Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst ... 23413 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 268
  1. #31
    2000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Surrey mansion
    Posts
    2,870

    Default

    Make a test server with access for subscribers.Let people who know what they are doing and with knowledge of ingame situations and siege experience test it properly.

    What you are proposing here without proper testing and asking for random feedback on a system that is only described in a couple of sentences is a recipe for disaster.
    http://forums.darkfallonline.com/sho...d.php?t=293122 DWARF PVP TOURNEY
    Dont Mess with the Best.AKA The Legend/King of the Dwarves/The most famous player in DF history.
    [SIGPIC]
    'You are too high in maintenance and generally disruptive.' Celiah Ailey on GM

  2. #32
    2000+ US1 Player
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Niburu View Post
    Bring it live so we can test it live under heat.....
    this.. to difficult to decide how it'll work.. last siege change seemed sweet then it went live and it sucked..


    release what you got and then collect our feedback based on our using it

  3. #33
    3000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,220

    Default

    The siege system of DF needs to feel a lot more like a real siege and less like a regular field battle with special items that need to be destroyed. They need to be special and epic, but not tedious.

    There needs to be artillery everywhere, battle lines, ramparts, explosions. All the special weapons of darkfall should be out. Fortifications should be imposing. City walls and keeps should be bristling with artillery, multi-cannon batteries at every angle. Attackers will setup siege artillery stations too not just expensive bindstone killing cannons that can only fire 50 shots. Warhulks are also underutilized, some can be anti-personel tanks, and others can be self propelled artillery. They should be cheaper, and have better protection so they can actually be used in battle. A siege should have burnt out hulks all over the field, and it would be OK (while currently, losing one is a massive setback).

    Regionalisation:

    First of all, we need more support for regionalisation. When multi-sieging comes out, this will happen anyways so AV may as well recognize this. Alliances will be consolidated into areas they can defend without splitting their forces in the face of a multi-siege.

    Cities can be divided into two catagories: Capital cities and outposts. Capital cities would have many more economic features (to be added when AV fixes economy...soon), but within the context of the siege system they would have more powerful defences and also satellite hamlets. Each capital should also have 2 satellite hamlets within a few minutes ride. Sieging a capital will be a fairly massive undertaking. Outpost cities would not have satellite hamlets and they will be designed for independant clans, or alliances trying to get a remote holding (hard to hold though under multisiege system).

    SUMMARY of Capital city siege mechanics:

    The attacker has a 5 days to conquer a capital city. Each day there will be a 2 hour vulnerability randomly selected to start during prime hours (start between 8pm to 11pm central) where action takes place. First he declares a siege and then during the next day's battle period he has to capture a satellite hamlet (both are vulnerable). The next day he has to capture the other one (the first one is vulnerable to the defenders, can be conquered by them, ending the siege). The hamlets are converted into siege camps when captured and can be bound out of, they also have personal and clan "siege boxes" where people and clan can store supplies.

    Now the city is vulnerable to siege. The city siege last 3 days. The first two days the attackers will have the objective to punch through the walls. They only have to punch through one section (but walls will BE ALOT stronger). Only special massive "siege cannons" (and "siege barges" for a seaside assault) can punch through walls. If a wall is breached in the first two days, then the 3rd day's the assault day. Zap towers are disabled once the it starts and the stone is vulnerable. The satellite hamlets are also vulnerable. Whichever is conquered first, the city stone or the 2 hamlet stones determines the final winner.

    Details and reasonings:
    -Sieging a capital city should be a major undertaking, even for powerful alliances vs weaker ones. Smart but weaker defenders can defeat or cause major losses to attackers since a city's fortifications and artillery defences are more important. Tedious phases and tasks will be removed, replaced with more fun and intuitive ones that ever newbies can participate in. Some may think a full 5 day process is long but the idea is to distinguish capital sieges from other battles. Right now a problem is that sieges are basically normal big fights with a CTF objective. People should not be dropping sieges just to get fights, as they do now, finding fight objectives in the world is AV's job, they need to create more hotspots (like land towers, or epic mobs). Capturing someone's capital city should be a serious and somewhat long undertaking, requiring some dedication (but, should be mostly fun and intense, no tedium).

