Sieges are currently broken; I think pretty much everyone is aware of it. From being allowed to log in, as an attacker, inside the enemy's town, to being able to teleport through walls to the flag having virtually no health, the issues plaguing this core mechanic of the game are numerous.

Obvious fixes:
-Any attacker who logs in the besieged town, during a siege, should be automatically teleported to the attacker's siege camp or simply spawn there.

-Any and all teleport spells should be blocked by walls and palisades.

-Defenders should have to manually open a gate to go through it (like we open doors in buildings) and gates should automatically close within 15-20 seconds of being opened.

-Flags should have magical and physical armor and tremendously more health.

-The Attackers' Siege Camp should have a bubble around it so defenders cannot pull a reverse "log in catch" and log back in right on top of it. If they try logging in within that bubble, they should be teleported back to their flag.

-Until fixes are implemented, the Conquest mode should be temporarily disabled. I know we are in beta but the goal is to retain players, not see them driven away because they can lose, in a matter of seconds, what they have worked on and accumulated over weeks.

Conquest Mode Revamp:
The Conquest mode should be revamped. My proposal is to make it more interesting by introducing time constraints for the Conquerors on what they can do.

Instantly allowed:
-Changing taxes.
-Emptying coffers.
-Destroying/harvesting fields.
-Constructing new buildings.

Delayed:
-Destruction.

I propose a three-day moratorium on any and all destruction (besides fields). First, this will prevent the near-instant deletion of the town's bank and its housing. Second, it'll actually give time to the conquered to plan a counter-attack, rally their friends or, perhaps, abandon the city after taking back their belongings. Taking back their belongings force them to enter a now-hostile town and escape with a lot of stuff on them. It creates opportunities for the conqueror and the conquered by rewarding patience for the former and guile for the latter. It creates OW-PvP scenarios where one might kill an enemy who has A LOT of stuff on them.

It also delays Stone Aging and gives a chance to the Conquered to fight another day, if not immediately. It brings more layers to a rather simple, blunt system.

Lastly, I believe that when the destruction of a recently captured town is enabled, it should be within time constraints. In my opinion, it makes no sense whatsoever that massive buildings can be destroyed in one click and a whole town be razed to the ground in 10 minutes. It's not only nonsensical but it is sincerely detrimental to the longevity of the game. I believe that once destruction is enabled and the Conqueror decides to start destroying buildings, they should be put on "destruction timers": the more complex/important the building, the longer it'd take. A 2x2 house, for example, could take only 12 hours whereas a townhall would most assuredly take a full week. The Conqueror could initiate destruction of all buildings at once, but they'd be set to different timers and thus prolong the window of opportunity for the conquered people to recapture their old hometown.

This, in turn, would also make it so if they do manage to recapture it, the town wouldn't be a wasteland but would likely retain most of its important buildings.

My advice would be to stop adding features until you can fix what you have. Sincerely, there is a lot of bugs and issues and they shouldn't linger (or have been lingering) for months and months on end while you add more features which will most definitely bring extra bugs and issues.

This is just common sense.

System, right now, works like this:
--> Miss a payment, house gets instantly deleted.

I propose to make it work like this (which is how towns work):
--> Miss a payment, you now owe that money and have until the next upkeep to repay or your house gets deleted.

Most games with open housing tend to have at least a one week delay before full deletion if you miss a payment or, at the very least, a warning system to let you know you are X days from deletion.

System, right now, works like this:
--> Miss a payment, house gets instantly deleted.

I propose to make it work like this (which is how towns work):
--> Miss a payment, you now owe that money and have until the next upkeep to repay or your house gets deleted.

Most games with open housing tend to have at least a one week delay before full deletion if you miss a payment or, at the very least, a warning system to let you know you are X days from deletion.

My advice would be to stop adding features until you can fix what you have. Sincerely, there is a lot of bugs and issues and they shouldn't linger (or have been lingering) for months and months on end while you add more features which will most definitely bring extra bugs and issues.

