force from 100% to 0% to be removed. I would also allow engineers who have the 'Deconstruct' ability, to 'Deconstruct' siege equipment at a much faster rate then players manually destroying it.

Siege camps should utilize resources around themselves. The siege camp NPC's should be comprised of the following...

1. A siege engineer. The siege engineer can be 'told' to begin instructing laborers (The laborers don't need to literally exist, as to bypass having multiple npc's about causing FPS / performance drops) to build things. He can build trebuchets, manganons, battering rams, balistas. All siege engine would need to be movable or 'drug' like they were initially. Though I think the 'pulling' aspect of siege equipment in MO1 was very buggy. I think if dragging was to exist still - this needs to be done differently.

2. A foreman / labor overseer. The foreman / labor overseer can be instructed to tell his laborers to gather the local materials. This fuels the siege / forward camp which provides the needed materials for boulders, siege equipment, etc. He is a simple on / off switch.

3. A captain. The captain, could potentially, provide defenses given you have enough resources pooled to 'upgrade' the siege camp / forward camp. What this does is 1. Increases the HP of the NPC's within the camp that need to be killed. 2. Increases the HP of the actual 'siege camp' / 'forward camp' assets. 3. Prolongs the 'lifespan' of the siege camp / forward camp. The camp should have an internal timer of how long it will last, it shouldn't stay indefinitely. I suggest it initially has a 4 hour life span, with two tiers that go from 4 hours to 8 hours, then 8 hours to 12 hours. Would I suspect a siege to realistically last this long in game? Maybe? It gives aggressors the chance to actually utilize their camp to a more fuller extent. I'm sure there are plenty of you who have sieged only to have it ruined by something dumb. This present a way to re-group and re-strategize, so long as the enemy hasn't sallied out to destroy your camp.

For the camp to be destroyed. You'd need to destroy four things. The siege engineers 'station', the foremans station, and the captains station, and finally a 'pylon' in the middle. (This pylon would be the object you place from the deed. It would serve as the center of the camp.) To kill the NPC's, all you'd need to do is destroy their stations. Once a station is destroyed within the camp, it can not be rebuilt.

When the camp is placed, it should take initial materials to build; then it and it's stations / npc's will spawn in at full HP.

The NPC's within the camp should cost the guild prominence, or what ever the new 'prominence' system will be. It should not cost any form of gold IMO as the gold used in the deed should be justified.

You would still have to wait on the 'camp' to provide the needed materials as they wont get resources instantly. Nor' will they build things instantly, and upgrading the defenses wont be instant.

The engineer should cost flat prom costs to build siege equipment, given the resources are present.

The captain should follow suit, costing flat from to upgrade the camp.

The foreman / overseer should drain prom in his duration of being on.

Players should be able to provide their OWN resources to the siege engineer, for a FASTER / INSTANT build process. Saving them prominence / time.

This should also work for the captain, if the group provides the needed resources to upgrade the camp; they can instead pay with raw materials rather then prominence.

The laborers will always cost prominence, since they would 'gather' nearby resources. (Potentially could have different gather speeds, slow, average, fast, etc. that cost more prominence.)

I also think the original MO1 system should be in place. If people wish to buy deeds, place them, build them on the spots they wish and drag them - run boulders from their own keeps and hold the boulders somewhere - this should also exist. Provide a more streamlined experience that is needed, but keep the old one for people who think they could save money / time doing it themselves. That way, if you wish to siege smaller targets you're not having to spend more in sieging it then the actual things you're destroying.

This, to me, would be a good siege system.

TL;DR

- TC towers having more HP / defense, but less ability to be placed 'anywhere' or to be wall-stacked in.
- TC in general having more HP.
- Siege engines potentially having more HP, but not losing HP on usage.
- Siege camps / forward camps to remove the stupid 'boulder running' and or 'boulder house' building methods of sieging, tedious and boring. Boulder running will still exist but in the lesser extent that people can operate out of camps.
- Siege Camp / Forward Camp 'deeds' should be pricy. At least half the cost of a keep deed, if not more in my opinion. This creates risk for the aggressors.
- Camps provide 3 NPC's with destroyable stations that provide siege equipment, resources, and higher defenses / hp / longevity on the camp itself.
- NPC's actions / items cost prominence, but some NPC's can accept raw materials to expedite the process or remove prominence costs entirely.
- Keep the original system, obviously made better - but pair it with this streamlined system (Or something better).

 

[Handsome Young Man]

But yeah if you worked TC capturing in there, I wouldn't mind. I just remember it already existing in MO1 to my knowledge.

 

[Meridian]

But yeah if you worked TC capturing in there, I wouldn't mind. I just remember it already existing in MO1 to my knowledge.

IIRC, I feel one of the major issues was that structures were tied to guilds. They needed to be destroyed and rebuilt for guild new guild ownership if I recall. For example, you couldn't walk into an empty keep and stake a claim and be able to utilize everything in it.. I feel what needs to happen is that the only adamant game mechanic that has to work for guild-related ownership is the ability to control gates/access, and this could be considered re-keying, which is only possible once the keep is "claimed." The walls, ramparts, and other structures should simply be unbound structures that anyone could use, repair, or destroy. If upkeep isn't maintained, it will decay over time into a ruined state (not destroyed), offering opportunities for other players to claim and repair the structures in place and place a claim to the keep. Same thing if a keep is sieged, instead of destroying sections of walls, have it percentage based and the damage reflect the visual structure of the wall, like crumbling allowing for players to enter in that particular spot once it hits X percent of damage. Just some thoughts/opinions.

 

[Teknique]

Things either have value or they don't.

If something can't be destroyed its value is lessoned because there is more of itself in existence.

Sure fighting all the time for tc that doesn't matter would be fun, just about as much fun as gloria victis.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

Things either have value or they don't.

If something can't be destroyed its value is lessoned because there is more of itself in existence.

Sure fighting all the time for tc that doesn't matter would be fun, just about as much fun as gloria victis.

YEP.

Things need to be destroyed.

The system of building and destroying just had big flaws. Fixable ones though.

 

[Meridian]

Things either have value or they don't.

If something can't be destroyed its value is lessoned because there is more of itself in existence.

Sure fighting all the time for tc that doesn't matter would be fun, just about as much fun as gloria victis.

YEP.

Things need to be destroyed.

The system of building and destroying just had big flaws. Fixable ones though.

I don't disagree, Total destruction is unnecessary. Claiming a keep should still be a gold sink, but destroying a portion of a long wall shouldn't destroy the entire thing.

The system of building and destroying just had big flaws. Fixable ones though.

For sure.

 

[Handsome Young Man]

I don't disagree, Total destruction is unnecessary. Claiming a keep should still be a gold sink, but destroying a portion of a long wall shouldn't destroy the entire thing.



For sure.

I feel, in my opinion, if you feel absolutely wronged by someone - you have the tools necessary to salt the earth.

 

[Meridian]

Things either have value or they don't.

If something can't be destroyed its value is lessoned because there is more of itself in existence.

Sure fighting all the time for tc that doesn't matter would be fun, just about as much fun as gloria victis.

I think the emphasis on "value" of keeps is what needs work. Keeps need functional, social, and political value. Being able to capture keeps shouldn't devalue them and if it does, I feel keeps themselves don't hold enough value. I do enjoy this discussion!