'The Gloomer' effect.

[Suitepee]

Just wondering how news of 'The Gloomer' seige device has made you change your clan tactics,if at all. :D

(Yes I know there's a General topic on the subject; this is more specifically related to clan tactics,and whether this news had made you drastically rethink anything...)

[BlackVolgan]

i think alot of well armoured clan mates will turtle the gloomer with their shields.

[Titus Ultor]

I don't particularly care for the idea, personally. In terms of guild tactics, it makes it quite clear that sieges will be capture-the-flag affairs. Whoo.

[Taroth]

Call me brilliant and good-looking, but my previous ideas of what a gloomer is are now completely messed up. Anyone want to clarify for me what a gloomer is in this game?

[Azash_AT]

Actually I think its interesting. Could be bad but it could be really cool as well so we will have to wait and see how it plays out.

Alot of it depends on siege structures available to the attacker. They said there were attack platforms and what not. So if there is a thing like a tent or fort or something the attacker can create even if its say cobbeling together a squre made of siege towers to form a home made fort I think that would be a viable tactic.

If there is no way to fort the fellow up I think the idea of keeping him up close to the siege itself is a good idea. Keep plenty of guards around him and keep him close. I think many will be tempted to put him far away with a few guards but I think thats a bad idea personally. The defenders see you wherever you go you cant see them coming. So the defenders have the advantage if you try and play hide and seek with them.

[Taroth]

Actually I think its interesting. Could be bad but it could be really cool as well so we will have to wait and see how it plays out.

Alot of it depends on siege structures available to the attacker. They said there were attack platforms and what not. So if there is a thing like a tent or fort or something the attacker can create even if its say cobbeling together a squre made of siege towers to form a home made fort I think that would be a viable tactic.

If there is no way to fort the fellow up I think the idea of keeping him up close to the siege itself is a good idea. Keep plenty of guards around him and keep him close. I think many will be tempted to put him far away with a few guards but I think thats a bad idea personally. The defenders see you wherever you go you cant see them coming. So the defenders have the advantage if you try and play hide and seek with them.


Yeah, go figure that there might actually be a use for the legions of people who want to play stealthy assassin ninjas.

[Azash_AT]

Yeah, go figure that there might actually be a use for the legions of people who want to play stealthy assassin ninjas.

One of the best things about the system imo. Cause without something like this its the old "assiasins in a game full of immortals WTF M8?". The more variety and varied the roles are in combat the better.

[Merrin]

This seems to suggest the 2 GMs have to be online for the 3+ hours a siege could last. Otherwise what's from stopping them from playing another character during the fight?

What if they log off or can't make it for the siege? Is your clan doomed if you get disconnected? There are a lot of uncertain details regarding this.

[Vanno]

I'm witholding my opinion until I see it in game, but from the description, it just sounds sort of lame/less hardcore.

[Trigon]

close ranged assassins are still useless...

[LanMandragon]

it kinda sounds like as the guild leader, A, I wont be able to fight, and B, we wont be able to siege someone unless I am on.

Thats exactly the kinda stupid shit I dont want to see happening. Just because im GL, doesn't mean I dont need to have a life also. If my Ic's want to bane someone, that better be able to happen, and for them to run it without me.

[Vanno]

^ I agree. Personally, I would have just liked to see some type of seige equipment that works the same as a bane. You would have to defend it, and manage an assault at the same time. If the thing is destroyed, you could reapair it, but not damage the defending guild's structures until it is repaired. You essentially have the same effect as a gloomer, but don't need to burden GLs. Plus it makes crafters more significant. Likewise, a seige won't be done just like that.

[Angry-Khan]

My guild will now be using formation 156 B instead of our planned formation 32 H.

[Azash_AT]

it kinda sounds like as the guild leader, A, I wont be able to fight, and B, we wont be able to siege someone unless I am on.

Thats exactly the kinda stupid shit I dont want to see happening. Just because im GL, doesn't mean I dont need to have a life also. If my Ic's want to bane someone, that better be able to happen, and for them to run it without me.

If you trust your IC's and your not a complete clan of stragers let someone log your toon on and hot box it with the stone. People in clans that actualy know each other sharing there account info is pretty common.

[LanMandragon]

If you trust your IC's and your not a complete clan of stragers let someone log your toon on and hot box it with the stone. People in clans that actualy know each other sharing there account info is pretty common.

Thats not the point. As long as one of my IC's can hold the rock, thats fine. Can you imagine NEVER being able to fight in a siege on your own toon? That would suck.

[Surly]

i think alot of well armoured clan mates will turtle the gloomer with their shields.
Everyone will know where he is though, you might want to rely a bit more on mobility so their little turtle-stack doesn't get nuked apart with kinetic fireballs. We'll all just have to play it by ear, I believe.

Personally, what came to mind when I first heard this was the clan leader running a clockwise circle around the city he's sieging on horseback, and having a group of 5 cavalry players running the same route counter-clockwise. That way if he catches any riders on his tail (who can't use mounted ranged combat) he'd be able to keep distance with them long enough for his cavalry guys to collide with them and stop them, at least long enough for him to gain a distance lead. It'd be like a car wreck :P

[Surly]

This seems to suggest the 2 GMs have to be online for the 3+ hours a siege could last. Otherwise what's from stopping them from playing another character during the fight?

