Suggestion Town Sieging

[Lazuli73]

Today at work, while I wasn't being mad at my co-worker, I was having a think. To be honest it was mostly about song lyrics but the moral is that I believe I figured out Town Sieging, or at least what it should be. Recently I got Steam and started playing TF2, which gave me the idea.

The basic idea would be that the offensive town builds control points (at least three) along the boarder of the defensive town's gen protection (at least two defensive town members must be online). After thirty minutes the control points come online and the roles switch (I think?). Well the defensive town would have to take control of the control points and keep control of them until another thirty minutes runs out. The offensive town would have to defend the points and keep at least two under their belt in order to siege the town.

If the offensive town wins the control point battle they can start collecting taxes directly from their gen, which is added to their gen balance. If the defensive town decides they like being annexed they can join their conquerors passively and join their alliance with the added benefit of... something inciting that would make them want to join. If a town wants to be free of their oppressors they have to siege the town that originally took control of them, nullifying the power struggle by balancing it out. Basically if a town wants to leave they have to preform a siege themselves; if a town joins passively they can't just leave their new alliance, they have to be siege the original town. If it's a normal alliance agreement the sieged town could just leave the alliance after passively joining, causing a causality loop of endless sieges. There would have to be something to make the sieged town want to join the offensive town, make them want to join their alliance.

It's not flawless, but it's something to build Town Sieging on. No foundation, no structure. I don't know what the benefit of joining an oppressive town would be, but people will throw their ideas at their screen I'm sure.

 

[gabrosen]

WOW that is a really good idea, I think that could work

 

[Artagan]

Perhaps these "control points" could be siege engines like catapults, trebuchets, and battering rams, which you would place just like a tgen, inhib, or industry.

 

[agorednocit]

Well, it wouldn't be a siege without a long drawn out shitshow with bows. But I agree, anything would be 9000 times better than me breaking/losing my armor in the first 8 mins fighting against a squad of sword toting brutes and then not being able to do anything while my town is (pretty much) permanently lost. Imagine if an alliance like Argus had the ability to force you into their group just by holding 2 points for half an hour.

 

[X_Cavator]

For the actual fight of the siege, I have an idea. First of all, a siege requires a post on the forums of declaration 24 hours in advance. On this post other towns can declare aid to either the attackers or the defenders. The siege fight takes place in the town and outside the town while the last man standing wins. The fight starts outside the town but ultimately the defenders choose where they want the fight to happen by where they go. The only problem I can see with this idea is traps. Because ender pearls aren't allowed in towns, fall traps of any kind should not be allowed and anything that does not kill a player but puts them in a spot where they can't fight should be illegal. Obviously this fight would be a big deal so an admin should spectate it and make the final call during any dispute.

 

[agorednocit]

Xcav, you're better than most players are at PVP so i can see why you would want a siege to rely less on traps. But I say that any trap goes and would even go as far to say that attacking forces drop gear. This way if you want to take over a town you should be ready to accept some sort of consequence for trying and failing other than damaged gear.

 

[X_Cavator]

If we do that, everyone will seal their town off and make the only entrance a giant fall trap. If they don't do that, they'll camp behind some other type of trap. At that point it doesn't matter who's better at pvp, after one siege the salt from the attackers will halt all other sieges.

 

[Lazuli73]

If players have to post a forum thread that they are declaring a siege will sort of ruin the idea of a town siege. They're meant, or should be meant, to be a ambush on the defensive town. A threat that they have very little time to prepare for, like a real siege. Although you do have some fair points I don't see the validity of your pvp argument. In a few months 1.9 will co,e out and EVERYONE will have to relearn to how fight. Yea there could be a problem with enchanted weapons, but we could make it so that those kinds of enchnatments are nullified during the actual fight.

 

[Cryptite]

Agree with Laz. One thing I never liked about Avalon's sieges were all the forum requirements etc. I get why admins need to be there and while I see the sentiment behind the forum post, no part of Loka (aside from staying really up-to-date on developments) should require using the website or forums. We should just do a good enough job of informing people in-game. I think it'd be akin to an inhib placement where it just notifies everybody that it's been turned on and that the fight will go down in X hours.

I suspect a siege starting (or being started by an inhib, for example) would be a very large and loud global announcement, not one specific to the attackers/defenders' towns.