Changelog 4th June, 2016

[Epo]

It has been difficult enough to siege keeps during prime time as it was, now it just seems like you're trying to make it even more difficult. All it results in is more zerging, more blobbing and eventually less people playing the game because it's a boring zone swap contest until 2am when somebody can take a keep. In my opinion anyway, have to see what happens but I already said that there just seems to be way too much re-inventing of the wheel.

[Zanilos]

Spoiler:

Bit of background info.

Under the future RvR system, most siege weapons are capable of being towed by horses and are requisitioned from areas on the map using supply (which is gained from holding BOs), a supply cap (which is linked to the number of BOs held), and contribution, which is a group/guild/individual resource which can be flexibly allocated and is used for purchasing heavy weapons and war materièl. The heavy weapons themselves, as well as some other additions, are intended to ensure that using a human wave attack against a lesser-manned defensive position will not succeed and that combined arms and flanking tactics must be used.

The intention is that the following counterplays and checks exist to artillery:

1) Siege cannons outrange artillery by about 150ft (400ft range vs 250ft). This check isn't working because the damage received by siege weapons is currently broken on live and because RoR for what I'll assume are optimization reasons has a draw distance of 300 feet, rather than the 400 feet that Age of Reckoning did. I'm experimenting with increasing this to 350 feet.

2) Spreading out. This isn't yet working because the underlying RvR system hasn't changed, so while the weapons are performing their role, which is to crush wave attacks, the incentive to wave hasn't been removed.

3) Flanking. Can't flank a keep too well.

4) Supply blocking. By holding BOs, you restrict the number of heavy weapons and other materièl that the enemy realm is willing to release to their troops, and increase that of your own. This in combination with heavy weapons was designed to solve the problems of worthless BOs and the lack of punishment dealt to a realm for forfeiting map control and retreating to their keep. In this case, the attacking realm supply blocks the keep, and the defending realm can field far fewer weapons than the attackers.

I've rectified the issues with Siege HP and incorrect damage resistance to the Cannon and Artillery damagetypes for the next update, so counter #1 should work, forcing the defenders to leave the keep if they wish to destroy the attacking cannons.

So, in short, this is a small part of something else. If it's too much for the time being, I'll comment out the damage scaling. It's no big issue.

It sounds weird as ****, but as per usual juries out and can't judge until we see it.

What do you mean by, The heavy weapons themselves, as well as some other additions, are intended to ensure that using a human wave attack against a lesser-manned defensive position will not succeed and that combined arms and flanking tactics must be used.

In short, we're going to implement the building of destructible defensive barricades that not only provide a physical block, but also some buff that protects against ranged attacks - the implementation of that and the exact mechanics are pending. Generally, we want players to be able to choose where they defend, and how.

Other changes regarding the nature of siege weapons are coming as well. Unique effects for different types of siege (Repeater bolt throwers versus organ guns), and hopefully we'll find a way to turn cannons from a single-target snipe attack to a line attack. The current implementation is a sort of compromise. Also missing is friendly-fire, which we've been tossing around as an idea. Make siege very useful, but very dangerous if used improperly and limited in the kinds of roles it can play.

Oh god please no friendly fire. Could you imagine a guild that just gets 2 guys to x realm and focus there own guys.

Barriers sounds abuseable. Especially in Praag, bridges on DW, blocking WC etc. As per usual I'm volunteer my band of idiots to try to break it and see what needs fiddling in the future. We need to be careful not to create too many choke points in lakes. This just encourages bombing.

[Azarael]

We're client-limited at the moment, so anything we mention here either already has an implementation or is capable of being implemented in at least a basic and functional fashion. There are other things we wish to do which are aimed at solving gameplay and flow problems, especially around keeps, but there's no point going into any details without secure implementation paths.

@Epo: I'll be honest and say that I think that's an appalling oversimplication which completely misses the point.

We, collectively, sat down and thought about how to address very real problems:

1) Keep funnelling
2) Crap siege weapons
3) Zerg and wave attack-based play
4) Irrelevant battlefield objectives

Anything we will do will be based around dealing with those problems and any others that are spotted.

Additionally, because I've seen this "reinventing the wheel" in multiple places:

It's not a wheel if it doesn't get you anywhere.

This game is dead. It's dead for a reason - because its mechanics and gameplay in its main focus, RvR, weren't good enough to sustain any kind of interest beyond the diehard population that we've got here. I say that as someone who quit the game originally because of how bad the RvR really was at that time. Stating that trying to rectify broken aspects of a failed game is reinventing the wheel is really quite a stretch.

@Zanilos: Yep. Anything we release will be broken on the first iteration.

And the second.

And the third.

And all the way until the seventh or eighth patch/iteration, at which point it might be playable.

