Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Monster Coins, Dragons, and Node Destruction
Let me start by saying I don't see this as a big problem, or a sign of P2W seeping in, but it is something that's got me thinking and I'd like to hear more people's opinions on it. I was asking some related questions in the discord earlier, but it started to get out of scope for the questions channel so I figured I'd move it here:
Throughout this post I'm going to talk about a dragon attack as a generic example of an epic event for the sake of having a concrete thing to talk about. The high level idea is that it seems like the monster coin system introduces some conflicting goals to the event system:
So that leads to the real topic here: Am I missing something, is there a clever way to get all 3 goals? If not, where should the compromise be made?
My personal opinion is that #3 is the correct thing to compromise on.
What do other people think?
Throughout this post I'm going to talk about a dragon attack as a generic example of an epic event for the sake of having a concrete thing to talk about. The high level idea is that it seems like the monster coin system introduces some conflicting goals to the event system:
- A dragon attack should be a real threat to players goals, not just an opportunity for loot they may miss.
- You should not be able to turn monster coins into additional progress towards the destruction of a node. If such a path exists then they're always going to be an advantage to siegers (softening a node you're planning to siege later, finishing off a node after a siege ends, avoiding an actual siege all together, etc.)
- A player controlling the dragon should not lessen the threat of the event, and ideally should add a level of unpredictability and threat. Having your epic battle for survival turn into kicking a sad lizard because someone showed up with a coin would suck.
- #1 + #2: Player controlled dragons must be at most as threatening as AI controlled ones, else you violate #2, but that violates #3 (unless they're equal, but that's going to be REALLY hard with variability in player skill)
- #1 + #3: Player controlled dragons will be more likely to win because of #3, and dragon victory means progress to node destruction, thus we violate #2.
- #2 + #3: Player controlled dragons will be more likely to win because of #3 again, and to not violate #2 that has to not contribute to the destruction of the node, so we don't have #1.
So that leads to the real topic here: Am I missing something, is there a clever way to get all 3 goals? If not, where should the compromise be made?
My personal opinion is that #3 is the correct thing to compromise on.
- Giving up #1 means the big concern on your mind when a dragon descends on your home is "Oh, don't let the loot get away!" rather than "I have to protect my home!" which is just sad and must not happen no matter what.
- Giving up #2 means you get siege-by-cash-shop in one way or another. Definitely can't compromise here.
- Giving up #3 probably isn't all that bad most of the time. Sometimes nobody will take over the dragon (everything's fine), sometimes a good player will take over the dragon (everything's fine), and sometimes a bad player will get the dragon (this event will be largely non-threatening, but at least it's still unpredictable).
What do other people think?
0
Comments
The monster coin system also may damage a node, but will never delevel it. These events are random and players have no agency on when or where they spawn. Since players cannot target a specific node, then the whole using monster coins as a way to gain advantage during a siege becomes moot.
They have not confirmed as a mechanic, but most likely a node that is in its declaration period leading up to a siege will not qualify for monster coin or world boss attacks. Once again, not confirmed.
And finally the percentage of players with a royal mount, not counting possible timed 2-4 week epic egg drops on a full server is 0.001% of population. That is assuming all 5 metros active and they have opted to build a royal stable vs whatever the other option for that city is. Choice and consequence. Players may very well tell the mayor "Sorry, we would rather have the other great option for the city than the royal mount stable."
http://aocwiki.net/Monster_Coins
Monster coins are PvE events (not player instigated).
The only player aspect is the monsters AI.
The monster is supposed to do damage...but apparently they attack the modules rather than the whole town. Delevelling could be an indirect consequence if you damage the ability of the node to maintain itself.
The no-deleveling thing is a bit disappointing as that's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about as a violation of #1. It's a valid solution, but it means you rule out entire classes of interaction with the world. I really want to see the first time players get too greedy and trigger bigger events than they can reliably handle and end up getting kicked back to the stone age (or camp as it may be) Or a guild over mobilizes for a siege and their home node gets raised to the ground due to insufficient population to defend it.
If the node can't actually be knocked down outside of a siege then nothing is actually threatening and events are just loot with the failure case of missing some loot. That's fine, but it's basically just FATEs from FFXIV or events in GW2 rather than an actually meaningful interaction with the world.
The exclusion of coin events from the times around siege is a good point as far as safeguards against balance issues goes. I thought we had confirmation that was how it was going to work, too?
Sure, but being the AI of a monster is exactly what playing a character is. This is just another form of PvP, though it is quite a novel one.
Makes sense, but I don't think royal mounts have any of the same design concerns. They're a reward for player investment within the game so #2 isn't relevant, they don't modify existing events so #3 isn't relevant, and they both don't provide loot at represent at least the threat of a normal player so #1 isn't a concern.
They represent a balancing decision, but a far less interesting one since there's no fundamental design tradeoffs. Whereas monster tokens seem to have a fundamental limitation in that you have to pick 2 of the properties I mentioned and (hopefully) try to mitigate the loss of the third somehow.