Skip to main content

Topic: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.  (Read 2048 times) previous topic - next topic

Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Anybody that took a city from another clan would then have to build that city up completely, from the ground up. 

Instead of one clan building the city and then it is fully built from that point on. 

I think it would be a lot better game in the long run. 

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #1
I been saying this. The only thing we have to rebuild in generals are walls and the bank. Why would you want destroy more than that when you're the one who's gonna own the city if you win.

It's sometime a good idea to destroy the keep and houses just to reduce the amount of bind-spot available, but that's about it.

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #2
Agreed, sieging always felt weird since actually ''sieging'' the city with warships, cannons and warhulks would be counterproductive due to the fact that you would then have to build all of it up again after winning.

  • Naos
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #3
I prefer normal maintenance costs, it just makes no sense that a city after a siege is stumped to the ground. Would only make sense to give the victor an option to plunder/dismantle the town in exchange for building mods but well that again just encourages strong powerhouses to destroy everything around them.
Maybe some durability damage or extra maintenance costs like in Rome Total War 2 after a siege to rebuild some damaged infrastructure buildings so that those reach max efficiency again and serve as a little mat sink. 

Or in case of walls and guard towers an downgrade to a previous stage(if only one stage then destroyed). So the new owners need to hurry up building the defenses again to be prepared for an eventual revenge siege.
  • Last Edit: November 06, 2015, 04:44:17 pm by Naos

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #4
We want to keep the notion of choice.
However, an attacker that took the risk of not breaking too much of the city to not have to rebuild it should have a harder time winning the siege.

We could do it in an artificial way, with the bindstone having higher hp based on overall health of the city.

However, the de-leveling of a building that gets destroyed during a siege is a very good idea.

With that, we could also give purpose to various buildings that would help the defenders in the event of a siege.
For instance, if the bindstone and bank are moved inside  an inner courtyard like most real life castles had, then there are reasons to break more stuff to reach the defenders.
If houses can have secret passages for defenders to use from the keep to the cellar of certain specific houses, then attackers could chose to destroy the keep to stop all passages at once (but very expensive to rebuild and re-level) or destroy the individual houses which would take more time to do during the fight.
We can change the zap towers to use ammo, and have a setting where it either "pings" players, or destroy projectiles about to hit other structures. Sort of a forcefield and the attackers would have the choice of destroying the towers or wait for them to run out of ammo.
Barracks, church and other building could have other purposes too, but we'll have to think more about it.

Also note that we will implement ways to change the racial style of buildings in a city, so just customizing a newly acquired holding would have a cost. Same for the new building slots we'll add where you may want a different configuration than the previous owners.

We also have on going costs, but that is meant more as a gold sink, not mat sink.

In conclusion, NO to the original suggestions, but YES to find more strategic choices during sieges where attackers need to chose between having an easy siege or an easy rebuilding.
The Darkfall: New Dawn Dev Team.

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #5
I don't really recall, but i'm pretty sure that buildings delevel during sieges when they reach 0 HP, but how do i know, i didn't attend much sieges in DFO. The time prep was way too long and boring.

Since DFO is a full loot game, a siege is mostly a war of attrition when both armies are pretty equal. I mean, you never rush for the stones, you kill the army first and you bind-camp them. If they come back, there's not really a reason to be afraid of round 2 since again, they come back weaker and weaker where ever they're coming from.

In fact, in most sieges, it's never a good idea to stay in your city. It's better to stay somewhere else like a chaos city, racial city, near a wilderness bank or in an other city/hamlet just to prevent being bind-camped. You leave an alt or a player in the city currently in danger just to scout around.

Finally, if you're gonna rush for the bindstone, you're gonna want to snipe it from a higher ground. This mean that the defenders are forced to climb-up the hill just to take down the canon or what ever they're using to shoot at the bind-stone from afar.

No matter how long it takes, these maneuvers will always be better than taking down most buildings only to later on, wasting less time taking down the bindstone. There's not much intuitive.



