Finally the more interesting information are leaking (from internal Betatest Forums, which show us some insight of the more advanced and organized Guild-vs-Guild (GvG) PvP.
First report is from a group of players who tried to raid the city. Some very interesting (and some alarming) information can be taken out of this report, but first read on:
First, we were bored so we decided to siege a close by city, mainly looking for a fight, but also just to see what things were like.
There were no siege weapons, we went in with 13 or so people the defenders showed up with 1 hour left on the count down, they had 6 or 7 I think.
Once we started fighting inside the city limits the battle timer began, it was a three hour count down.
My first comment is that it will be impossible for attackers to win these battles with anything short of a MASSIVE numerical advantage.
While we technically outnumbered the defenders, in reality the dynamics of the system meant that they outnumbered us. They respawned with full stamina and full health 10-15 seconds away from the fight. In effect that allowed them to have an unlimited force to fight us. While we had a 5-6 minute run when they were able to suicide gank someone, they were back in action in a matter of seconds.
This isn't a total shock we know that people respawn with full stamina/hp already but in a siege this HAS to change.
This kills and deaths really don't matter in this situation. That said we probably took 10 deaths total, and I have no idea how many times they suicided into us, 30+ at the very least.
To attack structures you can't just club them down, you have to actually have special siege weapons. That was one of our goals and we confirmed it.
If the current spawn mechanics stay in game for sieges, the battles will go something like this.
Attackers will launch attacks from either their city or a chaos stone. Defenders will bind into the city, excess will bind at a nearby city or chaos stone. The defenders in the city will simply zerg into the besieging force keeping pressure on and expending stamina. The excess defenders will either defend inside the city as a mop up crew, or attack the attackers externally. Losses won't matter on the defenders side because by killing them you simply strengthen their position and weaken yours. You expend stamina/consumables/health while you simply give them a free refresh.
Sieges NEED to be decisive battles, not endless bind rushes. Once a city is cracked open and assaulted really the defenders should be able to make A (singular) last stand, not continue to spawn and rush until the attackers are worn down.
In any case it was amusing.
We hope, the developers will address some of this issues, especially the instant respawn thing with full stamina which will make it quite hard to siege anything without an numerical advantage of 3:1 at least in a reasonable amount of time.
Next leaked thread is directly related to the one posted above, with some suggestion/comparison to Shadowbane's siege system (Shadowbane was a great game, but it failed due to bad support and many bugs, how Aventurine won't do the same mistake).
Please refer to this thread:
the link is the text above
Shadowbane's siege system worked. Here are several simple solutions to make Darkfall's work.
1. When a city is under siege, resurrecting at the clan stone comes with a five minute timer on regening health and stamina. This prevents endless bind rushing and allows the attacker to gain ground. It could be two minutes or one minute, the point is allow the attacker to gain ground.
2. Get rid of this piece of shit shard system and go back to the gloomer. Dropping rocks in Shadowbane worked. Allow each side to beat the other side's siege engine down to some degree.
3. THREE HOUR SIEGE WARNING CURRENTLY?
Install Shadowbane siege system with a siege timer where the defender elects when they want to defend their city within a 72 hour time period. This stops 3am raids and ends up having far more primetime Epic Battles. The current system will simply have people raiding at 3am.This is the part of your game that will keep people interested. Sieging is the most important feature to 90 percent of the guilds here. If you cannot have sieging done in a fair and fun manner, that bodes poorly for Darkfall.
I hope others agree.
This sounds quite reasonable, especially the respawn timer idea. Well I have another suggestion too, which is taken from Lineage II siege system and is very good in my opinion. In Lineage II the defenders would respawn inside the castle (if they belong to the defending factions alliance or clan who owned it) and there were some a few crystals which regulated the respawn timers. At the begin, respawn is like 1 min and as more crystals get destroyed by the attackers the respawn goes up to 5 min.
Additionally to that, the attackers had to place a banner somewhere inside the siege zone. The banner would be their respawn point. The clue: The banner was destroyable. So if the defender destroy them, the attacker of this clan have to walk a big way back when they die. This also adds an additional layer of strategy to the siege, as the attackers also have to take care and defend their "camp" instead of rushing with every single person to the city/keep to siege it and it prevents from defenders to barricade inside the city and wait for the attackers (if defenders come out and go for the banner of the attacker, it would make defending much easier if enemy has to run 5 minutes until they are back at the city ;))
The last leaked thread/post is about the beta testers feelings about the current state of the beta and shows how unhappy some of them are and it also gives you an idea how costly such a war declaration can be.
Atom
No comments:
Post a Comment