Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Best Of
Re: Favorite Gaming Headset?
Not a fan of wireless headsets. If that's not a deal-breaker, I can recommend HyperX Cloud Revolver or HyperX Cloud Alpha
Flanker
1
Re: [NA] Overlord | Hardcore | Organized PvX | Server First | Alpha/Beta Required - ~240 in A2
Joined recently. Overlord has been a good community focused on preparing for AoC. The information is kept updated and the members are friendly. The leader is very active with the guild members. If you are looking for a guild that has a plan and is recruiting new members, check out Overlord!
Re: Castle Siege Idea
hey terrans beat zergs with lower numbers!
anyways I like that equal number battles are more balanced when you can control who gets in, but what I like about no players limit is that any guild can get dethroned immediately if the whole server rallies against them ;3
anyways I like that equal number battles are more balanced when you can control who gets in, but what I like about no players limit is that any guild can get dethroned immediately if the whole server rallies against them ;3
Depraved
1
Re: The desert biome is real... right??
Um. Steven specifically stated that Alpha 2 is to test; not play.Toothpaste wrote: »We are being mislead to believe that the area in the showcase is a playable in-game desert biome.
So... nothing they show us in the demos is truly "playable".
It's a test environment.
And this showcase was primarily about the skybox, the lighting, and the Wand Weapon Skills.
Background of Desert was nice, but in the dark.
Dygz
4
Re: Castle Siege Idea
Assuming the lead guild has some kind of buy in to the siege, I consider this a feature, not a bug.So yeah, I don't remember if AA has sieges, but your overall experience seems to be completely different to mine. I don't remember a single L2 siege where there weren't several guilds interested in attacking, and invested in politics/farming to ensure that they succeed.Having a lead guild that is invested in the siege, and controls which other guilds are given invites to said siege should outright prevent the guild that owns the castle from being able to put their own players in as attackers for the siege.
It obviously isn't guaranteed, but it hands control of this from some automated syatem over to players.
This involved both "normal" guilds trying to attack and castle owners who made alt guilds to try and grab even more power. Which is why I just can't see how leading guilds would bring anything beneficial to the overall process.
But I can see immediate pitfalls of "the leader gets bought off, by the defenders" or "the leader is a defender ally and fucks over others", or anything else along those lines. And those pitfalls are exactly why I tried to leveling out the playing field of sieging guilds. It's still first come first serve, so the strongest candidates will still be ahead, but the potential to fill out all the slots by a single megaguild is lower, while push for guilds to socialize and work together is higher.
All that is needed is for there to be a simple check to make sure the siege attempt was successfully organized (200 people or more present for the siege should do), and a guild failing at this is unable to be a leaf guild for 6 months, and with what is above, you have a solid system where sometimes the castle owner may be able to bribe a guild to prevent a siege (as they should be able to do), but it is highly unlikely that they could do that every time.
It also means lead guilds wanting a real attempt have to rely on other guilds to do as they say they will - both in terms of them being honest about what they intend to do, and also being capable of doing it. If a guild says they will kill a specific raid encounter as a part of their expression of interest and fail to do so, it means 25 spots for the siege are unable to be filled. If enough guilds do this, it means there won't be enough people with invites to meet the 200 player minimum - so the lead guild is placing some trust in every guild they accept an expression of interest from.
This means they need to be selective, which is how they should be able to prevent the castle owning guild from having spots on the attacking side of the siege.
The amount of politicking that would be based around a system like this is massive, and when that politicking all goes according to plan, the attacking side should have a real shot at winning the siege.
But this literally means that you can have this item at all times, unless you make the drop rate non-100%, but then you'd be faced with the reality of "any guild that didn't drop the item doesn't get picked for the siege" which would bring us back to the randomness of siegers, which was exactly what I was trying to avoid with my suggestion.Also, a mob that you can only kill once per month, that drops items with a 30 day duration really isn't something you can farm.
It isn't "farming" if all you are doing is maintaining the status quo while everyone else is getting ahead.
If you are going up against a guild that is gaining massive power/influence via a castle (which is the point of them), you realistically need access to some form of power that they do not have access to in order to be able to stand up to them.
As I said earlier, it shouldn't be as strong as the power gained from owning a castle - not even close - but it should be something.
Noaani
1
Re: The desert biome is real... right??
lol 'evidence' - someone's been watching too much courtroom tv. It's Intrepid's demo - they can showcase it in whatever environment, in whatever state of play, that they want.
If anything, this serves as evidence that some content creator's 'content' needs to be taken with more critical lens.
If anything, this serves as evidence that some content creator's 'content' needs to be taken with more critical lens.
CROW3
1
Re: Favorite Gaming Headset?
i had a sades, costed about 30 USD and lasted for a good 5 years+ (never had a headset lasting that long) I bought the exact same one in a different color and only lasted 3 months. i guess its russian roulette but the sound and mic were great xD
Depraved
2
Re: The desert biome is real... right??
Now that I've gone over the fact about its not a big deal if for some reason narc is 100% right, lets look from another angle
Notice the missing elements in the second image do to if you lower loading frames. These cells are how the world is broken up and allows artist to work on the same level.
This is the loading line that will cut things off from player view with the lower loading range
Im not even saying this is 100% right, there is tons of technical elements that can lead to not seeing the full image. This is alpha development and they are showing you raw things, and might also not want you to see all the more dirty details.
This is why i keep saying if you are trying to look for BAD ELEMENTS to make a narrative that things are faked. You have already convinced your mind you are looking for it and will tie anything to it. Without actually knowing anything technical about the game engine. Or doing some research. Its a bad take and spread misinformation.
Notice the missing elements in the second image do to if you lower loading frames. These cells are how the world is broken up and allows artist to work on the same level.
This is the loading line that will cut things off from player view with the lower loading range
Im not even saying this is 100% right, there is tons of technical elements that can lead to not seeing the full image. This is alpha development and they are showing you raw things, and might also not want you to see all the more dirty details.
This is why i keep saying if you are trying to look for BAD ELEMENTS to make a narrative that things are faked. You have already convinced your mind you are looking for it and will tie anything to it. Without actually knowing anything technical about the game engine. Or doing some research. Its a bad take and spread misinformation.
Mag7spy
2
Re: The desert biome is real... right??
Why is it misleading?
It was in-game enough to demo the skybox and lighting changes and the Weapon Skills.
It was in-game enough to demo the skybox and lighting changes and the Weapon Skills.
Dygz
2
Re: The desert biome is real... right??
Toothpaste wrote: »I guess I am feeling that if it were a test area and they knew that they were demoing an area, they should have told us instead of trying to pass it as an in-game area.
It is an in-game area, it's just not done. Steven spent ten minutes at several sections of the update specifically telling folks to expect an Alpha - not a game.
So I'm not sure where the 'should have' is coming from...? Don't confuse a transparent development methodology with an entitlement to be told everything all the time.
CROW3
3