Possible change to raids
-
This topic regards a low priority change. For the purpose of testing, the raids in their current shape are perfectly fine.
For release though I fear that they will not offer as many pvp activites as we currently hope, so I'm opening this discussion to analyze this aspect.My point is, the raids are very fun activities and are going to represent one of the main attractions for pvp players on Syndesia (and who knows, maybe even other planets). They are also cheap and easy to declare. Winning a raid is a nice bonus for an attacker, while not being very crippling for a defender. In short, these will happen all over the place on a daily basis. And this is excellent.
My fear though is that once the power balance on the continents has set, "weak" guilds will not bother to fight the "strong" guilds, since the outcome is a given. You are only damaging your equip, so just hand the attacker his resources and keep playing. This will void many potential fun fights.
To avoid this, I believe that there should always be a purpose in defending, even if you know that your side is not going to win.To pursue this, I think that we can burrow the same concept from the Conquest fights, so that most of the development can be reused. In Conquests, the defenders have multiple objectives to defend (3 lesser flags and one main flag), and the city loses loyalty based on how many objectives were taken down during the fight. Raids could use the same idea.
The resources gained by the attacker could be based on how many flags were taken down during the raid. So there is a difference between not defending, losing all flags and getting a crushing defeat which gives full loot to the attacker, or figthing back and obtaining a minor defeat were you protect some of your resources. This could take also attacker flags and lesser flags in consideration, with the final loot being based on the difference between flags taken down by defenders and flags taken down by attackers.This provides a reason to always defend. No one likes games where one side ends up conceding, so even when a win cannot be achieved the defenders should have a reason to stay in the fight.
-
could also have it so successful defense gives the defenders the money the attackers used to initiate the siege.
Since we do not drop equip in sieges any more and the defenders cant just collect that to use as trophies.
-
I would have to agree with Olive here defenders need something for defending successfully. Attackers risk gold (Wager) and get a reward from it defender Risk deleveling city so they need the gold and food again to relevel it but they get nothing in return the gold cost later on to relevel there city is 50k compared to 20k from wager for attackers too.
Need some kind of gold back from winning even if its half the gold from the wager although that might seem light when the risk is 50k gold to 10k payout
-
Remember that the defenders get to win a raid, which scores points for the season.
-
First time defending in a siege thoughts:
the battlefield is quite restrictive. After the attackers determine which one of the two sides to attack they, and the defenders, are effectively stuck at that front. The attackers cant set up catapults on two sides to force the defense to split its attention and the defenders cant leave out of one door, ride all the way around the town and attack the defenders from a different angle.
I am sure that the restricted battle area is in consideration of varied and odd terrains where it might be inappropriate for the attackers to set up on (river, cliffs, etc...) but being unable to circle around the town at all is extremely limiting and frustrating as cool things that the attackers or defenders -could- do are eliminated and you are left with two forces left to just smash into each other head on.was a property of the local terrain, not sieges.
The flags need work. Either there is the problem where players can walk inside the flags and become hard or impossible to target, or the height of the target box of the flags is such that any ranged attacks at players on the ground must be blind fired or you will find that you are firing up at the flag and not at the opponent. The hit box does not need to be so big and is a hindrance.
If we are able to fight in the trees and not constantly be firing at the canopy then we should be able to fight in the flags and not be firing up into the air.
The lack of object collision is understandable for many things... but without it in a battle with 20+ people, you just get overlapping mosh pit of insanity. With unit collision we would be forced to spread out, march in file, do rotations, and able to set up shield walls. Right now the only option we have is the bone wall. unit collision would make the game more dangerous for the players in many ways which I see as a good thing because it would reward them for thinking... and would stop the stacking of 8 wolves on top of each other XD.The stone walls look lovely, they really do... but without the ability to attack down from them, or up at them, they are not performing up to their aesthetic.
There is also the issue of equipment...
Originally sieges were like all the other pvp, full loot and the reward for a successful defense was the gear pillaged. This is also what the 5?6? tabs in the war chest were for- extra sets of replacement gear.
This was also the time of cheep gear and low durability.
Now with expensive gear, high durability, and no equipped item drop... death is practically meaningless and there is no booty except for if the attackers are successful.
This means that the battles are fought less like battles and more like lemmings there is no attrition, cost, or reward involved. A careful smaller force can slowly bleed a larger overconfident force, organization does not matter, and neither does that big war chest.
We are missing out on meaningful rewarding content due to the current economic and pvp situation of low drop rates, high durability, and no equipment dropped.One of the attackers had 3k gold on them in the fight, and another had a recipe. When this was looted it was the talk of the group. a truly memorable battle trophy !
Were we set back to the days of cheep equipment and modest drop rates then we would have more sinks, less pain at loss, and more moments of triumph.
I think it would be most appropriate if all participants in a siege had to flag neutral and lost at minimum 2 pieces of equipment per death. I died 3? times, I could afford to replace 6 pieces of equipment -even if with cheaper un-enchanted versions- and it would be a meaningful consequence of the battle and reward to the people who took me down.Right now I am simply down 13 durability ! (i started with fresh items)
This hardly feels like the result from a grueling half hour battle with damage flying everywhere and me totally exhausted (0 energy) for the last 8 min.Without meaningful consequences the whole event and experience is cheapened.
-
I have not been in a city raid lately, but if they made it if there it no equipment/gear loss on death in one; then that is actually a good thing. It will bring more players into them as they will be willing to use whatever gear they have without fear of losing it.
If that puts a damper on the full loot pvpers, too damn bad, raid pvp and normal or general pvp shouldn't be considered to be dealt with the same way.
All I can say is that if people do not need more than one set of gear saved up to replace lost gear, more people will do raids; me included (I have not been in one since I have not been playing the game for awhile, so therefore I am not even evenly equiped with most other players or have all the skills/talent points as them as well). Not to mention people would more than likely bring their best or better gears to them, which would bring more interesting battles in raids.
-
@TekNicTerror said in Possible change to raids:
I have not been in a city raid lately, but if they made it if there it no equipment/gear loss on death in one; then that is actually a good thing. It will bring more players into them as they will be willing to use whatever gear they have without fear of losing it.
If that puts a damper on the full loot pvpers, too damn bad, raid pvp and normal or general pvp shouldn't be considered to be dealt with the same way.
All I can say is that if people do not need more than one set of gear saved up to replace lost gear, more people will do raids; me included (I have not been in one since I have not been playing the game for awhile, so therefore I am not even evenly equiped with most other players or have all the skills/talent points as them as well). Not to mention people would more than likely bring their best or better gears to them, which would bring more interesting battles in raids.
I wouldnt be against if the drop rules was based on the guild owning the city alignment, so attacking an evil align city would be full loot drop, where neutral and good only be inventory drop.
You risk more being evil alignment every day so having somone attack ur city risking the same as ur everyday i dont see being an issue since most players will be neutral or good i think it should be fine