This is just common sense.

@Ablabla If you lose your horse three times in PvP, it's likely your fault? I fail to see why you'd need to go around with more than one spare horse for PvP and even then, that's likely pushing it.

We don't fight on horseback in this game.

Currently, the only challenge with getting a horse lies in the first ten minutes of creating a character.

I propose that we move to have your horse dying be a tad more meaningful with the following changes. It goes within the same spirit of the other changes related to the economy (as horses are firmly part of said economy).

Changes:
-Every horse should have three lives. If it dies three times, it's dead forever. Consider that "horse durability", in a sense. This will create a market for horses.

-When your horse is shot from under you, you shouldn't be able to mount back for at least one minute. The current timer is way, way too short and makes it too easy to escape.

-In an effort to make the horse market more interesting, horses should have the following attributes impact (again, slightly) different qualities:
A)Strength should impact horses' speed while pulling a wagon.
B)Dexterity should impact horses' speed without a wagon.
C)Constitution should impact horses' health pool (if it doesn't already).

Pretty straightforward, just a way to create another profession and market, while making things more interesting in the open-world.

@grofire I want a game that works. You weren't promised a game. Get over yourself. The game evolves.

What you bought into, if you backed the Kickstarter, was the possibility of a game the way they envisioned it back in 2018. There was no guarantee it'd actually be made, nor were there any guarantee the game would be set in stone. No games are actually set in stone. Do you think WoW in 2022 is the same as 2005? Should a player who bought the game in 2005 because it was a certain way sue them now that it's different?

Get real.

Also, I'm not looking for an Albion lookalike and have no idea why "removing respecs from wilderness campfires" would equal "THIS IS NOW ALBION OMG". You're entering delusional territory.

@DarthJafo

Then clearly you do not agree with the siege system.

Moreover, while there is no shortage of empty towns right now, there might be on launch. How, then, are upcoming guilds supposed to take a new place? Just forever be out of a town?

Not to mention, the "end game" dynamics of this game sort of gravitate around cities trading hands. I think reducing the destruction is a lot more interesting than outright removing city capture.

One could remove city capture on the PvE planet, though.

@grofire No, I did follow this game's development for about a year and a half and been following the forums. I don't think I'm the first person to suggest this; I just make suggestions and feedback based on the game that is in front of my eyes, rather than live in the past.

Moreover, enough with the argumentum ad populum. You represent yourself, a guy whose opinions are no more important than anyone else, not some muted crowd of older players who are conveniently sided with you.

Devs are asking for feedback. Which includes feedback on every element of the game. There is no "well, me and my bois consider that this matter has been solved because we happened not to like it when they touched it five months ago ". There's only the game as it is and the feedback we give on it.

@spoletta Palisades are a rank 5 tech, though, not stone walls. Last I checked, stone walls were behind the Town level.

--

I proposed some quick fixes for the time being but it is obvious the entire siege system needs a full revamp, not only to make it more enjoyable for both parties but to limit what a conquest can do. As it is currently the main end-game vector, they need to be given a lot more love. They should definitely be a multi-stage event, with more involvement required.

--

Some food for thought:

A good, arguably very niche game, who had a great "siege" system was Pirates of the Burning Sea. As few people probably played the game, I'll just describe it in short. It was also aimed at smaller (24vs24) battles so I think it could be apt to take inspiration.

There were three ways to put "contention points" on a port belonging to another faction. First, attackers of a given faction could kill enemy NPCs belonging to the port's faction within its vicinity. Second, a fully PvP flagged enemy group (groups were composed of six players) could patrol the waters near the port. Third, once per hour, the enemy could get into the port and seek out a "Saboteur NPC" and give it money and materials (you had to physically bring the mats as packages, which meant possible losses at sea if somebody intercepted you).

Adversely, the defenders could reduce points in three ways. First, defenders of the port's faction could kill enemy NPCs belonging to the attacking faction within the port's vicinity. Second, they could flag up and patrol the waters near the port. Third, once per hour, the governor (a player) of the port could give it money to "reinforce security" and remove a certain amount of contention points.

