Best Of
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
If solo players have no expectation that a game built around 8-man groups is going to cater to them, then there is no problem for solo players.
CROW3
7
Re: Ashes of Creation on Linux/Proton Compatibility Layer support
If that’s the standard, then why not ban any configuration that slightly increases risk?
They do, that is why I can't run the game on my VM.
Noaani
1
Re: World Boss AI and PvP
Speaking about the dragon in particular: That one will exploit PvP by spitting fire at the biggest group of players and that is something I would say is the right approach.
Other easy triggers for a behavior tree would be: (1) reacting to a player marked for PvP making damage to a player currently part of a group fighting the boss or (2) killing a player in the area of the boss fight. Depending on the type of boss they should take advantage of that.
For example: Imagine a goblin shaman as being the boss. A group engages, another group comes in to contest the boss. As soon as the other PvP starts, the goblin shaman retreats onto a totem pole and then BUFFS THE PLAYERS to increase their damage done and taken. If a player dies, he will use the soul/juju/mojo/ghost to summon a spectral beast add. Basically the boss tries to exploit the infight amongst his enemies to his own advantage.
Other easy triggers for a behavior tree would be: (1) reacting to a player marked for PvP making damage to a player currently part of a group fighting the boss or (2) killing a player in the area of the boss fight. Depending on the type of boss they should take advantage of that.
For example: Imagine a goblin shaman as being the boss. A group engages, another group comes in to contest the boss. As soon as the other PvP starts, the goblin shaman retreats onto a totem pole and then BUFFS THE PLAYERS to increase their damage done and taken. If a player dies, he will use the soul/juju/mojo/ghost to summon a spectral beast add. Basically the boss tries to exploit the infight amongst his enemies to his own advantage.
Kilion
1
Node alliances should be thought about like factions
I think this is what IS is already working towards, in light of the how unchanging node structures are going to be. Tthis is going to be very interesting in the first 6 months. There will be a race to build up nodes and alliances. The "land grab" phase of the server start, where nodes are being built up and parent/vassal structures get setup.
There can only be something like 6 alliances total. Maybe a couple more.
Then, after 6-12 month (population dependent) those node alliances structures will be fairly fixed. But, they will be different for every server, rather than being pre-set by the game devs. And these alliances will have grown organically. People in one cluster of nodes will have been playing together (mostly, heh) to build up those nodes.
I think AoC should definitely do more to build on node alliance cohesion, although I'm not sure how that can be built up. Here are some thoughts:
What are some other ideas to make alliances more "allied"? Since you literally can't choose who is a Citizen in your alliance, there need to be some external rules to bring them together.
There can only be something like 6 alliances total. Maybe a couple more.
Then, after 6-12 month (population dependent) those node alliances structures will be fairly fixed. But, they will be different for every server, rather than being pre-set by the game devs. And these alliances will have grown organically. People in one cluster of nodes will have been playing together (mostly, heh) to build up those nodes.
I think AoC should definitely do more to build on node alliance cohesion, although I'm not sure how that can be built up. Here are some thoughts:
- PvP should be disabled between node's citizens for certain node v node pvp-related activities. For example, after the node war demo they talked about a period of enhanced looting in the attacked area for the victors. During that time, I'd think that the winners should not be able to attack each other. This one may be node specific rather than alliance specific.
- During node wars/battle, alliance citizens can only fight for the node in their alliance (no turncoats....they're probably spies anyway)
- Node buffs should be shared within an alliance with other nodes. Not necessarily at full value. Possibly they should stack for extra benefits. A major/minor buff system would work well here. IE, if my node has the buff up for +crafting success (major buff), and my parent node also has the buff up for +crafting success (since it's not my node I get a minor crafting success buff at half value), I can get +1.5x crafting success
- A limited time node project for the top parent node: War assistance. If war is declared by or against one of your nodes the entire alliance flags to the enemy node and that node flags to your alliance. If both sides do it you have alliance vs alliance auto-flagging. Optionally have this as just an alliance setting with a cooldown to change it
- A limited time node project for the top parent node: Pax. All alliance members are unable to fight each other on inside of alliance nodes. Optionally have this as just an alliance setting with a cooldown to change it
- Possibly alliance members are unable to loot each other's corpses unless they are in a party/raid together. I'd say just drop less when killed by an alliance member, but that is abusable in PvE
What are some other ideas to make alliances more "allied"? Since you literally can't choose who is a Citizen in your alliance, there need to be some external rules to bring them together.
Spif
2
Re: Vassal resentment
I’d have to test it, but I think I would not care about belonging to a Vassal Node as long as the Parent Node is a Node type I want to support and has the Racial population I want to support.
But… I’d have to test it to know for sure.
(During release, I don’t plan to join a Node, so ultimately won’t impact my gameplay goals.)
But… I’d have to test it to know for sure.
(During release, I don’t plan to join a Node, so ultimately won’t impact my gameplay goals.)
