Darkfall Siege Mechanics and Values Balancing Feedback
May 20, 2011 
Tasos Flambouras 
Today we’d like to involve you in some of our work with the new siege system. As we mentioned in the previous activity report, the new siege system is complete and in the testing and balancing phases. We’ve already mentioned that it will end self-sieging and it will also allow multi-sieging. We also mentioned that it is completely configurable. We’re testing the functionality of it right now but the big task is getting the balance right and for this we’ll need input from Darkfall’s players.
To give you an idea behind the philosophy for the new siege system I’ll publish an excerpt from the introduction of the design document for the new siege system by one of our programmers (John) who was tasked with the rewrite:
“The primary motivation behind rewriting the siege system was to remove the self-sieging issue (which has both worlds partially locked up), by allowing multi-sieging. This is not possible in the existing system as it had been implemented throughout with the assumption of 1-on-1 sieges taking place. A complete rewrite was required. The new system has become something of an exercise in configuration, as the goal was to write a system that was as open as possible, to avoid the need for future rewrites if alterations were required. The new system has been described as “more of a tool for creating siege systems”, given the vast number of possible configuration states it allows”.
Before we solicit your feedback, let’s talk about some more changes in the basic mechanics of the new siege system:
Challenges won’t happen between two parties anymore. They can be joined by additional attackers at any time before the battle begins. This is one of the largest fundamental changes in the new system. There are many additional mechanics and a myriad of options linked to this and these will determine the difficulty for attackers and defenders to achieve their goals. Right now the thought is that the wager amount for entering a challenge after the initial attack issue of the main attacking clan, is dependent on how many additional attackers are trying to join the siege, the number of challenges the attacker has already issued, and the time that has passed in the challenge before the new attacker tried to join in.
And here are our topics for discussion for today:
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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).
To clarify: the siege system is finished so these values can be adjusted and tested very quickly, and will not require further development. There are virtually countless options which the new siege system allows for. We’d like to start with these 4 important points, but there are others that will follow. Additional information and important points, including topics on how we’ll determine the winners when several attacking parties are involved, will be put up for discussion in the following days.
You can share your feedback in the spotlight forum thread or in the comment section below.
Thank you in advance for you input.
Tags: 
1. Let’s give it a 10 without trials.
2. Current system seems to be fine. Perhaps it would be good to increase range of planting siege stones if it doesn’t impact too much.
3. Why not, it would make attacking sieges more challenging.
4. That’s good idea. It would be more interesting if attackers had to destroy specific building/buildings or even bindstone.
But now one question:
What will be the reward for joining ongoing sieges instead of just coming anyway? Because without such reward people will just ignore ability to join sieges as there is no invisible barrier against it.
If you don’t properly join the siege you cannot win the holding it’s linked to.
So if say 5 clans are all sieging a city, who has rights to the city if its conquered?
not allowing trial accounts to participate in sieges is pretty stupid. they should fix the trial account exploiting, not shut potential customers out of one of the only good aspects of this game.
Nothing is stopping the trial accounts from participating. Trial accounts could be allowed to represent the clan population, especially since multiple clans can be part of the attack. Then again, I am sure there is some crafty way to abuse this that I am not considering.
I really do not think it will make a difference at all since trial accounts can participate in a siege, regardless of the trial accounts counting as part of a clan’s required population or not.
That being said, trial accounts being exploited is an obvious issue that needs to be addressed, but exits the scope of this topic.
If you don’t properly join the siege you cannot enter the instance that the siege is taking place in.
-R.G.
as i understand it u cant damage siege goals if u not belong to defending or attacking side
so a dummy clan with 10 dudes drop siege doesnt help u because only that 10 dudes would be able damage the clanstone…..
sure u still could clean the area with not siege involved dudes and tehn log in the siege declare dummies and protect them killing the stone
but that make it more difficult and only can be done by high outnumbering enemies big alliances
in pretty even numbers forces u cant do that that easy
i would make it even harder for dummy clans by not only exclude trial accounts but also make a minimum clanmember time to count to the number
example minimum clansize to drop a siege is 10 non trial members with minimum 14 day membership of the clan
Sounds good
So does this mean that multiple parties can fight over the same holding at the same time?