Anyway, this is not about economy or balance. It's about the strong feeling. One of my best and most memorable moment in DFO was rebuilding a city from the ground-up with my clan and finally, building the wonder which took us a very very long time to make. Once that's done and once the whole server is done building their city & hamlet, these moments are over. After a year or less,  it will be impossible for  a newb or a whole newb clan to get this type of feeling; the feeling of contributing for a clan to build a city from the ground-up. 
During beta, when looking at an empty city that has not yet been captured, you would just stand there, staring at it while wondering the whole time how it's gonna look when it's gonna be completed.
  • Last Edit: November 06, 2015, 08:04:07 pm by Bloodymurderer

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #6
In fact, in most sieges, it's never a good idea to stay in your city. It's better to stay somewhere else like a chaos city, racial city, near a wilderness bank or in an other city/hamlet just to prevent being bind-camped. You leave an alt or a player in the city currently in danger just to scout around.

True, and that was an issue in our opinion.
A siege should be about attackers outside and defenders trying to prevent them from coming in. That is why we would like to see an "inner yard" and why we want scaling protection on walls. If you wish to enter and bind camp the defenders, you need to breach multiple layers of walls and set up a beach head inside the city.

It is in that context that a system of secret passages, where one group of defenders can come out and flank the attackers while another group charges out of the keep area.

Anyway, this is not about economy or balance. It's about the strong feeling. One of my best and most memorable moment in DFO was rebuilding a city from the ground-up with my clan and finally, building the wonder which took us a very very long time to make. Once that's done and once the whole server is done building their city & hamlet, these moments are over. After a year or less,  it will be impossible for  a newb or a whole newb clan to get this type of feeling; the feeling of contributing for a clan to build a city from the ground-up. 

True as well.
We always think a lot in terms of economy because the more sinks we can find, the more rewards we can add as well, so it is always our goto mindset. Building an entire city is a great feeling, but if we were to raze a city at each siege, then the victors would be the losers, in an economic stand point.

With legitimate damages done to the city that takes a while to repair, there is that feeling of contribution. Same for the watchtower network that will require a lot of materials to craft and gold to place and maintain. In a way, we're letting people impact the world surrounding them a lot more and make them feel they have a home, the holding, and their own domain, the watchtower perimeter.

And remember, the watchtower system will use the same system than strongboxes, it will be free placement. We'll add some cosmetic items and walls, and other upgrades, so that a clan can decide to spend some extra time to make a cool outpost next to a monster spawn. That will add a feeling of "We built this, we took this raw land, and made it ours."

Which will add to the dramatic tension of the whole game.
When someone attacks and destroys an outpost, it will be personal, not just pvp or competitive gameplay, it will be war
The Darkfall: New Dawn Dev Team.

  • Naos
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #7
I know its rather something for longterm developement but what about racial building or religious ones. If you conquere a city of an enemy race or a religion you don't believe in you would have to convert or destroy and rebuilt those buildings in order to for example unlock specific defense weapons(cannon towers) of your own race(lets say human) which can only be unlocked by human/elves/dwarfe clans by building a human figthers guild. Or a tavern which gives the normal tavern buffs + extra buffs if its of your own race. Something longterm indeed but letting the owner decide to change the city design from for example mahirim to dwarfen buildings with some extra costs could improve the faction identity and game atmosphere even more.
  • Last Edit: November 08, 2015, 08:32:00 pm by Naos

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #8
yes, this is planned, we thought of destroying and rebuilding in a different skin for a fraction of the price in materials. Something to make people personalize their home.
We're going to test out whenever we can if the buildings of various races were similar in shape and size, and in the cases they were not, we could just move where their foundation are in that specific holding.
Loads of testing to do, but not technically difficult.
The Darkfall: New Dawn Dev Team.

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #9
I think if cities were mostly flattened after a siege is lost it would help the game tremendously.  This would make the siege meaningful, rather than stronger clans just waiting for weaker ones to build cities up then conquer them for territory control.

If cities are (mostly) leveled when a siege is won it would create a nearly endless demand for wood and stone.  One of the main things people complained about in Darkfall was the lack of an economy.

It eliminates higher-level clans from just conquering a territory simply because they like the area.  They have to invest a lot of resources after a siege to get their new location into working order.  If they conquer it for the resource nodes they have to rebuild it.

I don't see the bad side to this, except for people who wouldn't even participate in the initial building complaining with no merit.

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #10
Raids and watchtowers should be a big mats drain. We are also increasing durability losses and encouraging using crafted gear over monster drops. So economy wise, there are enough mats sinks.

Yes, big clans could wait for small clans to build up a city before capturing, but the opposite is true as well. Victory deserves a reward on both sides.

