[styerveri]

That's right. For those of you just getting into the game. A few months ago they pulled the plug on the idea of NPCs massing an army, establishing a village, and possibly sieging your guild city.

Although I do love PvP and the idea of Borderkeep siege, I was really hoping participate in the experience of defending my guild's keep. A keep that we as a family have worked so hard to defend. It seemed like a great way to get the guild together and play as one, regardless of character level. (I realize there's an xp mentor program but that's not my point)

I still plan on participating in the PvP siege, this is a good way for the non-pvp'ers to enjoy some good siege times.

I see the downsides of this feature. But if they made a preferred/not preferred choice to have your city under attack in the guild options. All parties could win.


Edit: This is the last topic I will create about this. It seems like this is a huge disappointment for many of us on the PvE servers. I have hardly seen any topics or discussion on this. Apparently it's old news but I would still think it would be creating some sort of stink. If you feel the same way as I, we should let our voices be heard! First fix the banks, next... give us our Guild Siege!!!

[reallybadmojo]

I hadn't read that anywhere yet so it's new news to me. That is a bit of a dissapointment considering my friends and I weighed the pro's and cons of PVE vs PVP servers. Being that their would still be player cities sieged by NPCs we opted for the PVE server. Well maybe it will be a patch down the road. One can Only hope.

[boatillo]

/sign

I agree that this was a very poor decision, especially for the PvE and RP servers! With the limited structure space in the frontier PvP areas, not all guilds will be able to maintain a presence there, nor will all probably be able to participate at any time they would like to. With the NPC sieges on player cities, this would give a realistic chance for anyone to partake in this game facet - some people would even prefer this method because they do not like to compete *against* other real players. It is PvE.

I hope Funcom makes note of this and works towards implementing this part of the game in the future.

[styerveri]

Originally Posted by reallybadmojo I hadn't read that anywhere yet so it's new news to me.

I still haven't found an Official announcement. But their building descriptions include comments that hint to this being true.
i.e. Watchtower description from AoC's official site...

Towers contribute to defense by offering shooting platforms for archers and spaces for ballista to shoot back at enemy siege weapons (if it’s a battlekeep).

That is a bit of a dissapointment considering my friends and I weighed the pro's and cons of PVE vs PVP servers. Being that their would still be player cities sieged by NPCs we opted for the PVE server. Well maybe it will be a patch down the road. One can Only hope.

We did the same thing. It wasn't until yesterday that this was brought to my attention. I thought I followed AoC's current events during development. I don't know how something this huge slipped past my radar.

[ragefanatik]

I think there is still remnants of it in game, but no, it doesn't seem to be in, which is sad. There will be hundreds of guilds, many of them 30 or 40 members large who just can't do the sieges, and once they finally do have more points just b/c of the way the system works, it won't even be a fight. This was a way for players to still get to do the sieges, without the zerg guilds of 250+ members to fight. Sure it was probalby a lot of work for them, and I understand trying to get the game ready for launch, btw I think they've done a hell of job, but I hope they bring this back with one of the future expansions.

[styerveri]

The PvP Battlekeep sieges are 48 vs 48. From what I hear Mercs can join up and fight to even the numbers out. So if it's 48 vs 48, does that mean it is instanced?

Either way, Siege warfare will be severely limited to certain guilds. Implement PvE siege and let every guild opt for participation in respects to the PvE siege system.

[Tsaria]

There will be other structurs out in the battlefield like resource nodes and watchtowers that will need manning. I read that these things can be run by guilds that do not own battle keeps.

[generalchaos]

I too wish guild town seiges were in the game though there are some glaring issues with making it all come together and can see why they decided against it. To make this part of the game stronger, it had serious potential to weaken other parts of the game. Since those other parts of the game have more demand, the weakest link had to be cut...especially to make the game playable at launch.

I would love to see PvE attacks on guild cities in the future. Here are some questions that would have to be taken care of to make that happen (and not detract from the rest of the game that is already established):

- How is the PvE attack triggered? Scheduled, random, etc? Scheduling a PvE defense seems silly just like scheduling PvP defense does, though I agree with the whole PvP scheduling design decision and the reasons behind it. PvE scheduling just seems more silly since you are talking about scheduling a computer to attack you.
If the attack was random, how screwed will you be if a sizable chunk of your guild is missing at that point in time? What if your best members were 2/3 of the way through an instance that they have invested 2 hours into already? Will there be a meter that would warn you about the mounting force? What if that meter is progressing to peak right at that time you were finally able to get everyone together for that big guild event?

- How do you balance PvE and PvP defense? If you have a Battlekeep you will have to schedule attacks, and the more you schedule the better your guild buffs. What's the motivation for scheduling a PvE attack and eating up player time that your guild needs to dedicate to resource gathering, leveling, BK defense, BK offense, PvP exp (to be able to lead/do sieges in the 1st place), and raiding? There is no way the devs would take a "Well you need to pick one or two of those to focus on and skip the rest" mentality. Players need to be given the ability to do it all, and to make the focus-decision themselves.

- How would it scale? What's A small guild consisting of close friends who made alts just to even be able create a guild in the first place to do if the change is made now? Sure they "hacked" the system...but that system is established now and this would detract from what has already been set up. Guilds would merge, towns/resources/time would be lost in the process as a result. This might be a big deal to some.

- What do the other guilds in your instance have to do with the event? Can they assist you and your guild? How do they spawn at your keep when they die? What if there are rival guilds in the same instance for your guild city? That sucks for you...means one less guild to potentially assist yours should you need it (since there are only so many plots per instance). Or if PvP is enabled in the gathering areas (not sure), will they come to the NPC's aid? Bringing in people from outside your instance? How do they spawn at your keep? If on a PvP server and PvP is enabled in these zones, what's to keep them from turning on you once they get in your city?

I am sure the devs were asking these same questions when trying to make all the game systems work together rather than conflict.

[Solmaren]

I read the bit on the towers and the gates, with the parentheses stating "only for battlekeeps". This is a bit disappointing and I hope they intend to change it back. One of the selling points for me on this game was the potential to fend off NPC sieges. It also seems like the walls are pointless to make at this time, as they serve no real purpose. Though I do hope to get a battlekeep with my guild, playing on a PVE server there may be a chance that we won't even be challenged for our position.

[Krumpt]

I really hope they bring something like this back to the game.