What if they log off or can't make it for the siege? Is your clan doomed if you get disconnected? There are a lot of uncertain details regarding this.Ideally, I hope that the clan leader is "forced" online, whether he's connected or not. I could see a lot of issues as well, but for the sheer fun factor I have to say I like it.

[Suitepee]

Thats not the point. As long as one of my IC's can hold the rock, thats fine. Can you imagine NEVER being able to fight in a siege on your own toon? That would suck.

Well for one thing,to actually 'kill' someone,doesn't a person have to be right next to you and have to pull off a long 'finishing move'?
I could imagine yes,that clan leaders holding Gloomers would have to be moe precautious,but I can also imagine that if there are plenty of other people nearby to revive/heal said leader,I don't see why a clan leader shouldn't fight in the seige. If not more cautiously than before.

I really think I'd have to see this in beta practice....

[Daikos]

God dammit watch how you name threads in the clan forums. I was all excited hoping that mabye, just mabye, this would be a thread for bashing Lillith.

You all ruined my day.

[Bigbone]

I actually like the proposed effect of a roaming banestone (SB animoly). Not only do you have to protect it at all costs, but you have to protect your vuln resources as well. I can imagine alot of strategical elements which will make seiging more exciting for both the attackers and defenders.

I think its a neat concept and very original. The whole point is to protect the shard during a set time frame or you lose. The fight in most cases will be over the shard, unless the attacker just wants to burn a few resources, so having a mobile shard will bring even more fun to the battle IMO.

Alot better than being stuck in the ground, and allows for alot more defensive planning.

[LanMandragon]

it doesn't give the attackers much of a chance if any to rally back though as far as it sounds.

Oh well, testing will tell.

[Whoopin]

Yeah, Im really lookin forward to speaking the word "Gloom/er" in vent. Not.

Sounds more like carebear kyptonite. heh

[LanMandragon]

Gloomer is better then banestone.

Meh, im stoked to test now, stoked. I can't wait to see how the system works, and start talking about how to make it better.

[Crying Hyena]

I dislike the setup as I understood it. They said nothing about the range of the stone. Also, this limits your attacking ability. There will be clans who own several cities. Do you have to wait for your clan leader to hike to the opposite end of the clans territory inorder to launch an attack? War doesn't last the legnth of the siege. I hope not anyways. If your fighting more than one clan or a clan with multiple cities, you are limited in that you can only attack one city. If you have the personel, orginization, and the resources, hit multiple cities at once, awsome tactic. I know you can raid cities at anytime but restricting the attack to when the clan leader is on, I don't like.

[Sel'Karim]

I dislike the setup as I understood it. They said nothing about the range of the stone. Also, this limits your attacking ability. There will be clans who own several cities. Do you have to wait for your clan leader to hike to the opposite end of the clans territory inorder to launch an attack? War doesn't last the legnth of the siege. I hope not anyways. If your fighting more than one clan or a clan with multiple cities, you are limited in that you can only attack one city. If you have the personel, orginization, and the resources, hit multiple cities at once, awsome tactic. I know you can raid cities at anytime but restricting the attack to when the clan leader is on, I don't like.

Good objection. I think there is an easy fix to this matter however (and to a couple of other problems that have been mentioned). Firstly allow anyone, not just the leader, to carry the challenge shard. Obviously only the leader selects this person. Secondly, allow for more than one challenge shard, but only one per active seige.

[Daarco]

So you can declare war to many clans?
And send your troops to two diffrent seiges?


And if you dont match the right "glooming time period", its just a raid?

But the clanleader carrying the clanstone can lure attackers into a trap. Since we have to follow and kill him/her.

[azjani]

I think what is really confusing people was the wording on the article where it said "A" clean leader must have the gloomer instead of "the" clean leader indicating the top clan leader. it could very well be any clan officer could have the gloomer and leave the top clan leader free to direct troop movements or even to conduct attacks on multiple cities.

[Rovo]

having the gloomer might have some sort of debuffs such as no swimming, jumping, running, mount. All you can do is walk or somthing. Maybe even no combat.

[Draugh]

having the gloomer might have some sort of debuffs such as no swimming, jumping, running, mount. All you can do is walk or somthing. Maybe even no combat.

No way would the developers be stupid enough to consider that as a 'feature'. More risk involved with carrying the gloomer, certainly, but taking away the ability to even defend yourself?

[Metal Wolf]

Every time I read Gloomer I keep thinking of the UDF days of fun.

Anyway, Mahirim Guild leaders are gona be basterds to run down now. And I thought that Mahirim were gona suck at Sieges previously.

[Helgeran]

Every time I read Gloomer I keep thinking of the UDF days of fun.

Anyway, Mahirim Guild leaders are gona be basterds to run down now. And I thought that Mahirim were gona suck at Sieges previously.

The gloomer is obviously a tool for blocking out the sun, no creating a gravity well that crushes the enemy fortification.