    -During a siege until the final assault begins, the city zap towers will be NPC strength (and go through walls). This will prevent attackers from easily camping a city, which is cheesy and not fun. Some commando raids on weakly defended areas or batteries are still possible with solid healing and arcane + robe, but you cant stick around.

    -Having to bust up 2/3 of wall sections is stupid mechanically & aesthetically. This is also one of the more tedious parts of a city siege currently. The new mechanic will be "siege cannons": Large wall busting cannons that only fire once every 15 minutes (so nobody needs to be sitting on them spamming click for hours). For naval assaults there will also be "siege barges" that have 1 siege cannon mounted on them. I would give each wall section 12000 HP, and make each siege cannon hit do 1000dmg (regular cannons or spikes do zero now). So 12 hits thus one single cannon could destroy it in 3 hours but would need to be operational 75% of the window so it would be tough and you will most likely need more for that and other reasons (see below, breaches + better walls). A Cannon should cost 150k and a siege barge 250k (mobility + re-usability potential). Cannons could also be destroyed by the defenders of course. They can be decently tough but not too tough.

    -If AV were to make city walls a bit higher, and add a decent lip to them + towers, it would be trickier to use magic to get large assault forces over the wall, especially without the element of surprise. They also need to get rid of flaws in certain cities where you can basically go right in over rocks or other stupid geography. This would make it more important to open a breach, even multiple breaches could be worth it.

    -Cities should be bristling with artillery!! Each tower should have multiple cannons on it (and for fucks sake fix the range on them). The major buildings should too, especially the keep should be a massive cannon armed fort. Attackers would deploy smaller non-siege cannon batteries (or warhulks) to attack city batteries. City cannons could be taken out, and once disabled only minimal repairs overnight (like 25%). So defenders would be using their batteries to take out siege cannons, but they would be facing fire from non-siege batteries or warships deployed by the attackers. Each side could also launch raids on weak positions so you would still have bloody fights, magical nukes and such would be a good way to supress batteries.

    Outpost city sieges
    Would last only 2 days. No satellite hamlets so attacker builds a siege camp. First day is the wall breach phase (weak walls, only 4000HP), outposts signifantly weaker than capitals in terms of defences. Second day is assault (if breached reached). Ends when stone taken or siege camp destroyed.

    Outposts are meant to change hands easily and would be held as a much lower value than a capital. They would be luxuries for large alliances, or easy-come/easy-go homes for medium sized clans who want to go it independantely. They would be quite easy to pick off large alliances if the alliance's capital were sieged, cuz they would be tied up for up to 5 days and the outposts would only require 2 days to take.

    Conclusion:

    This system would enhance the growing significance of regionalization created by multi-siege by recognizing the importance that alliance capitals now have in the game. Supercities will be supercities. Valuable, powerful and difficult to crack. Outposts will also be recognized as such.

    Sieges will be longer, but they will be unique, epic experiences and by removing currently more tedious elements, MORE FUN. No more standing around spamming left click for hours dropping 30 wall sections. No more standing around for an hour guarding your siegestone while the defender turtles waiting for next phase. No more bind camping people after surprise attacking them hours before the siege. No more possibilities of 4am sieges. Newbies and even laggers will have more roles too. With more artillery/warhulks in play you wont need powerful characters to contribute, magic intensifies to shoot cannons or drive a warhulk.

  4. #34
    1000+ Greyhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    93.128.102.20:2558
    Posts
    1,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Virindii View Post
    and make it so when you won the siege. you have to build the city up from the ground. and dont get a shinny city after the siege. if you have to spend again building mats there wouldnt be tradings to alt clans anymore etc.
    very good point

    1. 10 for a hamlet 20 for a city, no trials ofc (and i like the idea that a clan should excist ~1 month before he can drop a siege)

    2. destroy the attackers clanstone or siegestones

    3. Defenders keep their city/hamlet but don´t get the attackers property (otherwise ppl would be to scared to drop sth.)

    4. i don´t get the last point

  5. #35
    2000+
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    As has been mentioned, tough to give solid feedback without more info.

