Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Best Of
Re: Denial of gameplay as a "strategy?"
Arya_Yeshe wrote: »daveywavey wrote: »Regarding Node Wars: In our server, one mayor declared Node War on every other node at once, and every citizen of that node became fodder for the entire server. We had some crafters based there for the JM Station who just didn't bother logging in at all, cos of the number of targets on their back.
I love this lol, this is content, weclome to EVE Online 2010
So, Intrepid got this right, however Intrepid failed in rewarding pvpers and the people from this node you mentioned absolutely cant live off fighting wars. This could be easily fixed with my idea of gold rewards for kills based on how much you make your target waste gold on repairs when they die
It provided some drama to the server, for sure!
The biggest problem was that they had alts in each node that they just spawn-killed over and over and over again for the points.
Re: Denial of gameplay as a "strategy?"
daveywavey wrote: »Regarding Node Wars: In our server, one mayor declared Node War on every other node at once, and every citizen of that node became fodder for the entire server. We had some crafters based there for the JM Station who just didn't bother logging in at all, cos of the number of targets on their back.
I love this lol, this is content, weclome to EVE Online 2010
So, Intrepid got this right, however Intrepid failed in rewarding pvpers and the people from this node you mentioned absolutely cant live off fighting wars. This could be easily fixed with my idea of gold rewards for kills based on how much you make your target waste gold on repairs when they die
Re: Killing a player in town vs paying for materials......
It's either an example of them having no damn clue what their true design is (which would be a very shitty situation) or an example of them patching up a hole in their design, but doing a shitty job because the patchwork now ruins some other part of the design.
There are some massive cracks in the design. Seems like the game was designed from a single perspective or player type. I feel conflicted though, it seems like they ask the players for input on somethings, but ignore it on others. They want ideas for social media clout like the guild rep program, and boss environments. But when it comes to "hey why are they spawns static" or "why am I spawn camped"? It falls on death ears. I really think people should quit testing if you don't like the direction the game is going. If enough people keep testing theres no reason they should change anything. Which is fine. But every minute that a player plays the game there design choices are validated.
Volgaris
1
Re: Killing a player in town vs paying for materials......
The war doesn't end 10 minutes after it starts. Which means that people who want to avoid losing their shit to a war enemy have to completely stop their preferred gameplay as soon as their guild is wardecced. And with the current shitty respawn system, even if you don't stop your gameplay, there's a high chance of you getting spawncamped until you have no mats on you. And it's not like you can get all of them back, because half of what you drop simply gets destroyed.Solonthebandit wrote: »trade mats to un guilded alt and never get war decked. I solved your problem in 20 seconds, your welcome
since you got war decked im assuming you are in a guild with more than one player and can trade.
Also put the loot on the marketplace and dont spam global? I feel like your post is bringing the troll side out of me but like stop self owning and crying about it
Steven's whole idea for wars has been "they have a goal, so that people don't just kill each other until they're tired". And it's been that for 6 years of development. But then suddenly they completely throw that out the window and change it to something completely different.
It's either an example of them having no damn clue what their true design is (which would be a very shitty situation) or an example of them patching up a hole in their design, but doing a shitty job because the patchwork now ruins some other part of the design.
Ludullu
1
Re: I dont see myself subscribing, if the current trend of grind and character power continues
I don't think an increased world size will fix it or even help it. The fundamental problem is there's only ONE stat that matters. Attributes and stats on the character and gear can be balanced so a large power difference between a 400 power level vs a 500 power level isn't so lop sided. Even if they do balance that, we're still left with a single stat that holds value. Combat will never be interesting if there's only one stat that matter. I do think the combat is smooth and fun, but it's simple. And simple gets boring fast. I'd still play the game if other systems shape up nicely, but the outlook of that isn't good at this point.
Volgaris
1
Re: We are going to need gear rebalance after all those stat squishes
Gear needs to have intent behind it and be placed into a value matrix. I dont understand why that would be a contentious take.
If outlier gear exists it will be avoided like the plague or used as frequently as possible. If either of these are happening hopefully its a result of dev intent.
If outlier gear exists it will be avoided like the plague or used as frequently as possible. If either of these are happening hopefully its a result of dev intent.
Re: Denial of gameplay as a "strategy?"
The 'Guild War' feature is currently just a free way to get around Corruption. You see a player hitting those juicy Braidwoods that you want, you have to make the decision about whether or not you want to risk going Corrupted in order to get them, and then have to sneak or fight your way out.
Or, you just Guild War against their guild, and steamroll them for free.
Regarding Node Wars: In our server, one mayor declared Node War on every other node at once, and every citizen of that node became fodder for the entire server. We had some crafters based there for the JM Station who just didn't bother logging in at all, cos of the number of targets on their back.
Both features do feel like there's a lot more work needs to be done on them. Makes me terrified to see what Node Sieges are going to add to the mix, when Node Wars and Guild Wars are currently so badly implemented.
Or, you just Guild War against their guild, and steamroll them for free.