I was a level designer once, and a balancer (admittedly that last was only for a mod, but hell, it had no players when I took it up and I built a full server in a nearly dead game for it, so I like to think it's pretty viable to bring that up). It takes time to get it right, and assistance will be required in doing so. Coincidentally, the playerbase for that mod criticised almost everything I did, and yet they were dwarfed completely by the players who came to the version of it that I redesigned and balanced, so this is why I don't panic too much when people who were satisfied with what Age of Reckoning ended up as show bad reactions. Do something right and you can end up recovering the people you lost. I'm sure some people have interpreted that as arrogance on my behalf before, but it's not - it's just experience with this kind of thing.

I will say that we've already thought about the block problem - these barricades are designed both to be manned, conferring certain bonuses to those who do, and to absorb ranged fire and not melee attacks, and are especially vulnerable to strikes from greatweapons and siege equipment.

[Broseidon]

I just have one quick question if y'all don't mind, what was wrong with the original system in 1.4.0? It seemed to work fine. People fought, zones locked, people got gear, people got renown, people took keeps, you didn't have to physically rub someone off to get them to take a keep.

[Epo]

Spoiler:

We're client-limited at the moment, so anything we mention here either already has an implementation or is capable of being implemented in at least a basic and functional fashion. There are other things we wish to do which are aimed at solving gameplay and flow problems, especially around keeps, but there's no point going into any details without secure implementation paths.

@Epo: I'll be honest and say that I think that's an appalling oversimplication which completely misses the point.

We, collectively, sat down and thought about how to address very real problems:

1) Keep funnelling
2) Crap siege weapons
3) Zerg and wave attack-based play
4) Irrelevant battlefield objectives

Anything we will do will be based around dealing with those problems and any others that are spotted.

Additionally, because I've seen this "reinventing the wheel" in multiple places:

It's not a wheel if it doesn't get you anywhere.

This game is dead. It's dead for a reason - because its mechanics and gameplay in its main focus, RvR, weren't good enough to sustain any kind of interest beyond the diehard population that we've got here. I say that as someone who quit the game originally because of how bad the RvR really was at that time. Stating that trying to rectify broken aspects of a failed game is reinventing the wheel is really quite a stretch.

@Zanilos: Yep. Anything we release will be broken on the first iteration.

And the second.

And the third.

And all the way until the seventh or eighth patch/iteration, at which point it might be playable.

I was a level designer once, and a balancer (admittedly that last was only for a mod, but hell, it had no players when I took it up and I built a full server in a nearly dead game for it, so I like to think it's pretty viable to bring that up). It takes time to get it right, and assistance will be required in doing so. Coincidentally, the playerbase for that mod criticised almost everything I did, and yet they were dwarfed completely by the players who came to the version of it that I redesigned and balanced, so this is why I don't panic too much when people who were satisfied with what Age of Reckoning ended up as show bad reactions. Do something right and you can end up recovering the people you lost. I'm sure some people have interpreted that as arrogance on my behalf before, but it's not - it's just experience with this kind of thing.

I will say that we've already thought about the block problem - these barricades are designed both to be manned, conferring certain bonuses to those who do, and to absorb ranged fire and not melee attacks, and are especially vulnerable to strikes from greatweapons and siege equipment.

Don't think its over-simplification. Back when I played the game people quit due to class balance, not the RVR system. The RVR system isn't perfect, no, and it never will be. Had flaws but what doesn't, didn't need a drastic overhaul in the slightest.

[Azarael]

@Broseidon: As someone who did not play 1.4.0, and is reading down the notes, all I can see about it is that its macro mechanics work under the same broad principles - hold BOs to rank your keep, which releases siege. We use keep ranks in a different way, but since siege availability is linked to BOs in our plan as well, it's similar in that regard. The difference is that 1.4.0 neither deals with zerg and battlefield tactics, nor does it deal with keep funnelling.

@Epo: Well, I can't really argue with an opinion, and so I'll not try to.

[drmordread]

Sheep have no need for shepherds in a land without wolves.

To put it another way, if you want people to organize, you have to set up conditions which promote or require doing so. If you do not, then they will not.

Frankly, sometimes it feels that people want solutions, but they also want nothing to change at the same time.

Yeah, I am grateful for you guys and gals bringing the game back for us fans. But you are killing all the fun by making people play the way "you feel" they should play! Who wants to be a sheep and travel in flocks all the time?

[Zanilos]

Sheep have no need for shepherds in a land without wolves.

To put it another way, if you want people to organize, you have to set up conditions which promote or require doing so. If you do not, then they will not.

Frankly, sometimes it feels that people want solutions, but they also want nothing to change at the same time.

Yeah, I am grateful for you guys and gals bringing the game back for us fans. But you are killing all the fun by making people play the way "you feel" they should play! Who wants to be a sheep and travel in flocks all the time?

Leave the sheep analogies to me pal!

[drmordread]

Leave the sheep analogies to me pal!

Well if I was not made to feel as though I should be playing one ....

[Azarael]

Please spare me the "don't make me play a certain way" spiel.

All games have rules - they force you to play in a certain way. They do this to promote depth of gameplay and to deal with issues which would trivialize the game. Not being able to handle the ball in football is a rule, and it exists for a damn good reason. Therefore, the argument is completely meaningless and will be ignored.