Correct
What is the actual benefit of officialy joining the attacking side? Why would anyone do this if you could just show up and still help the attacking clan?
You can win the holding over another clan that is registered, even the clan who first initiated the attack
So you are not really joining the attackers, you are independently attacking and have no ties with the initial attacker. Is this correct?
If so, the blog does not convey this very well and along with missing information, is leading to some confusion.
I think this is exactly what they meant. However, yes, this needs to be clarified tremendously.
1. About 10 players i think its correct , and for god sake no , dont allow trials
2. No idea atm i’ll edit
3. why not
4. Good idea
just be extremly careful with your new siege system ; if you allow zerg to take , dunno , 3-4 cities on day . If others ppl want to take them back the day after , they cant , even if they put many sieges on the zerg , the zerg will put many siege too . Holdings switchs
Omg awesome sentence i just made
Do you have any ETA for this siege system ? I mean , do you plan to release it with the expansion , or in a patch before ?
If the zerg can win over the defender, why should they not?
People need to understand that there is always going to be power in numbers. If you have an elite group of six players and the enemy just brings eighty average players, I don’t care how good those six are, they should lose (or be very good at escaping!) What Aventurine needs to make sure of is that numbers are just an advantage, but not a win button. However, if the number discrepancy is too large. there shouldn’t be mechanics in place to make it even. The other team fielded more players and the advantage to that is obvious.
Perfectly said. Five stars, and this is coming from someone who always fought against zergs.
1. Minimum members allowed should depend on typ of Holding. 10 for a City and 5 for a Hamlet shouldn’t be too hard to manage, and no for the Trial accounts (even if Trial players should be able to partake in the battles).
2. Destroy Siegestones should do the trick for Defenders. However, there is the issue about when additional Siegestones may be placed then, for multiple siegestones, and how many Siegestones that may be placed.
3. If timer runs out, Defender retains their city but don’t get the Wagers. You need to do something to get something.
4. That, of course, depends on what you mean by “going Vulnerable” and “issue attack”. Otherwise, what’s the difference? If you don’t attack, you don’t take advantage of the vulnerability, and then whether the Holding is vulnerable or not is inconsequential.
Other important parts needed to be done:
- Self-siege fix (As you stated you would do.)
- Cost of sieging (Destroying 75% of the Walls is not only ridiculous and costly, it’s hard and boring work! Not combat!)
- Make Villages into Holdings (Village system of “Control Points” is a failure, having them as Holdings will make them worthwhile for Dominion control.)
- Ability to Declare War to an Alliance (Formalize Alliance functions a bit more, and making it so that there should at least be an option to make it so that if you declare War on a Clan, you declare War on all his Allies. This is REALLY important, as then those who Siege a city will ONLY need to fight people who are either Orange or Rogue, making it POSSIBLE for Blues to partake in Sieges without going Red as it is Ally vs Ally, not Clan vs Clan.)
Thumbs up for the AvsA and not Clan vs Clan..!! This would fix the huge problem with blues going red in a siege.. And then need to spend months getting blue again because u needed to defend your city or whatever..
1: Yes, otherwise you can just make a one man clan and start a siege..
The numbers should go from maybe 10 to 20, depending on what you are sieging.. And Yes, trial members should also have the opportunity to help out.
2: It’s too big of a task to destroy every clanstone/bindstone of every attacker.. The siegestones will do i think
3: If the defenders dont destroy the siegestones, they dont get the wager, but they keep their city since the attackers wasnt succesfull either.
4: If you get attacked, the attackers city/hamlet should go vunerable since they started the attack. The defenders shouldn’t have to pay a wager first before they can attack their city
I think you should go back to the original siege plan: Attackers attack the city, and the defenders defend their town (or try to counterattack attackers wagered city).
Ditch the idea with siege stones, it makes sieges not involve the thing that matters: defenders defending their CITY, not running around the world trying to destroy siege stones. When the timer runs out, defenders win, if attackers are able to destroy the clan stone, they win.