    However, 10+ for a hamlet, 20+ for a city sounds pretty solid, as does the 1month+ guild existence and no trial accounts. I also think having one or more buildings randomly destroyed after a siege victory would bring the city building aspect back (at least a bit), and solve some of the city trading issues.
    SynCaine GodHand
    Author of Hardcore Casual

  6. #36
    2000+ Chris Windblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    MiDDle EaRth
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    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 think the min number for attacking clan should be 25 for city holdings and 15 for hamlets. trial should count becasue whats stopping players from asking a ton of friends to join in on trial accounts just to take a holding at server up or server down...


    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?I think there should be the seigestone that are placed and then a time out period say 40 mins then the defenders have a chance to retaliate at the attackers holding so the attackers holding goes invuln to the defenders only after they have destroyed and completed part one of the seigestoned placed.


    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? I think the defenders should keep the holding and instead of the wager added to the defenders. the defenders have a chance to retaliate against the attackers keeping the attackers holding still invuln for a short time. say 1 hr.
    The attackers are the ones fronting the money or holding. so they should get something out of it if its a tie say if the seige stone and clan stone was to both fall at same time.
    on that same token if its a time out it just dissolves. and they both have a cool down on that one particular holding till they can seige it again.


    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).
    This is exactly was i was saying. i do think that the attackers city is not vuln right away but after the defenders successfully defend and destroy the siege stone. then the attackers city goes up after a short down time to give time for both sides to mount the attack/defense.And i agree the defenders should not have to pay to retaliate. since they were not the one that started the war. war should be worth something and this is the short answer to that.

    I do think that is is a very good thing and i Am very proud of av. You guys have impressed me with this, something i haven't said in a lil while. Please keep this up. this is what we want.
    Get the latest infodarkfallonline.com/uw/
    If you have account issues, please send an email to noaccount@aventurine.gr - This will create a support ticket directly to help Aventurine track your issue and resolve it.

    Latest Videos

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Virindii View Post
    and make it so when you won the siege. you have to build the city up from the ground. and dont get a shinny city after the siege. if you have to spend again building mats there wouldnt be tradings to alt clans anymore etc.
    This is ridiculous. Have you ever built one of the bigger cities in the game? They're EXPENSIVE. Siege costs + gear costs + cannon/warhulk costs add up and you want to throw thousands of building mods into the mix as well? No thanks.

    "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?"

    As said before, 5 for hammie, 10 for city no trials. (Also agree with 1 month of existance first)

    "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?"

    I think the wager for a city should be determined based upon how many building mods everything in it costs. This gives each holding a value. In order to siege that holding you must wager an equal amount in gold and/or property. This would allow you to wager a hamlet + gold for a city or just gold if you happen to have enough.


    "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 the timer runs out, I think the defenders should win the siege and get any wager MONEY. However, without attacking another player's holding, I don't think the defenders should get that holding. I feel that if the holding couldn't be taken without the stone going down, then more clans may use properties as part of their wagers as I laid out above.


    "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)."

    I think that the counter siege being built in is quite good. This should probably not be free though. Maybe at a reduced cost? This would also only apply if only money had been wagered on the attacking side.


    I have a couple of issues with this new system that maybe just haven't been described yet.

    • If I drop a siege as a small clan and some large clan (TSL for instance) comes along and joins my side without me asking, do they have a chance to then win the holding I was going for? If so, who pays the wager?
    • Is this going to turn into one of those things where no one is invited to help because whoever gets the last hit wins the holding?
    • It would maybe work best if all the parameters of the "win" are set out by the main attacking clan before the siege is dropped. For instance, let's say I am sieging skogul (lol).

      • I would purchase the clan stone and then double click it within my system to set up the siege (or do it from the journal if that's easier).

