Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 2111213 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 268
  1. #166
    1000+
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,915

    Default

    1. Do you think attacking clans should have a minimum number of active players to be able to issue an attack and, if yes, how many? If “yes”, then should trial members be included in the numbers?

    I'm assuming the reason for this would be eliminate alt clans for sieges. Good idea.

    2. In the case of several attackers: What do you think the defenders should have to accomplish in order to win the challenge? Destroy the attacker clan stones (or siege stones), or to simply destroy siegestones placed?

    Just because there are multiple attackers I don't think the defender should have any handicaps. Darkfall players are good at calling in for help as it is. For the defender to win he should have to kill all the siege stones or clan stones for a holding wager.

    3. How do you feel about the timer running out without any of the sides having accomplished their goals? Should the defenders get the chance to both keep their city AND win the wagers for a successful defense?


    Unless you wanted to promote wagering a holding instead of using siege stones I wouldn't give the defender any reward for timing out and no penalties on the attackers either except siege stone cost, because you don't lose the holding wagered in a time out siege so why should you lose the gold wager?

    4. What do you think of an attacker’s city not going vulnerable automatically but the need of having to issue an actual attack on that city? (with the option for the defenders getting a free attack option without having to pay a fee).

    With the new multi-siege system I see no reason for the attacker's city going vulnerable for free or automatically. If you want the city, issue a challenge. This alone almost makes question 1 obsolete because this was the main reason for alt clans for sieges.
    Hunson Abadeer

  2. #167
    1000+
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,915

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shook View Post
    1. Do you think attacking clans should have a minimum number of active players to be able to issue an attack and, if yes, how many? If “yes”, then should trial members be included in the numbers?

    I'm assuming the reason for this would be eliminate alt clans for sieges. Good idea.

    2. In the case of several attackers: What do you think the defenders should have to accomplish in order to win the challenge? Destroy the attacker clan stones (or siege stones), or to simply destroy siegestones placed?

    Just because there are multiple attackers I don't think the defender should have any handicaps. Darkfall players are good at calling in for help as it is. For the defender to win he should have to kill all the siege stones or clan stones for a holding wager.

    3. How do you feel about the timer running out without any of the sides having accomplished their goals? Should the defenders get the chance to both keep their city AND win the wagers for a successful defense?


    Unless you wanted to promote wagering a holding instead of using siege stones I wouldn't give the defender any reward for timing out and no penalties on the attackers either except siege stone cost, because you don't lose the holding wagered in a time out siege so why should you lose the gold wager?

    4. What do you think of an attacker’s city not going vulnerable automatically but the need of having to issue an actual attack on that city? (with the option for the defenders getting a free attack option without having to pay a fee).

    With the new multi-siege system I see no reason for the attacker's city going vulnerable for free or automatically. If you want the city, issue a challenge. This alone almost makes question 1 obsolete because this was the main reason for alt clans for sieges.
    Question 1 still is a good suggestion so people can't split up one challenge into multiple ones just by splitting up their clan.
    Hunson Abadeer

  3. #168
    Normal User CoRp$'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    122

    Default New selfsiege system with ALT-Clans o_O

    The clan has to exist at least more than 1 month maybe much more so it will be impossible to prepare ALT-clans fast for friendly siege again.

  4. #169

    Default

    1. Do you think attacking clans should have a minimum number of active players to be able to issue an attack and, if yes, how many? If “yes”, then should trial members be included in the numbers?

    I don't think there should be a minimum number of active players to issue an attack. But if there is one it should be 5 or lower.
    Why?

    I'd like to be able to siege with a small but experienced force, say a 10 player party vs 30-40 attackers. And very likely the 10 players would be from different clans.


    2. In the case of several attackers: What do you think the defenders should have to accomplish in order to win the challenge? Destroy the attacker clan stones (or siege stones), or to simply destroy siegestones placed?


    Destroy Siege stones / clan stone.


    3. How do you feel about the timer running out without any of the sides having accomplished their goals? Should the defenders get the chance to both keep their city AND win the wagers for a successful defense?


    Time out should end in a draw, where no one lost or gained anything, except the attackers loosing the siege stones.

    4. What do you think of an attacker’s city not going vulnerable automatically but the need of having to issue an actual attack on that city? (with the option for the defenders getting a free attack option without having to pay a fee).

    With the new multi-siege system I see no reason for the attacker's city going vulnerable for free or automatically. If you want the city, issue a challenge.

  5. #170
    1000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Gothenburg Sweden
    Posts
    1,533

    Default

    I would like to see a system where a city/hamlet clanstone's HP depends on how much bildings are still intact in the city/hamlet. And remove the need to destroy walls.

    Example:
    BaseClanStoneHP = 1000
    1 Clan Church = 1000
    1 Section wall = 100
    1 Wonder = 1000000000
    and so on..

    Clanstone HP = (BaseClanstonHp) + sum(CityBuildingHp)

    So it will be easier to take the clanstone down if you destroy buildings first.