My opinnion, many might not agree, but that’s how I’d like it
1. This is very important. A minimum of 10 is good and no to trials. Ive always hated that everyone uses alt clans to drop seiges. This will be the first step toward the actual alliance or clan having to risk attacking when holding multiple assets.
2. This is were multiple attackers confuses me. How in the world are the defenders supposed to stop a double or triple attack if they have to take out 9 or 10 seigestones when the attackers only have to take out 1 clanstone. Hopefully this is explained soon, but for now the current seigestone system is probably best with the option of the defender to attack the defenders city. In any case there has to be a smaller limit on seigestones per number of clans attacking or its simply impossible to defend.
3. This can go either way. It depends on whether you want the defenders fighing in the actual holding, or fighting on the terrain surrounding the city. A timer victory will lead to camping the city itself more often which is more likely if multiple attackers are hitting you at once anyways. Basically this is just a nice little bonus to the defender. Doesn’t change much so go for it.
4.I really like this idea actually. If in any siege the defender can attack your city it gives alliances great importance, and its risker to try and take a holding. But you should only be able to attack a attackers hamlet if they attack a hamlet, and a city if they attack a city. Maybe even give the attacker the choice of what city the defender can attack if they choose to.
More information will produces better answers to balancing btw. Hard to do when speculating on mechanics we dont have details about.
Have you thought about this scenario:
Defending alliance makes one of their small clans join the attack (by paying the wager), and then as the rest of the defenders are holding off the attackers the small clan that are now “on the attacking side” destroys the clanstone. The holding stays within the alliance and the siege ends.
Please do not a new system that allow people to exploit again the system.
Put such a low requirement of 10 people just will allow people to create fake clans with 10 people that will join the clan the leave it after the siege is done.
The attackers(clans) all together must have a minimum of 20% of the defenders numbers!
Also, the clan(s) should have more than 1 week with, with the minimum numbers like 20% of the defenders, or 10 or more people if the defenders do not have all that numbers.
It´s not hard to join a clan and then leave it in 45 minutes.
Looks interesting don’t care to post much feedback but just one question. Will this new siege system be implemented in an upcoming patch or along with the expansion?
1. 10 people with no trials sounds great.
2. The Defenders should just have to defend. Their is no reason they should have to leave the city they are trying to protect.
3. Number 2 for me would cause the timer to have to expire for the defenders to win the siege.
4. I think the attackers cities should be vulnerable as soon as the siege starts if they want to take their entire force to attack and claim another city in war that would leave their city vulnerable.
In addition I would like to see sieges only go live during prime and not require walls to be knocked down so that the city owners can use the city defense structures that are in place. For this to be possible the defense structures should not be able to be destroyed until the siege starts.
This has scroachers written all over it.
To solve this system:
Don’t block people from navigating the map. (No lockout of area)
Instead, only those who are officially attacking and defending can effect each-other during a siege.
No damage/buff/healing from any outside party on either side. No asset damage from anyone not involved during the siege. Just make both sides immune to all outside influence.
Solved. I agree with giving the defender the attacker’s wages if they successfully defend against the siege. The attacker will have more to lose then not gaining the holding. They may lose a little pride knowing their enemy is a little richer thanks to their failure.
“No damage/buff/healing from any outside party on either side. No asset damage from anyone not involved during the siege. Just make both sides immune to all outside influence.”
You sir have just brought back self-sieging.
1. Create Dummy clan.
2. Self-siege
3. Farm mobs near enemy cities, taunt enemies, defend against raids, etc. all while immortal.
So now scroachers can not only show up and effect a siege but they can join and walk away with a bunch of gear bags and a holding?
1. i dont think a minimum number of people is necessary especially if multiple clans can join the seige.
2. defender should have to destroy all their seige stones or survive the duration of the seige.
3. if the timer runs out then the defender has accomplished his goal of defending. they win the seige and get the wager.
4. im not sure if i understand this right but if the attacker wagers a holding then it should go vulnerable at the normal time during the seige.
with some of the wording im not sure if i understood the questions write so i answered them the best i could.
