What did you think of the siege dragons in A1?

My understanding of the dragons is that this wasn't just 'hey this is a thing we are using for testing' but was intended to be a general aspect of Sieges.

I don't mind it, a Siege that isn't at least somewhat like a MOBA map is going to be boring and easy to figure out most of the time, and showing up with more raw numbers than the other side on defense then having to wait for the Siege to time out isn't great.

I like the idea of being able to get a few extra people on early, throw numbers and power at the Siege Bosses to get buffs for everyone, then whoever needs to leave can leave, secure in the knowledge that their super buffed defending force is just going to win.

They may be aiming for 500 v 500, but the more players that can enter a Siege, the more lopsided it will be and the more 'just throw bodies at it' is going to work.

Having a 'Strike Team' that can fight the dragon while causing the dragon's AoE to wipe out a bunch of undergeared warm bodies from the enemy side so they can keep doing this, sounds good to me.

I'm gonna go out there and be that person.

If the dragons or something similar and more fitting lore wise aren't part of Castle sieges, they might as well not have those Sieges at those number scales.

They'd almost definitely just be eyecandy experience-hype that work maybe twice. At the numbers they're touting, Castle Sieges aren't going to be 'interesting' or 'work'. Note that nothing I say here is anything to do with Node Sieges which have all sorts of reasons why they could be really great.

But there's no way to design a good Castle Siege where the attackers have any way to damage the gates without siege weaponry, at large number scales, that won't make any given castle gate just 'a Dragon that doesn't actually fight back'.

If the gates are 'defendable because there are players there' then the dragon is 'defendable' because you can send players there. It's a living hazard in the middle of your PvP zone that you can choose how to deal with.

Castle Sieges have to be at least 'more fun than general large scale PvP' to carry any gravitas in terms of experience. But if they're so rare anyway, that's probably not the better goal to focus on. Node Sieges would be the main important thing.

Dragons, Golems, Sandworms, whatever. You can't change your main Archetype in this game, so Castle Sieges have to be as diverse in their objectives as possible, and 'random environmental hazard creature' is one of the easiest and perhaps best ways to do that.

If it must be Dragons, I wanna be able to roll Diplomacy and offer the dragon a cut of the gold to help out instead.

We have not received permission from Nerror to share the quoted post.

You're incorrect about what I've played.

Your experience is different, and I'm glad for that. It would be good if Ashes met your experience.

I'm coming at this from the other side. You say that if you can just throw bodies at the gate, then the castle sucks.

I say that if you can just throw bodies at the 'dragon', then the 'dragon' sucks.

I suppose the difference between us is that you expect Intrepid to make it so that you need Siege weapons to bring down the gates, and I really don't. So in a way, we agree in premise but not in expectation.

That is, if I realize they are going to design Sieges so that players can't just bash down the gates with their magic and melee like in Alpha, then I can agree that it will be at least decent. Possibly good. And if you realize they are definitely planning for this to be a valid option...

Just remember that it's easy to fall into the 'trap' of expecting developers to do sensible things you've seen done well before, simply because it seems obvious.

It's a whole New World of MMOs out here.

We have not received permission from George_Black to share the quoted post.

That's not even relevant. There's five total guild castles for the entire world. We had 9 nodes in A1 alone, and that number is going to be much, much larger on release, with up to 20 in an area the size of the A1 map. Five total potential sieges a month versus as many nodes as players desire to siege in that same month, you're going to get more node sieges. Especially in the early days, when new nodes are being established on the borders of the "known/explored" world for a server, you're going to see way more skirmishes over Villages than you will the (potential) monthly Castle Siege between guilds.

Where are you even getting the second half of that? She just noted that if the Castle Sieges aren't more fun than generic large-scale PvP, then people won't care about them as much. That's pretty uncontroversial, people will value and remember the events that are more fun better than those that aren't as fun.