Regarding Node Wars: In our server, one mayor declared Node War on every other node at once, and every citizen of that node became fodder for the entire server. We had some crafters based there for the JM Station who just didn't bother logging in at all, cos of the number of targets on their back.
Both features do feel like there's a lot more work needs to be done on them. Makes me terrified to see what Node Sieges are going to add to the mix, when Node Wars and Guild Wars are currently so badly implemented.
Re: Losing all caravan parts feels way too punishing given how easy they are to kill
I disagree - I just think you aren't doing what's intended gameplay. You should be working with players to secure your caravan.
Re: Losing all caravan parts feels way too punishing given how easy they are to kill
SmileGurney wrote: »I think you are totally missing a point I'm making. You can attack a caravan, destroy it, and just leave. You risk nothing, and destroy quite a bit of assets.SmileGurney wrote: »That's great, this doesn't change the fact the attackers in such circumstance risk nothing.SmileGurney wrote: »Why do you assume everyone wants to steal your stuff? Some people just to want burn sh..SmileGurney wrote: »I have to agree that caravans feel a bit one sided. Except the potential social / political fallout, the attackers have nothing to lose and everything to gain really. On other hand I'm not a fan of caravans being able to produce massive personal income. This just adds to economic imbalances this game is bound to suffer.
the attacks risk the caravan aswell they need 2 summon one to complete the run however the original defenders know exactly where the caravan is so they can regroup and push where the original defenders can tend to slip by unnoticed most of the time.
economic wars are real, burn caravans and remove gold from economy makes your gold go further.
attacker risk there own caravan not only that they also loose the element of being hidden aswell since you know exactly where they be spawning their caravan to kill theirs back and reclaim your cargo.
sure they can crowbar the crates for like 10 silver reward.
In a game like Eve Online, if you attack someone elses ship, then you are risking your own. Here, not so much.
I agree Eve system seems way better, other games have system that could be used as well.
Easy balance fix could be, that if you die when attacking a caravan, the defending team, will get gold equel, to what the repair cost of the attacker that died equipment is. Died attackers equipment won´t drop(full loot pvp), but only be 100% broken and need full repair(carebear pvp) Then you can keep, what seems to be the majority wish for carebear pvp, but also implant the Risk vs Reward, that Steven are talking about, but we still haven´t seen.
EPMAN
1
Caravan payment structure and current/future issues
Player commodities value is tied to 2 things: (This is as said by developers in the caravan showcase)
1. Distance traveled
2. Amount of crates sold on the particular node in the last 7 days
Issue 1
The second component of that math is so small, that most people don't even realize it exists (it does).
Reasoning
Most groups and guilds have fixed caravan routes. They find the ones that are more profitable and most quiet. They have no reason to run other routes as the diminishing returns on the price are irrelevant. This is an issue now, and it will become a bigger issue as the map grows, people are more spread out, and fewer caravans get contested.
Issue 2
Commodity value doesn't take into account player density in the region.
Reasoning
Right now the only factors intended to affect the value of commodities are distance and supply. So people delivering to small, deserted nodes with low player-density zones are going to be making the same gold as people delivering to a hot spot node, filled with ppl and at a higher risk of being robbed. This means people are going to be making more money with lower risk.
this is not as big of an issue now, but once the map grows and we have very highly populated nodes and some deserted nodes, with dozens of completely deserted caravan routes, people will print money for negligible risk using these deserted routes.
Suggestion
Commodity value should be tied to node status. Nodes with higher populations should have bigger price modifiers. Price could also be tied to node advancement (node levels, node buildings) and node wealth. Delivering to a hot spot node like a metropolis, filled with advanced buildings and a lot of wealth, should give you better prices on the sale of the commodity.
This way, not only distance and supply affect the price, but also the player density risk and player quality risk is taken into account.
1. Distance traveled
2. Amount of crates sold on the particular node in the last 7 days
Issue 1
The second component of that math is so small, that most people don't even realize it exists (it does).
Reasoning
Most groups and guilds have fixed caravan routes. They find the ones that are more profitable and most quiet. They have no reason to run other routes as the diminishing returns on the price are irrelevant. This is an issue now, and it will become a bigger issue as the map grows, people are more spread out, and fewer caravans get contested.
Issue 2
Commodity value doesn't take into account player density in the region.
Reasoning
Right now the only factors intended to affect the value of commodities are distance and supply. So people delivering to small, deserted nodes with low player-density zones are going to be making the same gold as people delivering to a hot spot node, filled with ppl and at a higher risk of being robbed. This means people are going to be making more money with lower risk.
this is not as big of an issue now, but once the map grows and we have very highly populated nodes and some deserted nodes, with dozens of completely deserted caravan routes, people will print money for negligible risk using these deserted routes.
Suggestion
Commodity value should be tied to node status. Nodes with higher populations should have bigger price modifiers. Price could also be tied to node advancement (node levels, node buildings) and node wealth. Delivering to a hot spot node like a metropolis, filled with advanced buildings and a lot of wealth, should give you better prices on the sale of the commodity.
This way, not only distance and supply affect the price, but also the player density risk and player quality risk is taken into account.
Imnotkio
1