Pingback: Aventurine looking for feedback on Darkfall siege revamp « Cyber Nation
Pingback: Aventurine looking for feedback on Darkfall siege revamp « MMO City
1. Ten without trials.
2. This one is so open-ended but I do have a few ideas:
—Create a third siegestone, medium. Give siegestones a point value such that: small = 3, medium = 2, large = 1. The larger the siegestone, the harder it is to destroy, but the less it is worth. After all the attackers have been determined, they may set up to five siegestones each. Only the attacker with the most points when the actual invasion of the city is to start is capable of taking the city. Prior to the battle, any other attacker or the defender can destroy siegestones, so the attackers are now also fighting amongst each other to be the clan with the most points. However, the city does need to have enough walls destroyed for ANY attacker to have a chance. This means that attackers are defending their siegestones, destroying walls, and destroying other attackers siegestones. Defenders are defending walls and destroying siegestones.
——In the event of a tie in points, whoever dropped the most points worth in siegestones has rights. In the event that total siegestone worth is tied, whoever destroyed the most walls has rights. In the event of a tie in wall destruction too, then whoever dropped the first siegestone has rights. If for some ungodly reason two clans are still tied, I just don’t know anymore…
—Make the SG of an attacking clan a VIP. He must be present and if he dies or leaves the siege area, the attacking clan automatically forfeits their attack. This means the defending clan or other attacking clans could search for the SG instead of targeting the siegestones if they wish. For this not to be so simple, make it so the allowable range for the SG to be extends out to a 3×3 of squares surrounding the city-square in question. Also, this phase of the siege should be only a short time before the invasion itself goes live. It is like a last resort for clans who are losing the siegestone battle. (You could also make it possible to designate the VIP in the event the SG cannot participate. Regardless of who the VIP is though, the VIP should marked in some way so that it is apparent you are looking at the VIP, whether it is a tabard, cape, or overhead marker.)
3. Obviously, if the timer runs out with no side accomplishing their goals, the defense keeps the city. However, I agree with Sonny that you have to do something to gain something.
4. The choice is good.
Pingback: Aventurine looking for feedback on Darkfall siege revamp | Be The Gamer
1. 10 no trials. i also agree with the idea that there should be a minimum time for all members in the clan so that new clans cannot be made for the purpose of dropping a seige the next day. 7 – 14 days should be adequate.
2. i agree with steven on this one, in that all attackers should have a limited number of options for the stones and the clan with the most points should win the holding being attacked. however, i would switch the point value because by his math, 1 clan could have 5 large seige stones. instead make the large worth 3 points so each clan would only be capable of having one. other than that, the ability to attack others attacking siege stones would create more conflict for the holding.
also the idea of only allowing a registered attacker to do damage to the city would prevent dummy clans from being used so easily.
3. if the timer runs out and the defender wins, then he has accomplished his goals and therefore should be entitled to the wager.
4. if the attackers wager a holding against a holding then they should go vulnerable at the same time. if it would be a free attack anyway there is no difference. the choice would come when the defenders decided to take advantage or not.
With my suggestion, it is possible to have five large siegestones, however that will get you the least amount of overall points should there end up being a tie. Also someone with two large, two medium, one small has a total of nine points..it would all be a matter of what you think you can defend.
Also, I agree with a minimum amount of time a player must be with a clan to be considered “in the clan.” I would even suggest making it so new recruits are stuck on recruit status for the first week or two and once they have remained, they automatically move to private and are free to be promoted at the higher-ups discretion. Now you can count if you have enough to siege and how active they are based on all clan members minus recruits.
I think we need a proper and complete explanation of the siege system before we can make educated suggestions about the four points mentioned.
Does the siege system basically remain the same except with the addition of allowing multiple simultaneous sieges on a city?
If there are multiple attackers, which of the attackers owns the city if the attack is successful? – OR – Does each attack have its own timer that continues even if a separate attack is successful during that time?
I personally much preferred the original siege system involving a shard holder. I’d like to see that system implemented with fixes in conjunction with this new system.
-Shard is visible over the head of the shard holder.
-Shard drops to the ground if shard holder disconnects or is killed.
