Best Of
Re: Contest for Parent Node
This is a really intriguing idea! Adding a challenge system when a node is about to level up could introduce a dynamic and competitive element that would make the node system even more engaging. It could also prevent the game from becoming too predictable or stale, especially on different servers, as you pointed out.
The proposed system would encourage players to stay active and involved in their node's progress, knowing that they might have to defend their advancement or challenge a neighboring node. The varying time periods based on the node's level also seem like a fair approach, giving lower-level nodes a chance to contest without being overwhelmed.
This idea could also help address the concern about certain nodes leveling up faster due to popular mob spawns or resources, leading to a more diverse and unique progression across servers. It would make node development more about strategy and player involvement rather than just numbers.
Testing this during a controlled environment as you suggested would indeed be a great way to see how it plays out without making any permanent changes to the node system. Overall, this idea has a lot of potential to enhance the gameplay experience and keep things interesting for the players.
The proposed system would encourage players to stay active and involved in their node's progress, knowing that they might have to defend their advancement or challenge a neighboring node. The varying time periods based on the node's level also seem like a fair approach, giving lower-level nodes a chance to contest without being overwhelmed.
This idea could also help address the concern about certain nodes leveling up faster due to popular mob spawns or resources, leading to a more diverse and unique progression across servers. It would make node development more about strategy and player involvement rather than just numbers.
Testing this during a controlled environment as you suggested would indeed be a great way to see how it plays out without making any permanent changes to the node system. Overall, this idea has a lot of potential to enhance the gameplay experience and keep things interesting for the players.
ReLamas
1
Re: Loot System Changes
Ok, I think I finally understand. I completely disagree with a design like this and consider it the most modern solo-centric "only I matter" dps-meter-based design ever and I would hate it if Intrepid went for this, but at least I understand your pov now.Five people met the merit threshold, but only one would get to actually pull loot due to being in the raid that got looting rights. This is an extremely simplified version of course and in most cases the winning group has higher total dps, but it’s just to demonstrate that getting looting rights isn’t indicative of qualifying for a merit pull.
Ludullu
1
Re: Node alliances should be thought about like factions
As Dygz loves to say, casuals won't be playing. The only thing that's protecting casuals in Ashes is the corruption system. So there's 2 factions already. The greens and the others.Man, you're just making my point about protection for casual players
Shitty faction-based games that promote slaughter and genocide of enemies while preventing you from doing ANYTHING to your own side are shitty, and casuals got nothing to do with that.
Even during the ~50h of me playing WoW classic I had around 10 situations where I wanted to kill someone from my faction, because they were farming in the same location as me and I wanted to clear all the mobs there instead of just some.
Node affiliations will allow me to kill my nodemades, which is simply yet another proof that they are not factions in Ashes. Guilds/alliances are, but they're fully opt-in, so if you feel like you don't wanna share stuff with your guildmates - you're free to leave.
Though, just to make clear, I personally dislike that we can't attack our mates at all. We could in L2 and it was useful for some class mechanics and could be a good thing to use when someone was being extra stupid.
Yes, games that have shitty pvp mechanics and pvp toggles use factions - I'm not surprisedESO has you pick a faction that is active in their very very large PvP lake, and doesn't affect PvE at all. Because a lot of the PvP there is keep-centered, factions make a lot of sense. Three factions are a lot better than two. New world has something similar that is in effect all over but that game allows you un-flag, removing the need for a faction.
It's exactly BECAUSE flipping is expensive that I dislike factions. And Blizzard's biggest example of that realization was money for faction change, because they realized that people will understand that they've made a mistake by choosing "the wrong faction" and will want to switch.Why would you think that faction flipping is going to be easy? In ESO/WoW/DaoC/etc it requires making a new character. In NW it is/was a 90 day cooldown. In Ashes it will require changing citizenship, which I'm pretty sure has a cooldown. You will also have to move all your stuff around when you find a new property to buy/rent in the new node.
Also, I'm not sure where you even saw me saying that it'd be easy to do. I just said that people would have to do it if they wanted to play normally.
Don't think we still have a concrete clarification on what "one citizenship per account" means. I do agree with your thought that it's "one char per acc and no other", but quitea few people think it's "all chars are citizens and can use housing, which is why they can't be citizens of other nodes".In no way will everyone go able to join the largest node-alliance. There are limited Citizen slots. I feel like a lot of people are missing how important Citizenship is going to be. Especially since you can only be a Citizen with one character per account. Very few alts will be Citizens.
Ludullu
1
Re: Why did you stop to play an MMO you once loved?
Would still be playing DAoC if they keep updating the engine. Would still be playing ESO if Cyrodiil was not neglected and buggy.
Ya I would still be playing DAoC if they upgraded the engine too!
Zehlan
1
Re: Steven's response to secondary archetypes
If I understand what you wrote above...True a Cleric can never be a replacement for a base class rogue. Much like a Rogue \ Cleric could never play group healer. But secondary archetypes can also change a skill to something else. Steven said as much. I could see Cleric \ Rogue even getting stealth of some type. Maybe even some damage improvements. And a Rogue \ Cleric could also do some backup heals in some way. And to his point a Cleric \ Rogue could spec deep enough that their heal spells could suffer being a main healer but could be a fun class to run with some rangers and rogues in some stealth missions.
(Keep in mind that Secondary Archetypes do not provide brand new Active Skills - I think "change into something else" is paraphrase that could be a bit misleading depending on what, exactly, that is intended to mean.)
I think I said all that...