Obviously, both factions could kill each other's players to either add or reduce contention points. At 3000 points, a small red bubble popped around the port. That was the Pirate PvP bubble; any player could now be attacked by members of the Pirate faction (which the Pirates absolutely loved) but unflagged players from both factions couldn't attack each other. At 6000 points, the bubble doubled in size. Now, the entire port area was a full PvP zone. At 10,000 points, the port was considered "under attack" and a port battle was scheduled for three days later (there was an 8 hour window for PBs so if say we "flipped a port" at 3 am, the PB would be set 3 days later at the first "primetime window" hour, not at 3 am).

It was a good system which allowed PvErs and PvPers to contribute. PvErs often stuck around until a port got to 6k contention points, killing NPCs and delivering supplies. As the game had ship destruction, they also often sold replacement ships at low prices to defenders or attackers of their faction. PvPers, meanwhile, had a blast and faced off with the best other crews. Lastly, random pirates were often either paid to harass the enemy or came to wreck things.

On the day of the Port Battle itself, the faction organized and people were mandated to be in specific ships. Now, of course, this last part doesn't apply as here sieges are guild based. Ports were important because not only did you need a certain amount of "points" (taking a port gave your faction points) to win the "season" but also because ports had specific resources/facilities and one could deliver a tough blow to an enemy faction by seizing their key facilities, for example.

In general, the whole PB system from that game had the benefit of turning PBs into large, multi-day events, which involved not only PvPers but also PvErs and random reds (pirates) in a meaningful, fun way. Everybody got to do their part and feel like they had contributed (or ruined people's plans) in some way or another. If we are to revamp the siege system (and we should), we would do well to make sure all types of players are important.

@StormBug I do like that idea ("crafting for a recipe" ) for recipe acquisition and agree it makes a lot more sense. We could keep a few "rare" (future set items, 'unique' items, etc.) recipes for rare chests (master and legendary locks?) at a low drop rate, making those truly rare and exotic.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your previous post. It wasn't done out of malice.

@Tuoni The issue with that "watch out for Autumn patch" is that it's also supposed to be when the game goes full launch; meaning we'll be given an untested system right prior to launch or on launch. Unless launch date has moved?

@grofire

First, I do not care how long you have backed this project. You could be Jacopo's towel boy for all I care. The fact of the matter is that I have paid to play this game and I am playing this game. Devs want feedback from players.

How the game was a year ago has no impact whatsoever. What matters is how the game is right now and our feedback to it. Having played some pre-pre-alpha version of this game does not make you word sacred. Your opinion is worth exactly the same as mine is; with the caveat that mine is at least backed by general thoughts on how to improve game design while yours is mostly "we had that before, me likie, you no agree, you no smart".

You'll have to deal with the fact that the game will continue to change from when you first experienced it in pre-alpha. Seriously.

Second, exploring can be just as easily done by hitting a city along the way to regenerate health lost and respec. There is no good argument for a full ability + skill respec in the middle of the wilderness; hell, virtually no MMOs allow for unlimited skill+ability respecs, much less for nothing and in the middle of nowhere. The reason for that is that it massively cheapens choices, dumbs down the game and makes it a lot more casual and easy.

See an ice elemental? Instantly make a campfire and two seconds later, poof, fire spells. Fire elemental? Pull that in reverse. This mob happens to resist a spell or two? No problem, disengage and just adjust your ability list.

The campfire, as it stands, replenishes your energy - which is important if you got abilities making use of that - and allows you to cook in the wild. As they expand cooking, I do expect this latter element will become more important as well. That's plenty for a "craft it on the spot with 10 rocks and 5 branches" type of craft.

@spoletta A compromise might be to allow preset changes every hour? That way, the powerful campfire lovers would still get to keep their powerful campfire and it'd alleviate the most egregious "I respec every 30 seconds" cases?