-Press F on a dropped shard with 2 options: 1 pick up and resume siege under your clan’s name. 2 Destroy shard and end the siege + receive random reward.
-Multiple shard holder sieges may be active on a city at one time to make self sieging pointless.
-Siege stones could be re-implemented as alternative spawnable bind points for clans both in and out of sieges.
Anyway opinions are a dime a dozen, the system just needs to be simple, foolproof, reliable, and fun. Good luck.
The poblems with shardholder sieges are still what they were originally:
* What about when a shardholder gets stuck in geometry, falls through the world, or uses some super-obscure technique requiring a team of 15 dedicated mages to climb where nobody can reach him?
* Do you really want any sieges to be dependent upon 3-hour chases as they were originally? Shardholders can ride in big, unpredictable circles while occasionally running by a team of mages with only robes/reagents that slow all followers. Killing these mages leaves you further behind, and less able to win the siege, not killing them makes it rather convenient for them to set up again and kill off all of your mounts, and success becomes dependent upon guessing the right region to teleport to, avoiding AoE traps, and generally getting lucky rather than fighting.
Pingback: Aventurine looking for feedback on Darkfall siege revamp | MmoGah
Pingback: Блог разработчиков о новой системе осад | MMORPG Игры
1) Size of sieging clan should depend on the size of the target. To me, 5 or 10 sounds fine for a hamlet, but not for a proper city. More like 20 or 30. Trial accts should not count toward totals. What is a 30 day old character likely to accomplish anyway?
2) Table-top systems have rules that can give you points for how much you out-number your foe at the end (meaning folks should be able to drop out of the siege in the middle if they want to, then have, say 1 minute to get their gear and exit the area), how much of the area they control without enemy presence, amount of asset dmg. etc. I think the pre-battle wall damage should be moved to IN battle, but still counted. Maybe a system for paying for sieges of varying length? Most of these ideas speak to having a battle ON the terrain, creating situations where you can win without necessarily keeping the enemy out. If the only issue of winning is to get over the wall and destroy the stone, the zerg will win over just about any strategy.
3) If winning is based on a point system of achievements and some of the goals were met, but the city wasn’t taken, the side with the most points should get SOMEthing. This creates a situation where you can slowly whittle away at an opponent over multiple seiges or lose the war but still win the battle.
4) A sudden attack that doesn’t have to pay a fee should face STIFF point penalties to claim victory. You can run into a city and jack it up, but that doesn’t mean you can hold it. Taking over a city should be about more than just killing off the available defenders (if you don’t really own the area more defenders may arrive or you could just find yourself trapped inside the city while they come in to get you).
ACtually i dont want trail accounts to be able to participate anyway.. What can a trial account contribute with?.. In 14 days you are not even able to get a school to 100 + a weapon mastery which is a Must..
So no, there is no reason for trial accounts to be able to participate, since they wont do any good besides being canon food..
“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, a minimum of 10 members not including trial accounts.
“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 guess siege stones would work, but only allowing a certain number of sieges stones to be placed with multiple attackers. That way if 3 people siege a city they can’t place 9 Large Siege Stones ( total ).
Honestly, if there was a way to keep the defenders from having to leave the city, it could potentially make sieges better. After all, they are fighting over the CITY and not siegestones.
“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 if the defenders managed to hold out during the siege and it ended in a stalemate they should definitely keep their city because they defended it successfully. They should probably win the wagers too because again, they managed to defender their holding.
“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).”
A retaliation siege is always a good idea, where if the defenders manage to successfully defend their city without the time running out, they have a window of a few hours to drop a retaliation siege without any charge ( accept siege stones ).
—————————————————————-
The real problem is how are the winners of a multi-siege going to be determined. For the love of god, do not make it the “last hit wins it”.
For determining the winner, I’d say “last siegestone standing” or something like it.
If the defender loses, but multiple attackers are still around, the siege is then extended for the attackers to either surrender or fight amongst themselves, and the last attacker to still have a siegestone at the end wins everything wagered. Under this system, total siegestone life would have to be dependent upon how late a given attacker joined in. If you start seconds before the other attackers go vulnerable, then your siegestone is only going to survive a few hits. If you start at about the same time, then you’re going to have about the same advantages against each other.