    This will have several advantages:
    1. Clans will keep their buildings to max (or near max) hp, (most bildings is now keept at just above destruction)
    2. Defenders have the option to make it hard for the attackers (repairing)
    3. Promotes PvP since attackers will try to destroy city during the pre-siege time
    4. Attackers will have to make a decission, easier victory and high rebuild cost OR hard victory and low-rebuild cost.

    and more..

    An alternate option could be to give the defenders an advantage (+stamina?) once under seige and within city boundaries, the amount of advantage would depend on the total HP of the city structures (as described above).
    Last edited by gloomis; 05-21-2011 at 09:49.

  6. #171
    Normal User EU1 Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Not a good idea to ask the players that have constantly self-sieged for feedback on siege mechanics.

  7. #172
    2000+
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    10 for the hamlet minimun and 20 for the city minimun. And the clan should have 1 month of life so people don't make a fake clan the same day and disband after the siege.
    In case of time out defenders gain nothing but keep their holding, no wager.

    When you release more info we can discuss better in more detail.

  8. #173
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    125

    Default

    1. Do you think attacking clans should have a minimum number of active players to be able to issue an attack and, if yes, how many? If “yes”, then should trial members be included in the numbers?

    Yes you should certainly have a minimum number of attacking players and you should not allow Trial accounts to make up those numbers, if you do allow Trail accounts you will only enable a means to circumvent the system you are trying to implement. The number of active player you need, is for me a finger in the air job, you could have a minimum requirement for each size of siege stone, small = 10, medium = 20 and Large = 30+ active players.

    2. In the case of several attackers: What do you think the defenders should have to accomplish in order to win the challenge? Destroy the attacker clan stones (or siege stones), or to simply destroy siege stones placed?

    The defender should never have to make any attacking moves at all, I know this is not true to real life, but as a defender you one and only goal is should be to prevent the attacker from destroying the City clan stone. The attacking Siege stones should provide bonus attribute to the attackers which can be destroyed by the defenders but if all attacking siege stones are destroyed this should not be the end of the Siege, this should continue until the City Clan stone is defended (certain defined time, increased by the attacking players Siege stone size (small 1h, Med 2h, Large 3hrs)

    3. How do you feel about the timer running out without any of the sides having accomplished their goals? Should the defenders get the chance to both keep their city AND win the wagers for a successful defence?

    The defending clan and their respective City will not have spent any capital costs by defending and as such the defenders should only retain their City holding and the wager should not be won, the attackers on the other hand, should lose everything.
    4. What do you think of an attacker’s city not going vulnerable automatically but the need of having to issue an actual attack on that city? (with the option for the defenders getting a free attack option without having to pay a fee).

    The attackers city should not become vulnerable, unless Sieged. Period full stop. Then siege rules will apply, preventing any way to circumvent the siege system

    My feedback!
    A Problem is just another opportunity to provide a solution

  9. #174
    Normal User EU1 Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    546

    Default

    1.Do you think attacking clans should have a minimum number of active players to be able to issue an attack and, if yes, how many? If “yes”, then should trial members be included in the numbers?

    Minimum number. Yes.
    Amount. Possibly depends on the size of the target.
    Hamlet. 10.
    City. 20.
    Trial members should not be included.

    2.In the case of several attackers: What do you think the defenders should have to accomplish in order to win the challenge? Destroy the attacker clan stones (or siege stones), or to simply destroy siegestones placed?

    Destroy siege stones placed.

    3.How do you feel about the timer running out without any of the sides having accomplished their goals? Should the defenders get the chance to both keep their city AND win the wagers for a successful defense?

    If no result, the defenders have succeeded, therefore it is fine for them to be judged winners, keep the city and win wager.

    4.What do you think of an attacker’s city not going vulnerable automatically but the need of having to issue an actual attack on that city? (with the option for the defenders getting a free attack option without having to pay a fee).

    Fine.

  10. #175
    Normal User EU1 Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerethalhel View Post
    1.Do you think attacking clans should have a minimum number of active players to be able to issue an attack and, if yes, how many? If “yes”, then should trial members be included in the numbers?

    Minimum number. Yes.
    Amount. Possibly depends on the size of the target.
    Hamlet. 10.
    City. 20.
    Trial members should not be included.

    2.In the case of several attackers: What do you think the defenders should have to accomplish in order to win the challenge? Destroy the attacker clan stones (or siege stones), or to simply destroy siegestones placed?

    Destroy siege stones placed.

    3.How do you feel about the timer running out without any of the sides having accomplished their goals? Should the defenders get the chance to both keep their city AND win the wagers for a successful defense?

    If no result, the defenders have succeeded, therefore it is fine for them to be judged winners, keep the city and win wager.

    4.What do you think of an attacker’s city not going vulnerable automatically but the need of having to issue an actual attack on that city? (with the option for the defenders getting a free attack option without having to pay a fee).

    Fine.
    3.
    Changing my opinion here.
    They keep their city, they were succesful at that.
    They would not win the wager, if it were an attackers city, that would be too harsh.
    If it were gold, sure.

  11. #176
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    650

    Default

    1. Do you think attacking clans should have a minimum number of active players to be able to issue an attack and, if yes, how many? If “yes”, then should trial members be included in the numbers?

