Lurklen said:
It sounds great, if they can pull it off. Other games have tried the massive siege thing before and it hasn't been great. Also for this game to really make it they are going to have to draw in the player base and I'm not sure that will be easy. Hopefully Trion's able to let the game grow slowly like EVE did.
Well the problem with the massive siege thing is that game developers typically become nervous about doing anything really new. For the most part people expect MMO PVP to involve lots of running around like crazy, circle strafing, and trying to put out huge DPS on other players. There isn't typically a lot of coordination other than being familiar with other players and balancing out a pre-made team to have carriers/objective grabbers and healers as well. Age Of Conan tried to do things differently, and was conceived originally with the idea of players having to fight in formations as opposed run running around, but when established PVPers complained about this and compared it to other games, this was rapidly dropped and PVP became similar to most other games out there. I still wonder what would have happened if they had stuck to their guns and delivered something like the initial system proposed. In short, more paced, deliberate PVP isn't as popular as running around as a rogue stabbing anyone you can find in the face or whatever.
The other side of it is that people want to advance their characters, and it can be difficult to make rewards worth the time investment for battles that can potentially take a long time. In World Of Warcraft, it could take days to fight and win "Alterac Valley" before it was changed heavily to be won and lost quickly. While it was cool on a lot of levels, it was also frustrating, and admittedly the value of doing it was ambigious at best. You'd typically wind up with it being an endurance match at one of the major chokepoints (Horde Location near their first tower, or Alliance Bridge right outside their base) and whichever side gets tired of the stalemate first and doesn't see enough new people coming in fast enough to keep it up loses.
The situation becomes touchier if your dealing with the ability to permanently lose locations and resources that you could spend days, weeks, or even months building up as well. To be honest, a lot of people are just going to flat out quit if a bad streak of luck costs them months worth of work. One of the problems with sieges has also been that you generally need to give the defender time to respond since people can't be there in force acting as a garrison 24/7 (it's easier to rally a band of attackers). This has lead to some games trying to do scheduling systems and such where a defender has X amount of time to respond and set up a defense, and they more or less try and coordinate times for attackers and defenders to meet to resolve it. Of course real life being what it is, differences in time zones, and everything else that can be a problem. If you wind up with a war between a group of Aussies and a group of Americans with radically different play schedules... good luck trying to resolve that one fairly.