  8. I would then have to set how we were paying for the wager (holding or money or a combo of both), if we were allowing people to join in on the siege, and who would get the property if the challenge is won.
    Based upon these choices, the difficulty of winning is adjusted (as per the blog post). Once this siege "contract" is filled out, I can then go and drop my siege as usual.

  • When joining my side, a copy of the contract pops up and the joiners have to agree in order to join.

  • How does this system prevent other clans not involved from messing with the siege?


  • Sorry for the wall of text, but I think we need more explanation. Maybe a moderated IRC session or 3 with the devs would be helpful in this situation.
    Ronarc Bracklaw (Blood Ballads) - UW
    Ronarc Bracklaw (NME) - NA1

  • #38
    15,000+ Niburu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,351

    Default

    1: Hamlet: 10 actives City: 20 actives
    No Trial accounts count into that

    2: That is a big problem because if you get attacked from multiple clans you won't be able to destory 3 or more large siegestones.

    Restrict extra attackers to 1 small siege stone

    3: the defenders should keep wager+city. If the attackers can't bring down the clan stone they failed

    4: No. If you siege the attacker automaticly wagers his kingdom against the defenders city. However if the defending side can't collect enough points from the attacking side that the lost holdings from the attacking side are back in his owner ship ( example: Defender captures 2 hamlets but that is not enough to defend his holding aka getting more points. so after the siege is a draw the attacker gets the hamlets back and the defender gets the wager )




    I have no clue if these are good suggestions in my interest because i have no clue how the siege system wll work on the live server



    EDIT: LOOK I CAN EDIT
    Last edited by Niburu; 05-20-2011 at 16:45.
    Darkfall Unholy Wars
    Playing Darkfall is the most fun I've ever had on a computer with my pants zipped up and both hands on the desk.

  • #39

    Default

    What aboutr defenders ? Is it possible to "register" for defending side (whatever that means) ? what is the benefit to win for clans joining defenders ?

    1. can't say any exact number but

    - proxy alt clans droping siege should be eliminated
    - clans consisting of just 1 man shouldn't siege
    - clans should also have some time requirement before allowed for sieging

    2. Just the primary attacker clanstone else attacker would call more attacker to register for a siege just for to spam siegestones "siegestones" and make it hard to impossible for defender to destroy them all in a timely manner.
    -This also depends on my intial question about "register" on defendinding side. If there would be enough defenders they would have also time to attack and destroy all attackers siegestones.

    Attackers shouldn't wager their holding during the siege, just gold and pay for siegestones and the war.

    3. Tie (time runs out) means defender wins. Simple. (not the attacker holding like mentioned above)

    4. Attackers holding doesn't become vulnerable, he has to pay gold for the siege declaration and placing siegestones and put a amount of gold depending on the (Points of a holding - there was some calculation method for findout the value of how much worth a holding is) as "venture capital" which in case of loss would be lost to defenders, should be the only way to lay sieges.

  • #40
    Normal User DeManiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Mainland
    Posts
    875

    Default

    When you siege a city, depending on Houses, Guilds and Keep, the city grants extra ordinary buffs to its inhabitants.

    Then destroying them would mean allot more to the outcome of a siege.
    If they normally give +1 regeneration, they give +10 during siege.

    Destroying them would then remove that debuff, in the same sense as destroying the houses removes the extra bindspots and effectively prevents them from getting back in as easily.


    That's one of the things I want you to change.

    Then I want to ask you if the ability to siege multiple HOLDINGS, is in progress?.
    Multiple clans sieging the same holding is already happening, and this will only make it more worth it doing so...
    The core issue is the inability to siege multiple holdings of the same clan.

    However, self sieging is an issue, so it's good you address this, and this method is good.
    I agree on all proposed changes.

    But on what should be destroyed I believe the more the merrier.