    I don't think this will fix the problem of alt clans being used to siege so that clans can avoid making their own holdings vulnerable when they lay a siege. Clans can easily use a clan in their alliance without a holding or an alt clan without holdings to drop sieges. In my opinion you need to find another solution to this problem if you want to fix the alt clan problem.


    2. In the case of several attackers: What do you think the defenders should have to accomplish in order to win the challenge? Destroy the attacker clan stones (or siege stones), or to simply destroy siegestones placed?


    Destroy the siege stones placed.


    3. How do you feel about the timer running out without any of the sides having accomplished their goals? Should the defenders get the chance to both keep their city AND win the wagers for a successful defense?


    Yes, if the timer runs out then the defenders have defended the siege successfully.

    4. What do you think of an attacker’s city not going vulnerable automatically but the need of having to issue an actual attack on that city? (with the option for the defenders getting a free attack option without having to pay a fee).

    All holdings for defenders should not become vulnerable as soon as they drop a siege, clans should have to drop a siege on a holding for a siege to start and this should be a seperate siege. Siege stones are the mechanic to allow defenders to win their sieges, not destroying attackers clan city stones.

    More Notes

    I think you will have to allow multiple sieges on player holdings with no lock outs for holdings belonging to clans already involved in a siege if you want any system you implement to work. This is the only thing that will allow clans/alliances to only hold what they can actually defend as multiple sieges on holdings simultaneously will mean that they cannot be everywhere at once.

    These changes along with no longer making attackers holdings vulnerable will render use of alt clans for sieging pointless but still allow defenders to siege all of an attackers holdings if they wish.

  12. #177
    2000+
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    2,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -fionn- View Post
    [B]I don't think this will fix the problem of alt clans being used to siege so that clans can avoid making their own holdings vulnerable when they lay a siege. Clans can easily use a clan in their alliance without a holding or an alt clan without holdings to drop sieges. In my opinion you need to find another solution to this problem if you want to fix the alt clan problem.
    I've the solution here to avoid alliance alt clans to self siege. The solution is self siege don't matter, if you self siege your holding another clan can siege your town even if you are sieged, this mean that when the alt clan self siege is over the new challengers can immediately attack the town without waiting another day.

    tl;tr, there shouldn't be a limit on how many clans can siege a town at the same time, you can siege the town at any time even if the town is already sieged and the new siege start after the last one ended.

    In this way an alliance will live in one town and not 20 like now with 1 guy to empty the mines. Multi-sieging should be total without restrictions. This will create conflicts not only between defenders and attackers but between more alliances too, and we will have full pvp hot spots for many and many hours.

  13. #178
    Normal User EU1 Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    250

    Default

    1. Do you think attacking clans should have a minimum number of active players to be able to issue an attack and, if yes, how many? If “yes”, then should trial members be included in the numbers?
    There need to be indeed a minimum of active players in a clan to be able to siege: 10 for hamlet and 25 for a city sounds fair at the moment considering the lower population. These numbers should be adjusted in case the serverpopulation grows significaly.

    In any case bigg clans will always be able to make a altclan with enough members in it or some members switch clans for a day or they ask friends to sit in the clan with the alts for a day, anyhow people are smart and will find a way around it.

    A different way of seeing this:
    10+ members first hamlet
    25+ members first city
    hamlet and city: 35+ members

    20+ members second hamlet
    50+ members second city
    2 hamlets and 1 city: 45+ members
    1 hamlet and 2 cities: 60+ members
    2 hamlets and 2 cities 70+ members

    40+ members 3th hamlet
    100+ members
    3 hamlets 3 cities 140+ members

    and so on.

    If clan has those cities but they loose active members, they won't loose the city/hamlet but the city becomes vurnable 24/7 and can be simply taken.


    2. In the case of several attackers: What do you think the defenders should have to accomplish in order to win the challenge? Destroy the attacker clan stones (or siege stones), or to simply destroy siegestones placed?

    Destroy the siege stones placed.

    3. How do you feel about the timer running out without any of the sides having accomplished their goals? Should the defenders get the chance to both keep their city AND win the wagers for a successful defense?

    Yes, if the timer runs out then the defenders have defended the siege successfully.

    4. What do you think of an attacker’s city not going vulnerable automatically but the need of having to issue an actual attack on that city? (with the option for the defenders getting a free attack option without having to pay a fee).

    Not a good idea

    Note by:

    Find a solution against Roamers: In my opnion they are more a disadvantage for the Attackers then the defenders even though they will attack both. Defenders will revive close to the place where the action is happening. Attackers often do not and will have to do quite a bit of effort to rejoin the group.

  14. #179

    Default

    1) 15+. No Trial members.
    2) Destroy Siegestones.
    3) Defenders get to keep their city only.
    4) Manual attack. I like it.

    Buy Darkfall thru my link & receive 20,000g + Gear to jumpstart your adventure!
    Don't forget to pm me afterwards!

  15. #180

    Default

    If you have multiple clans sieging a holding, please do not making it so the clan that wins the holding is the one that threw one battlespike and ganked it at the last second ( like villages and or sea towers ).

    If you do this AV... I dont even know.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •