Search Results
Post by Ludullu on 2022-11-28 04:07:38
I don't think we'll need MORE conflict. I do believe we'll have enough of it, especially if Intrepid spread out the content correctly. Some small skirmish leading to a guild war which leads to a node war which leads to a node siege which leads to big changes in the world which might lead to more skirmishes. Even if vassal nodes can't declare wars (which I doubt), the bigshots at the top would be interested in controlling those kinds of things cause their own node depends on the health of their vassals.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-11-28 16:26:45
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Collision Inertia and momentum physics will help prevent blocking doorways/access points. This is based on a character's direction and movement speed, and can be used to push people out of the way.[2][1]
Post by Ludullu on 2022-11-29 02:21:59
Yeah, the inability to overturn your parent node is a problem, but I think we'll just have to see whether it remains one through testing. Or if it's a problem at all, depending on Intrepid's design for the overall node gameplay. And if you're talking about the metros' side of the situation, then we just don't know what exactly gonna be the benefits that would ensure the survival of a metro. We know that policies are a part of those benefits, but I'm not sure if it'd be enough. In other words, we don't have any real info. And ...
Post by Ludullu on 2022-11-29 20:59:31
I hate it, but I want the game to make me do it, because I believe that socializing is better for the game. And I know that if people aren't forced to do it - they won't do it. And considering that gamers are usually the more introverted/shy/asocial bunch - a loooot of people wouldn't socialize at all. As has been shown by pretty much most games that went down the path of autogrouping and casualization of content to support said autogrouping.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-11-29 21:04:00
Yep, I have this worry for the Castle sieges. Node ones are supposedly unlimited in their participant amounts, but castles are. And I definitely see how castle sieges would be abused in the exact way you described. I asked about this a few times in the dev stream Q&As, but they didn't pick my question.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-11-29 21:17:50
I hope they fix it, but I got no clue how they would. Castle sieges are limited in participants. A big guild that holds a castle would just get one of their satellite guilds to register as attackers and block anyone else from attacking the castle. This is my worry. Unless I read (and reread) nover's comment very wrong - they were talking about the same thing. The wiki quote in question was misused by nover for this context, because node sieges are uncapped (allegedly), but I addressed that in my comment.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-11-29 21:54:59
How do you prove that though? Any self-respecting hardcore guilds would just start off as 2 different guilds with one being the foe attacker and the other being the defender. Also, you don't even need those types of guilds, because you could just hire a merc guild and tell them "don't fight". Would that not be a social interaction between guilds? You could put a ton of different limitations on sieges and/or requirements for guild's actions during a siege, but literally all of those would influence the normal guild behavior much more than that of a single megaguild's one. ...
Post by Ludullu on 2022-11-30 02:51:14
From a quick youtube search it looks almost exactly like Lineage 2 and Ashes is already copying a ton of stuff from there and L2 is also considered one of the best pvp mmos in the genre (it also came out before rohan).
Post by Ludullu on 2022-11-30 15:36:05
Yeah, that's one of the ways you could automate a "check" for this abuse. Put some requirement for participants "to move" or "to fight" or whatever. But then the merc guild (or the alt one) could just not take crucial points within the castle. So both sides are fighting and dying and all that good shit, but the siege itself doesn't progress beyond the very first stage of attack. Do you then punish any other guild that fails to progress beyond the same stage in other sieges? Cause I've seen countless sieges where people just didn't have the power ...
Post by Ludullu on 2022-11-30 21:46:42
Did you watch the melee dev stream? It was full of "gather a ton of mobs and aoe them down". And the ranger dev stream showed one of the best aoe abilities for farming mobs in the form of that 3-shot jump ability. Mages had the laser and I think a few other aoes too. All of those indicate, at the very least, AOEs being super effective as a farming tool.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-11-30 21:56:31
I can at best come and go with some additional comments. Only have 6h of electricity (split into 3 periods) during waking hours, so can't really go back and forth on the forums for a long time like I could previously. Might start a thread about it in 4h, if no one else is up to that before that time.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 00:15:52
It let me listen to all of Mistborn series and now Stormlight Archive Might've come back to more time too, cause I got power sooner than it was supposed to have come back. Gonna make that thread soon.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 00:47:08
A recent node discussion touched on node sieges which in turn reminded me of the current castle siege design. Castle sieges are supposed to have a limited amount of participants. This design seems faulty to me because it would lead to absolute domination by the huge guilds. Any guild that has over 500 people (split into several sub-guilds), or alternatively can afford to hire enough mercs, can just register half of their forces to the attacking side and prevent anyone else from even attempting to siege the defenders. And even if Intrepid manage to support 500x500 sieges, the defending ...
