Darkfall Official Blog - Darkfall Siege Mechanics and Values Balancing Feedback

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:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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.