    Quote Originally Posted by TradeCartel View Post
    I walk through the desolate NPC towns quite a bit and see obvious places where there's an Inn or an outdoor cafe, but I can't sit at the table with a group of adventurers in a tavern, have an ale, and share stories of my exploits
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSSzpsU_wdA

  • #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krag View Post
    The siege system of DF needs to feel a lot more like a real siege and less like a regular field battle with special items that need to be destroyed. They need to be special and epic, but not tedious.

    There needs to be artillery everywhere, battle lines, ramparts, explosions. All the special weapons of darkfall should be out. Fortifications should be imposing. City walls and keeps should be bristling with artillery, multi-cannon batteries at every angle. Attackers will setup siege artillery stations too not just expensive bindstone killing cannons that can only fire 50 shots. Warhulks are also underutilized, some can be anti-personel tanks, and others can be self propelled artillery. They should be cheaper, and have better protection so they can actually be used in battle. A siege should have burnt out hulks all over the field, and it would be OK (while currently, losing one is a massive setback).

    Regionalisation:

    First of all, we need more support for regionalisation. When multi-sieging comes out, this will happen anyways so AV may as well recognize this. Alliances will be consolidated into areas they can defend without splitting their forces in the face of a multi-siege.

    Cities can be divided into two catagories: Capital cities and outposts. Capital cities would have many more economic features (to be added when AV fixes economy...soon), but within the context of the siege system they would have more powerful defences and also satellite hamlets. Each capital should also have 2 satellite hamlets within a few minutes ride. Sieging a capital will be a fairly massive undertaking. Outpost cities would not have satellite hamlets and they will be designed for independant clans, or alliances trying to get a remote holding (hard to hold though under multisiege system).

    SUMMARY of Capital city siege mechanics:

    The attacker has a 5 days to conquer a capital city. Each day there will be a 2 hour vulnerability randomly selected to start during prime hours (start between 8pm to 11pm central) where action takes place. First he declares a siege and then during the next day's battle period he has to capture a satellite hamlet (both are vulnerable). The next day he has to capture the other one (the first one is vulnerable to the defenders, can be conquered by them, ending the siege). The hamlets are converted into siege camps when captured and can be bound out of, they also have personal and clan "siege boxes" where people and clan can store supplies.

    Now the city is vulnerable to siege. The city siege last 3 days. The first two days the attackers will have the objective to punch through the walls. They only have to punch through one section (but walls will BE ALOT stronger). Only special massive "siege cannons" (and "siege barges" for a seaside assault) can punch through walls. If a wall is breached in the first two days, then the 3rd day's the assault day. Zap towers are disabled once the it starts and the stone is vulnerable. The satellite hamlets are also vulnerable. Whichever is conquered first, the city stone or the 2 hamlet stones determines the final winner.

    Details and reasonings:
    -Sieging a capital city should be a major undertaking, even for powerful alliances vs weaker ones. Smart but weaker defenders can defeat or cause major losses to attackers since a city's fortifications and artillery defences are more important. Tedious phases and tasks will be removed, replaced with more fun and intuitive ones that ever newbies can participate in. Some may think a full 5 day process is long but the idea is to distinguish capital sieges from other battles. Right now a problem is that sieges are basically normal big fights with a CTF objective. People should not be dropping sieges just to get fights, as they do now, finding fight objectives in the world is AV's job, they need to create more hotspots (like land towers, or epic mobs). Capturing someone's capital city should be a serious and somewhat long undertaking, requiring some dedication (but, should be mostly fun and intense, no tedium).

    -During a siege until the final assault begins, the city zap towers will be NPC strength (and go through walls). This will prevent attackers from easily camping a city, which is cheesy and not fun. Some commando raids on weakly defended areas or batteries are still possible with solid healing and arcane + robe, but you cant stick around.

