McDoogs
06-20-2009, 03:40 AM
Or Not!
http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/294796-post56.html
Not necessarily. We have been through a lot of discussions about sieges and destructible houses. Houses, when implemented, will most probably be destructible, but you'll need siege weapons to actually inflict damage. (Meaning you cant just go about destroying houses with your sword because you feel like it). That also means there's a big chance there will be no weapons capable of damaging or destroying buildings in Beta or Launch.
To put it simple, when you build a house, or plan to build a house, you will find out how many hitpoints your house will have, and be presented with the rules. If you build a house on a well-trafficed spot, well, I'm sorry, but there's a big chance it will be destroyed once siege is in.
.....
As you say, It's all about priorities. We'd have sieges in from the beginning if only we'd had the time to make them good. However we don't, and we have to choose. And for me, the most important thing is to get player-to-player combat working, may it be melee, ranged or battle magic. If that isn't working, the game will be flawed from scratch, and the sieging and territorial issues will be an artificial meta game (although maybe even good) between top-hierarchy players - although the "grassroots" would quit.
I'm sure you as well as I want a game that is actually played and developed from down-up, instead of top-down. At least I hope so. Maybe you don't see youself in the boots of the barbarian with the double-axe, but if he's not there making your battles come to life, why not play Travian or World in Conflict instead? I'm not saying that to be sarcastic, I just want to make sure you know that MO is developed in this way, and that we have chosen large-scale (in-game supported) politics and sieges to be an extension of the man-to-man, guild-to-guild and eventually province-to-province wars. Our promise, or obligation, is to make it transparent as the game grows, as it is a prioritized feature of the game.
http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/294796-post56.html
Not necessarily. We have been through a lot of discussions about sieges and destructible houses. Houses, when implemented, will most probably be destructible, but you'll need siege weapons to actually inflict damage. (Meaning you cant just go about destroying houses with your sword because you feel like it). That also means there's a big chance there will be no weapons capable of damaging or destroying buildings in Beta or Launch.
To put it simple, when you build a house, or plan to build a house, you will find out how many hitpoints your house will have, and be presented with the rules. If you build a house on a well-trafficed spot, well, I'm sorry, but there's a big chance it will be destroyed once siege is in.
.....
As you say, It's all about priorities. We'd have sieges in from the beginning if only we'd had the time to make them good. However we don't, and we have to choose. And for me, the most important thing is to get player-to-player combat working, may it be melee, ranged or battle magic. If that isn't working, the game will be flawed from scratch, and the sieging and territorial issues will be an artificial meta game (although maybe even good) between top-hierarchy players - although the "grassroots" would quit.
I'm sure you as well as I want a game that is actually played and developed from down-up, instead of top-down. At least I hope so. Maybe you don't see youself in the boots of the barbarian with the double-axe, but if he's not there making your battles come to life, why not play Travian or World in Conflict instead? I'm not saying that to be sarcastic, I just want to make sure you know that MO is developed in this way, and that we have chosen large-scale (in-game supported) politics and sieges to be an extension of the man-to-man, guild-to-guild and eventually province-to-province wars. Our promise, or obligation, is to make it transparent as the game grows, as it is a prioritized feature of the game.