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 01:49:58
But that is exactly my point though The 500-member guild would just have two 250-member guilds, one that holds the castle and the other that always attacks it. Hell, I'd assume they'll just have 40-men guilds to fully benefit from the guild perks. But that in no way prevents them from being the ones to fully fill out the attacker list on the siege and prevent any proper guild from taking the castle away from them.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 02:08:02
Yeah, they could just give each other the castle and share the income between the two (or more). But then you are either punishing all the guilds who'd do the same or you are not punishing the defending guild, if you give back the money if the registered guild wasn't chosen. And as for spending money on the siege. The castle will supposedly gather taxes from 1/5 of the server. That's a shitload of cash. There's obviously the possibility that some guilds might try and attack the tax caravans, but a 500+ guild would probably have enough people to ...
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 02:09:04
Don't quite see how that addresses the issue presented in the OP?
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 02:15:27
I should've been clearer in my original post. The "split into several sub-guilds" was what I was talking about. Thx for the opinion.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 02:19:32
But if the issue remains unaddressed then the attackers lose literally nothing. They would only pay the registration cost. And unless that cost is equal to what a castle gets in 30 days through taxes - the defending guild stays profitable. But if the registration cost is that damn high, I dunno how many people would even want to siege a castle.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 03:09:15
I looked into it a bit more and it's even direr than I thought any and all guilds will have to do quests and then cast the scroll (for 5 uninterrupted minutes). So the defending huge guild can literally just let only their own dudes cast the scroll, while killing anyone else. Alternatively, if the wasn't a limit on the attackers, all those smaller guilds could just register at weird times and then help each other win the siege. Hell, in L2 some guilds registered for the siege at the very last second possible, just to keep their involvement ...
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 03:14:22
All of this is sidestepped by getting merc guilds or by just good coordination on the huge guild's part. And unless you literally track every single p2p trade interaction, every single chat interaction, every single PM and every single instance of some 2 groups of people being present in the same general location - ya ain't preventing shit. Unless guild alliances give some immense benefit to the allies, this wouldn't work. And if it does give that benefit, I'd assume there'd be bigger balancing issues than just castle stuff. Though maybe not. You're a psycho
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 03:27:22
It doesn't have to be 2 different guilds. Could just be subguilds of the same one. And I've had a ton of cases where our ally list in L2 was full, but we had several more allies during sieges. The system-based allyship is not necessary to be allies in the game. Also, considering the potential profits from the castle, I'd assume most guild would be completely fine with doing this thing once a month for some nice stacks of cash. Don't even have to be allies with the defenders.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 03:37:37
A nonsensical off-topic response that in no way relates to this entire thread. Got it. Thank you.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 03:59:22
And yet nothing of it addresses what I wrote in the OP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 15:50:29
This could be somewhat of a solution, but then how would you account for the attacker guild dissolution? Do you somehow keep singular players as enemies of the defending guild? Does this then translate to any other normal guild interactions? My current question is about detargetting abilities. I'm more interested in that general topic, rather than minute details of other designs. Smaller guilds will have better perks, so I'd assume that the main part of the guild would consist of 4 60-member guilds. And the second half of the guild would be in a huge 250-member (if not full ...
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 20:24:45
It's the same argument I used back in the day. Presence of meteres pushes people to use them because the content requires them, which then pushes devs to design fights that account for the meters, which makes it even harder which pushes even more people towards them. And if any player in that vicious circle declines to use them - they get absolutely berated by their mates and shunned from any decent content.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 21:01:53
While it's true that Steven has a hands off approach to big guilds, his opinion mainly stems from bosses and dungeons providing a fairly limited amount of resources. And I agree that limited loot would definitely put a big strain on a huge guild, mainly because only the top brass of the guild would benefit from said loot. But I also think that having a castle would counteract that exact problem. Castles will provide a ton of money to the guild, which can then be used to support the second half of your huge guild. And if they're well-fed, ...
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 21:04:08
I added the "split into several guilds" point later, cause I forgot to do it at first, so no fault for nasty there. I linked Steven's comment on this later in the thread. It's pretty much first come first serve and the defending side would try and do the required quest asap. And then they can PK any other GL with the scroll, if they somehow were too slow.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 21:05:25
I'd hope we'll have these kinds of abilities for several archetypes and outside of sieges too.
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 21:14:45
It is waaaay easier to just assist kill one scroll caster than trying to fight off hundreds of people
Post by Ludullu on 2022-12-01 21:32:09
In a party setup I'd prefer cleric to mainly be a healer. The bard addition there would probably help with some additional party dps boosts (through both buffs and debufs). But if we're comparing solo dps capabilities between a cleric/bard that has a dps build and another dps archetype with a dps build, then I'd prefer the C/B to be at around 60% in most cases and around 120% in some. Those "some" would be mob types that clerics are good against (smth along the lines of holy/unholy types). I'm used to bards being buff machines which lets them ...