Remember that there is no longer any multi sieging protection, and that to capture a holding you need to destroy all watchtowers. After capture, to secure the area, a clan would need to rebuild the watchtower network around their new holding.
It will serve the same purpose, and it will be even more expensive for larger clans trying to own multiple holdings.

As we said, we'll try to find organic ways to encourage destruction of buildings, but we want to avoid artificial "destroy X% to win" or to automatically level a city.
The Darkfall: New Dawn Dev Team.

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #11
Raids and watchtowers should be a big mats drain. We are also increasing durability losses and encouraging using crafted gear over monster drops. So economy wise, there are enough mats sinks.

Yes, big clans could wait for small clans to build up a city before capturing, but the opposite is true as well. Victory deserves a reward on both sides.

Remember that there is no longer any multi sieging protection, and that to capture a holding you need to destroy all watchtowers. After capture, to secure the area, a clan would need to rebuild the watchtower network around their new holding.
It will serve the same purpose, and it will be even more expensive for larger clans trying to own multiple holdings.

As we said, we'll try to find organic ways to encourage destruction of buildings, but we want to avoid artificial "destroy X% to win" or to automatically level a city.
The important thing is to have the basic building mats stay relevant throughout the game. If watchtowers work out the way we hope, that would be superior. If not, having the buildings get completely or largely leveled after a capture would be fine as well.

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #12
I like the idea of coming up on a big massive beautiful city and thinking how proud the owners must be,  compared to coming up on a flattened city and thinking "wow, they are struggling", or "they really have a lot of work to do."

That seems so much better to me than only building a city once and then it remaining built for the next 10 years no matter how many times it is lost in battle.

And the game needs those resource sinks. 
  • Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 03:07:23 pm by Treetall

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #13
We agree, mats sinks are very important.
That is why we always include a percentage of loot destruction when a player gets ganked, a packmule, a strongbox , a resource crate in a raid, a bank when a holding is captured or when a watchtower gets destroyed.
There are also plenty of ways to add ongoing maintenance costs. Paying a daily fee for the war status, for how many players are bound to a holding or simply having the repair mechanic costing as much than a new craft.

The advantage of all these methods is that they are organic. The occur when loot switches hands and nobody feels the sting or as an abstraction for a process we can relate with.

Can you relate with "I want to capture this city, and to do so I have to destroy it at 100%" ?
It doesn't make sense and is shallow gameplay. If it is an easy victory, it is just an hours pounding buildings. If it is an actual fight, the defenders have too much of an advantage.
We prefer to go the route of certain buildings providing advantages in fight to the defenders. Towers, houses, cannons, the keep. Things that will require the attackers to think and formulate a strategy on the fly.
"Damn, they keep on hitting our backsides with there tunnels, we need to take out that house, or the keep."

The end result is that the damage done to the city would be sensical, the gates and wall breaches were made to let the warhulks and canons through. That house was destroyed because it was a secret tunnel exit point. That zap tower was destroyed because it was kept fueled and prevented canon shots to reach the bind stone.
It tells a story.

We'll be deleveling destroyed buildings during a siege, so they will incur increased costs for the victors and provide in game fights.

If you have any suggestions of usage of individual buildings during a siege, please let us know. Specifically ,we'd like to have a reason for attackers to take down the keep before focusing on the bindstone.

Keeps will be the access port to all secret tunnels, and could be a wartime shelter with a limited respawn point and internal storage. But is that enough?
We could differentiate the two: bindstone as a respawn tool and keeps as a territory control building. So that to stop respawns, attackers would destroy the bindstone, but to win the fight they should destroy the keep.

We'll also revamp cities a bit to make them have at least two courtyards. An outer one with the houses, bindstone, bank and crafting areas, and an inner one with the keep. With the wartime feature, it could be interesting and have a multi layered fight.

And what about the barracks, non tunnel house, churches and so non? What usage could they have during a siege to make them worth destroying as an attacker?
The Darkfall: New Dawn Dev Team.

Re: Let cities which are lost be completely leveled.
Reply #14
I was not thinking along the lines of pounding on a building for hours even if you have no enemies to defeat.   I was thinking more like if you take the city then you have to build it from the ground up.  Wiped out,  not beating every building to the ground. 

I never did like the fact that it only took a few repair shards to fix the place after a siege.  If something gets destroyed, let it BE destroyed.