Dygz
1
Re: Vassal resentment
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »My gameplay style is "I want to live in THIS EXACT NODE, and I want it to be the best it can be". I don't want to relocate. I don't want to give up my citizenship. I want to have a chance to rise up against someone who "won" a random fight of "well, people just gathered here first, so you're fucked now".First you will try that against other node chains and if that is your game-play style, you might relocate to undermine them from inside.
I don't want that chance to be high or methods easy. I want it to be hard, expensive and most likely require help from outside of your node. But I want that chance to be there. Right now it's not there.
What you're talking about really doesn't work in the "node alliance" system that they want. Steven has talked vaguely about patron benefits flowing downhill (I take this to mean a patron node uses resources to build a 3 day economic buff that is shared with vassals), even while some percentage of vassal node taxes/goods flow uphill. I imagine that vassal buffs might also go uphill too? Also, they really need to protect a node against the issue of 1 month with a bad mayor who has enough active friends to get enough support tickets to declare war against a parent.
It's nice that you want to stay loyal to your node. But it entitled of you to think that "your node" is the one that deserves to be on top, and should have multiple chanced to get there.
I'd guess that the node map is going to become very fixed about 6-10 months (population dependent) in as nodes relationship structures finally settle. And these won't change much from what we've seen about node mechanics for war and vassal/patron rules. Each server will be different!
Spif
2
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
AirborneBerserker wrote: »The way for a group-focused game to appeal to new players is to make the group-focused gameplay fun, not to offer more avenues to succeed without other players/guilds.AirborneBerserker wrote: »And I am punished with no response? =PAirborneBerserker wrote: »Implying what?AirborneBerserker wrote: »Well this is progress of a sort.Not every player who has a preference for solo gameplay is as much of a sour grape as you.AirborneBerserker wrote: »
Many of those 70% might enjoy the playstyle of WoW, or whatever other solo-friendly MMO, for now, because it's what has worked so far - but would be perfectly willing to adjust their expectations and behaviours in order to fit into a game where the priorities and demands are different, and change the way they play, if they find that this new gameplay loop is also enjoyable.
As for the rest, yes.
Yes, it is a fantastic idea to tell them to pass on this game.
All the reasons why WoW is such a boring soulless themepark filled with dailies and grind quests and arenas instead of anything of substance can be traced back to its attempt of appealing to everyone:
Where comfort and convenience are cranked up to the max.
And where communication and finding people whose playstyles you agree with is entirely optional, and grouping is streamlined without any social interaction required.
Ashes doesn't make this mistake.
Ashes is for players who are willing to combine PvP and PvE challenges,
who are willing to compete for high rewards at high risks and accept the setback when other players beat them to the objective,
and who care about building a world where their contribution alters the way the world looks, and what happens in it.
The rest can go play WoW, FFXIV and ESO, instead of disappointing themselves with something that wasn't made to appeal to their demands for a solo play theme park LFG lobby.
You didn't insult me or put words in my mouth. Which most of the posters do.
There isn't much to respond to. I agree with most of the post.
But I would caution you that if you don't create a way for new players to join the community then you only have empty servers to look forward to.
No it's not. If you want someone to change what there accustomed to you have to do it slowly, if the change is too fast then people will resist the change. People like what they like. If however what you do is create systems that create positive interactions between solo players and guilds that allows them to build up a reputation with each other so the guild knows they are getting a person they want in their guild and the person knows it's the kind of guild they want to be in. That is how, don't force them, convert them.
Maybe taverns will bring together those who refuse to join a guild.
If they are citizens of the same node, will end up knowing each-other and rely on each other's availability.
Otr
2
Re: PvE difficulty or a lack thereof
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »I hope PvE is harder than what we've seen. And any arguments of "this was only lvl25" don't matter. Raids should all be difficult, especially when they're 40-man ones.
I know we're in testing and all that, but my main feedback is "make it harder, while making it even more pvx".
Agreed reducing healing output by 60-70% so things will be super hard.
Mag7spy
1
Re: World Boss AI and PvP
It should react to all of these
- flag states
- aggro list placement
- location in the vicinity
- player interaction with environmental hazzards
- general player movements
Ludullu
1
Re: Instanced Content Should Not Offer Power Gains
You know what there's been a shortage of? OW PvX MMORPG, we haven't seen a good one in years.
I wanted to post yesterday that this is true.
Now I see this statement:If the game doesn't attract those PvE players, PvP players will peel off from the bottom.
If the PvP-ers at the bottom can defeat PvE players, will those PvE players stay in the game?
I have the feeling somebody will leave anyway, is just that they leave from two bottoms.
Then after a while IS will have to create content for the top PvPers and top PvEers who still play the game.
PvErs are going to quit the moment they're looted. They're won't stick around for being looted and asset loss every time a city flips.
OW PvXers will be the absolute heart, spine, and lungs of this game.
Solvryn
1