So, here now a poll that is more neutral and includes the ideas posted in the topic about sieging (in difference to the other poll). If you want to read about it, just have a look at the link under the poll
Do you want to have a system for sieging in Oort, and if yes, how should it be handled? If I way “attack” a beacon this includes a mechanic for declare a siege before it stats (like a delay of 30-60).
Yes, I want to have guilds being able to attack beacons to destroy them if they declare the attack before.
Yes, I want to have beacons attackable (with declaration), but only if the interrior regenerates later on (no beacon loss)
Yes, like option 1 (destroyable), but only on special worlds marked as siege world. On other worlds beacons are allways protecting.
Yes, like option 2. (regenerating), but only on special worlds marked as siege worlds.
I would like to have sieging enabled if both parties (attacker and defender) accept the duel (no beacon loss later)
No, I think Oort should not include a duel mode for guilds which want to attack the beacons of others with siege mechanics
Well, this poll includes 4 “yes” options, and 1 “no” option. The only “no” option also says something about “duel mode” for guilds, while Beacon sieging is not guild-vs-guild experience in the first place. Hardly any different from other polls posted recently.
I’m strongly against such interactions with Beacons. They are meant to protect an area in the first place, and implementing a way for disruptive players to breach them is nothing but negative in my opinion.
It are many yes options because that are ways to include it (some being liked and some not). If I would have said only yes or no all the people had to read through the whole topic (in which it was told as a guild vs guild system by the way) which many wouldn’t do and just say no because they don’t get the whole idea.
Well it implies that you yourself want this system to be implemented, and also gives the reader the same feeling and appeal. This poll is as biased as the other one, and is not neutral by any margin.
4 options for yes and 1 for no, that is even more biased. (as lilem mentioned)
however i dont give a damn as long as it doesnt take too long to make, if it do, then im against it, if they on that time they worked on beacon pvp could have fleshed out guilds and made it even better then i would rather have that.
I voted for 5. But honestly I am not sure if sieging should be smth which doesnt limit/punish you when you lose.
We should keep this discussion up when the game is more developed.
This is unnecessary. I believe a general consensus has already been reached regarding the idea of main-game beacon sieging. I still want to hear what other PvP and GvG ideas people have, especially @Vastar’s. This is just beating a dead horse.
I don’t see it as biased I mean some people might not like full on pvp but maybe are ok with it and giving multiple options to see what different people would like to see.
And why have multiple no options? No means no, if you would like to give your reason you can comment why your so against it.
Why have multiple reasons for “yes” then, if we apply the same logic here there should be only “yes”, “no” and “maybe” answers, not a lot of "yes"s and a single “no”.
I hate this idea
I LOATH and DESPISE This idea
so much so that I would probably stop playing even in the case of #5
a beacon should be unquestionably Immutable
I didn’t even pick the “no” option because it doesn’t make this clear (I don’t care at all about guilds or what they do or don’t do)
There is a very simple bottom up solution to your insane desire for all your stuff being destroyed and stolen;
Yeah i have to agree to some extend, all i can ask is ‘‘why?’’
when would you have ‘‘won’’ over the enemies town? if you are going to regenerate everything that would also mean nothing that is destroyed is gotten for the opponent anyways.
i also personally see it as a waste of time for the devs which could have been used on something more important.
siege battles would be cool enough, but i imagine most of you think in style of catapults and trebuchets and what not. if that doesnt matter then again, make it an event, make 2 teams and give each team 30 mins to set up a base, and then agree on some sort of objective a team has to get if they want to win
The regenerating option is that in my opinion, is if you build a grand castle/town/battleground is not destroyed permanently and regens shortly after battle maybe a timer?
But the spoils of war could be money? It could be loot you find on the battleground, it could be rewarded after that battle is won, or to a lesser extent loss so you still recieve something for participating so the winners aren’t the only ones getting something out of it.
so a pvp warfare where no matter what happens and who wins, both sides will get free stuff. for doing nothing? please tell me you can see how stupidly abuseable this is.
all of you make is sound like some grand scale battle, trust me, it isnt, if anything its just going to be a zerg rush like any other game.
but again, opinion, i still say, make it an agreement with other players rather than having to get the devs to use time on such a feature. i actually talked about the idea of regenable land, cause it could be used for more things, if they do that you could easily make a siege game.
Hmm, it’s all about if you like such systems and how much you want them to come into Oort. If you ask me I would answer that a guild warfare siege system would be more important for me then farming for example. But that is of cause my own opinion. May be others agree, max be others not.
BUT such a system (if handled well) can be a great advancement for Oort and will get many more people to play it. So it wouldn’t be a waste of time if you handle it simple but efficient. I think to add other features posted in this forum would be much more complicated ^^
