A Suggestion for revamping the siege system

GundamAce

As I didn’t renew my subscription to Darkfall (has more to do with the fact that my bank changed and I’ve had a hard time getting my new credit info to AV than it does with the game), I’m posting this here in the hope that someone will throw the idea up on the official forums.

To begin with, each hamlet and city will have 1 to 4 “outlying villages” or villages associated with it for the purpose of a siege. In order for a guild to protect its city from a siege, that guild or one of its allies must control at least one of the “outlying villages”. If an enemy clan manages to control at least one “outlying village” and the city owning clan and its allies don’t control any of the “outlying villages” then the city is under threat of siege.

If the defending city doesn’t manage to reclaim at least one of the “outlying villages” by the end of the next raid cycle, then in the following raid cycle the enemy clan can attempt to assault and claim the city. These battles will continue on each raid cycle until one of the two opposing forces has claimed at least one “outlying village” as well as the city and manages to maintain that hold through the end of the following raid cycle.

I also believe that the timing of village raid cycles should be changed so that all the cycles fall in the prime time hours for the server. To use the NA server as an example, the first raid cycle could begin at 12:00 pm PT (3:00pm ET) and last two hours before allowing a one hour break. The next cycle would start at 3:00pm PT, the third at 6:00pm PT, the last would start at 9:00pm PT. Each cycle would last for two hours and there would be a one hour gap between each cycle.

Under this system a city siege would take a total of at least four cycles. Cycle one would be the cycle in which the defending clan lost control of all the villages associated with its city. Cycle two would be the cycle in which the attacking clan would have to maintain a hold over the villages. The assault on the city would begin on cycle three. Finally the defending clan would have a chance to reclaim their city in cycle four.

I propose this system for several reasons. First it eliminates off hour sieges. Second, it allows clans without a city to use the same exact siege mechanic as cities with a city. Finally it greatly reduces the impact that crashes have on sieges because there is no way for a challenge to end without some property (city and/or village) actively changing hands.

I’d love to get some feedback on what people think of this suggestion.

TLDR- Use control of villages as the trigger for sieges rather than the current system.  

xpiher

Ahh no

GundamAce

Originally posted by xpiher


Ahh no

 

...care to elaborate?

maxnrosy

Originally posted by GundamAce


As I didn’t renew my subscription to Darkfall (has more to do with the fact that my bank changed and I’ve had a hard time getting my new credit info to AV than it does with the game), I’m posting this here in the hope that someone will throw the idea up on the official forums.
To begin with, each hamlet and city will have 1 to 4 “outlying villages” or villages associated with it for the purpose of a siege. In order for a guild to protect its city from a siege, that guild or one of its allies must control at least one of the “outlying villages”. If an enemy clan manages to control at least one “outlying village” and the city owning clan and its allies don’t control any of the “outlying villages” then the city is under threat of siege.
If the defending city doesn’t manage to reclaim at least one of the “outlying villages” by the end of the next raid cycle, then in the following raid cycle the enemy clan can attempt to assault and claim the city. These battles will continue on each raid cycle until one of the two opposing forces has claimed at least one “outlying village” as well as the city and manages to maintain that hold through the end of the following raid cycle.
I also believe that the timing of village raid cycles should be changed so that all the cycles fall in the prime time hours for the server. To use the NA server as an example, the first raid cycle could begin at 12:00 am PT (3:00pm ET) and last two hours before allowing a one hour break. The next cycle would start at 3:00pm PT, the third at 6:00pm PT, the last would start at 9:00pm PT. Each cycle would last for two hours and there would be a one hour gap between each cycle.
Under this system a city siege would take a total of at least four cycles. Cycle one would be the cycle in which the defending clan lost control of all the villages associated with its city. Cycle two would be the cycle in which the attacking clan would have to maintain a hold over the villages. The assault on the city would begin on cycle three. Finally the defending clan would have a chance to reclaim their city in cycle four.
I propose this system for several reasons. First it eliminates off hour sieges. Second, it allows clans without a city to use the same exact siege mechanic as cities with a city. Finally it greatly reduces the impact that crashes have on sieges because there is no way for a challenge to end without some property (city and/or village) actively changing hands.
I’d love to get some feedback on what people think of this suggestion.
TLDR- Use control of villages as the trigger for sieges rather than the current system.  

All they need to do is  take out resorces from the citys, force people to travel to get to them. Also eliminate the universal banking to force the would be attackers to bring their siege equipment as the travel to their targetted city instead of just running into a city, and use their bank to pull out the siege equipment.

Then sieges would be actually a fun thing to do and make it  more of a tactical game instead of a mindless zerg.

GundamAce

Honestly, I think the idea I posted when I started this thread would do more to reduce a zerg than just local banks (though I support a local banking system myself). If the army conducting the siege has to defend one or more villages as well as laying siege, and the defending army has to assault and hold at least one point in addition to holding their city, then both sides will be forced to split their forces down into smaller task forces to conduct simultanious opperations on multiple battle fields.