    -Having to bust up 2/3 of wall sections is stupid mechanically & aesthetically. This is also one of the more tedious parts of a city siege currently. The new mechanic will be "siege cannons": Large wall busting cannons that only fire once every 15 minutes (so nobody needs to be sitting on them spamming click for hours). For naval assaults there will also be "siege barges" that have 1 siege cannon mounted on them. I would give each wall section 12000 HP, and make each siege cannon hit do 1000dmg (regular cannons or spikes do zero now). So 12 hits thus one single cannon could destroy it in 3 hours but would need to be operational 75% of the window so it would be tough and you will most likely need more for that and other reasons (see below, breaches + better walls). A Cannon should cost 150k and a siege barge 250k (mobility + re-usability potential). Cannons could also be destroyed by the defenders of course. They can be decently tough but not too tough.

    -If AV were to make city walls a bit higher, and add a decent lip to them + towers, it would be trickier to use magic to get large assault forces over the wall, especially without the element of surprise. They also need to get rid of flaws in certain cities where you can basically go right in over rocks or other stupid geography. This would make it more important to open a breach, even multiple breaches could be worth it.

    -Cities should be bristling with artillery!! Each tower should have multiple cannons on it (and for fucks sake fix the range on them). The major buildings should too, especially the keep should be a massive cannon armed fort. Attackers would deploy smaller non-siege cannon batteries (or warhulks) to attack city batteries. City cannons could be taken out, and once disabled only minimal repairs overnight (like 25%). So defenders would be using their batteries to take out siege cannons, but they would be facing fire from non-siege batteries or warships deployed by the attackers. Each side could also launch raids on weak positions so you would still have bloody fights, magical nukes and such would be a good way to supress batteries.

    Outpost city sieges
    Would last only 2 days. No satellite hamlets so attacker builds a siege camp. First day is the wall breach phase (weak walls, only 4000HP), outposts signifantly weaker than capitals in terms of defences. Second day is assault (if breached reached). Ends when stone taken or siege camp destroyed.

    Outposts are meant to change hands easily and would be held as a much lower value than a capital. They would be luxuries for large alliances, or easy-come/easy-go homes for medium sized clans who want to go it independantely. They would be quite easy to pick off large alliances if the alliance's capital were sieged, cuz they would be tied up for up to 5 days and the outposts would only require 2 days to take.

    Conclusion:

    This system would enhance the growing significance of regionalization created by multi-siege by recognizing the importance that alliance capitals now have in the game. Supercities will be supercities. Valuable, powerful and difficult to crack. Outposts will also be recognized as such.

    Sieges will be longer, but they will be unique, epic experiences and by removing currently more tedious elements, MORE FUN. No more standing around spamming left click for hours dropping 30 wall sections. No more standing around for an hour guarding your siegestone while the defender turtles waiting for next phase. No more bind camping people after surprise attacking them hours before the siege. No more possibilities of 4am sieges. Newbies and even laggers will have more roles too. With more artillery/warhulks in play you wont need powerful characters to contribute, magic intensifies to shoot cannons or drive a warhulk.
    While I don't exactly agree with everythIng here. This train of thought is where AV should be going. Sounds awesome.

  • #42
    Normal User argast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginger Magician View Post
    Make a test server
    /This

    In an insane world the sane man appears insane..

  • #43
    Normal User US1 Player
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Please allow 1 man clans to siege. People will still self siege even if they have to make a 10 man clan to do it. And with the new siege rules, a very small clan could win a siege.

  • #44
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    318

    Default

    Liaise with guild leaders.

    They can discuss with their members and then share the overall opinon with yourselves tp prevent hiccups brought about by individuals, or individual clans looking to make the siege system more favourable for their style of play.

  • #45
    Normal User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    552

    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, Hamlet 10, City 25. No Trialmembers of course.

    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 Siegestones, Defenders should have the advantage to defend their “home”, when they need to destroy the Clanstones from the attackers, they can’t fight in their City/Hamlet.

    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?
    In this Case the Defender should get extra time to attack the Aggressor. Should be more Realistic: First you defend your city and then you hunt the Attackers home and try to attack their holding.

    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 Attacker is the Aggressor. He should take more risk then the Defender. In my Opinion the Holdings from the Aggressor should be attackable for everyone and also siegeable for everyone.
    [SUN] Eli Garr

  • Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst ... 23413 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

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