Sorry 100% dyslexic here and words are not my friends. lol. Something else. Is from what I got from Steven's words. Bard skill that trades your health with a player, could be Augmented to instead trade your mana pool. This could lead to some options being more impactful then just changing damage types.
Re: Contest for Parent Node
The revolution id a originally was a great thought. The major issue around this is about the exact mechanics of how a node becomes a vassal. With most opinion being that it just automatically happens.
I would hope to see some type of deliberate action that leads to vassal status. Either 1). The subject node mayor and citizens want to be part of the parent node. So they have a node event, mayoral commission, to bend the knee and offer themselves to the parent.
Or 2). The higher level node decides they want this node as a vassal. So there is a commission for some type of war or subjugation action against that node. That if won or successful the citizens of the node bend the knee. But it provides that lower level node the chance to form a defense against becoming a vassal by fighting against anyone who wants to take their independence or sovereignty away from them.
Kind of a real world thing led to this thinking. That vassals do not just pop up and happen. There are politics, strife, war and all sorts of nasty stuff that leads to a vassal status.
I would hope to see some type of deliberate action that leads to vassal status. Either 1). The subject node mayor and citizens want to be part of the parent node. So they have a node event, mayoral commission, to bend the knee and offer themselves to the parent.
Or 2). The higher level node decides they want this node as a vassal. So there is a commission for some type of war or subjugation action against that node. That if won or successful the citizens of the node bend the knee. But it provides that lower level node the chance to form a defense against becoming a vassal by fighting against anyone who wants to take their independence or sovereignty away from them.
Kind of a real world thing led to this thinking. That vassals do not just pop up and happen. There are politics, strife, war and all sorts of nasty stuff that leads to a vassal status.
rollox
2
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
AirborneBerserker wrote: »NoaaniAirborneBerserker wrote: »But for the sake of argument let's assume that 100% of people will be in guilds at launch. And lets assume that 5 million people (which would be a wildly high number) buy the game on or before launch. And lets assume the game runs for 10 years which means for 9.5 years people will be joining the game after the majority of people are max level. What percentage of players do you think that 9.5 years of growth amount to?
In other words do you think in 9.5 years you would get another 5 million people playing the game and if so that would be 50% of the player base being solo players for most if not all of their leveling experience.
When you basically type "assumption, assumption, assumption, question", you kind of can't expect the question to be taken seriously.
My actual answer to your question is that I do not expect Ashes to be live for 10 years, so your question isn't something that I can answer. If you rephrase it in a way where you aren't making layered assumptions leading in to a question, I could attempt to answer it. However, in the above form, it is not a question that can be answered.
I will also point out that your rephrasing of the question in your post above is actually a different question. In that post, you are only talking about people playing during their leveling up process. MMORPG's that have published play time statistics all have around 90% of all online time in their game being on characters at the current level cap, so the leveling process only makes up 10% of total play time - meaning even if 50% of players leveling up were unguilded, that only makes on 5% of total play time for the game as a whole.
Now it's your turn to tell me the games you were talking about where 50%+ players play the game unguilded.
Not start the game unguilded, where 50%+ are unguilded.
Noaani
3
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
I don't understand what any of that has to do with growing the game, but...AirborneBerserker wrote: »But for the sake of argument let's assume that 100% of people will be in guilds at launch. And lets assume that 5 million people (which would be a wildly high number) buy the game on or before launch. And lets assume the game runs for 10 years which means for 9.5 years people will be joining the game after the majority of people are max level. What percentage of players do you think that 9.5 years of growth amount to?
I expect the vast majority of Ashes players will belong to a Guild.
People in Guilds still Adventure Solo, at least sometimes, rather than only Adventuring in a Group.
I'm not expecting Ashes to have better numbers than Albion.
The longer Ashes takes to release, the fewer people will play it. Because there will be plenty of other games to play. Especially for PvEers and Casual-Challenge players and Casual-Time players... and Soloers (people who mostly Adventure without joining a Group).
Dygz
1
Re: Steven's response to secondary archetypes
If I understand what you wrote above...True a Cleric can never be a replacement for a base class rogue. Much like a Rogue \ Cleric could never play group healer. But secondary archetypes can also change a skill to something else. Steven said as much. I could see Cleric \ Rogue even getting stealth of some type. Maybe even some damage improvements. And a Rogue \ Cleric could also do some backup heals in some way. And to his point a Cleric \ Rogue could spec deep enough that their heal spells could suffer being a main healer but could be a fun class to run with some rangers and rogues in some stealth missions.
(Keep in mind that Secondary Archetypes do not provide brand new Active Skills - I think "change into something else" is paraphrase that could be a bit misleading depending on what, exactly, that is intended to mean.)
I think I said all that...
Dygz
1
Re: Loot System Changes
You do realize that the raid number of 40 is static, right? So even if your suggestion was implemented, people would still bring 200 people to defend their loot, but they'd still only get loot for the 40.But I was talking about the current setup supporting zerging, because there is no change in the reward structure whether you have 40 people or 200 people. Currently it’s always better to bring as many people as you possibly can, because equipment gain is a static value.
Nothing changes in this regard. This is one of the examples Steven used for "zerging won't really work in Ashes". Rewards are limited so bringing more people to a boss farm would mean that you've ultimately wasted their time, cause they could've been farming something else in the meantime.
Except in your suggestion people would 100% bring more people to defend their loot, cause now all 40 raiders would be getting something. So, if anything, it's your suggestion that's promoting zerging, cause there's obviously more reward in it than in the current design.
Ludullu
1