Don’t start with playernumber requirement, it has shown beneficial to be able to let small clans run cities because of their relationship with others.
Taking this away has no benefits in a new system that cannot be exploited by self-sieging which would have been the only issue with it
It is awkward to have a clan of five people who knows everyone to hold a city over a clan of fifty who knows only a few. It also defeats the purpose of having cities to conquer in the first place. I understand that diplomacy should be important but not so much that large amounts of players are being kept from owning any land based solely on the fact that they aren’t “the in-crowd.”
However, you are right in that a self-siege is infinitely more harmful to conquest then player requirements could ever be.
It seems to me that the system will be insanely exploitable, but ofc its hard to say for sure without knowing the details.
I like that you solve self sieging by letting more clans participate.
I think 10 players is to low, but if you go with 10 players – then a clan should have had 10 players for one month to be eligible for sieging.
and even then it seems exploitable.
For example if we got sieged, we could countersiege the attacking guild – but with 3 guilds placing 9 large siegestones, as well as usign a 4th guild sieging ourselves.
This would most likely force the attacker to stay home since taking down 9 large siegestones, takes a hour for most.
In the meantime we could just be at our own holding winning the siege with the siegeclan who sieged us that we own.
I think that wager sieges need to increase a lot in price, to 200k for hamlet siege, 500k for city siege and 1million for a wonder siege.
its the low price that fucks it all up
About the 9 clanstones and the 4th guild that you own (Are in your alliance) I think that making it so, if you declare war on a clan, you declare war on their alliance, so its AvsA not clan vs clan..
So you should not be able to place 9 siegestones, but only 2 or something since it AvsA.. So its alliance siegestones, and not individual clan siegestones..
And about the 10 people, i think its a good number, but make it so the members have to be member for at least one or two weeks, so your not able to quickly form a new and countersiege..
Kool. When are you going to fix it so I can recall from my house without dying to towers?
1. Yes, as everyone else said, I’d say 15 is a better number than 10, not including trials.
2. Siegestones only in the “defender” portion if one still exists, but say, an hour from the end of the siege, all of the attacker’s cities should be vulnerable as well. In this case, the siege should stop once the total value of clanstones+siegestones destroyed by the defenders exceeds the value of the city being sieged.
3. It shouldn’t be all-or-nothing. Once the timer runs out, thy should get, maybe, 25% of the wager money, so the wager means something. I’d say offer an additional bonus on top of that for every siege stone destroyed. If there are eight siege stones placed by five different clans, then timing out after destroying seveen of the siege stones should get the defenders 75%+ of the total wagers.
Actually, it’s a good idea to say that for each siege stone destroyed, the final winner of the siege gets a bounty (taken from the wager) for each destroyed siege stone. So if clan A and clan B both attack clan C, clan B will win more if they not only take the city, but also destroy clan A’s siege stones.
4. Not quite sure what you mean.
What if attackers would be able to get the city by doing this: Only clan leader could cast a spell on (for example bind stone) witch would take like 5-10 minutes to cast or more… When clan leader of attackers finish casting… Then the city ownership belongs to them for trial period (1-2 hours) and then they need to defend it so noone would cast that spell on that bind stone and take over that city. Basicly after the spell… Attackers and Defenders reverse. What do you think about that?
Amazing progress AV. One thing though, about the free attack that the defenders will get. I posted this on the part.2 of the discussion thread.
Not only is this a good idea, but it should let the defenders use the attack with no time limit but the siege timer. This way, they can drop their attack at any point in time during the siege. It should also have the same timer the siege counter has. Like they can drop it during the attack phase for the defenders, so that the attacks will have 1 hour time to make it to one of their many zerg-tastic abodes before it becomes vulnerable.
This way they have to chose how many people they split from the defense of the siege stones / wager, or how many “friends” they call in to help zerg you down. If you add this AV, it will add a level of awesome that will be unparalleled to any game made by the baddies at EA or activision-blizzard.