Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
I know a system like this which I proposed seems a beast, but this would mostly be run by a database in a different machine (possibly). Nearly all the programming wouldn't even be inside AoC.
Piece of cake.
Well, so after a couple hours you started flerting with the idea of having a contracts system so people can use as they want for paying mercenaries.
It all depends on the game, the complexity is due to AoC's flagging, corruption system and bank node system. No one can withdraw gold from the node, no one.
That's why yesterday I proposed a ramsoning system where you can surrender in a war, Vaknar even asked about it. Then you can pay ramsom in a war and use node's gold, then you can have the peaceful cooldown.
Then today I proposed this, so this week I am proposing two ways of using node's gold, it's because AoC has many safety systems.
Asynchronous systems run in databases, and specially run during downtime, are fine.
To be fair, Steven should hire another database guy and implement diplomacy systems, score systems... put a guy just on those things for a couple years.
Tell me the content wouldn't be great?
Diplomacy is meta game.
Fair enough, thanks for all the questions.
Well I'm just looking at it from score only, those who have a high diplo score should have a worth put on their shoulders, so it becomes strategic to take them out of equations when necessary.
I don't know about that, what could happen is people who are in the payroll would have a look in the warscore ranking and then gossip about it.
But on the battlefield, anyone with the juiciest gear will be seen as a good prey.
Damaged gear is a great roadmap, since in AoC all repairs will require gold, people who die will spend gold, so you know for sure that you inflicted financial damage on the other. People who bring the fanciest gear to big fights will suffer more in that regard.
I like this idea, and it could allow for some interesting opportunities with guilds or military nodes creating large mercenary armies to be contracted to other nodes during wartime
off the bat someone will create a guild called The Golden Company
Other than an icon that tells you what the grade of my gear is, how would you know what someone is wearing? We can cover it all up.
A PvP ranking system is good, it incorporated into a greater score is better.
The new system entails that parties split warscore equally among members with active contracts when anyone from the same party scores a killing blow. The party who scores the killing blow will secure warscore for themselves.
In simpler terms, if an eight-person party, where all members have a node vs node contract, eliminates an enemy, the warscore is divided equally among all eight members, irrespective of their roles or the number of hits they delivered or from whom the killing blow belongs to. Everyone who works for the party is entitled to receive warscore in thie case, since all members have the same contract and they are playing together.
In the most complicated scenario, not all members have a contract, but one person has a guilds vs guild contract, and another has a node vs node contract. Suppose the party eliminates a target under both contracts. In that case, the person with the guilds vs guild contract receives all the warscore for that contract, while the person with the node vs node contract gets all the credit for the other contract. If both people had the same two contracts, then they would split evenly the warscore evenly in both contracts. Those other six party members with no contracts, will participate in no contract and get no warscore (this is a safety measure againt circunventing).
There would be no party settings, no windows, no anything in the UI, no buttons to click; the players would keep playing the game without having to do anything extra.
This thread is about having a warscore on player level in mecenary contracts, the warscore is based on gold, this gold is based on the damage you dealt on the target's gear when they die.
These contracts could be created by anyone, against anyone, and for anyone. If the contract is created by a mayor, they can use the node's gold, and if it's created by a guild leader, they can use the guild's gold, otherwise the person will have to use his own gold.
For instance, a mayor could set a contract for their node to fight against another node in a node war or siege, thereby making the fight more attractive for his citizens.
Even non-citizens without any affiliations can set public contracts for killing a specific guild or node. In such cases, random guilds and nodes can accept the contract and earn gold for killing the target, either through naval PvP or by starting wars. Multiple entities should be able to accept the same contract, that's important.
Each contract would have only five fields: the contract's availability (how many days), the target to be killed, the gold deposit amount, the damage ratio (which determines the percentage of gold earned from the damage inflicted), and who the contract is available to (which can be set to public).
Suppose you create a contract with a value of 100,000 gold and a 50% ratio. If a mercenary successfully kills a target and if the target's gear requires 10,000 gold to be repaired, themercenary will earn 5,000 gold. There's still 95,000 to go, the mercenaries will keep killing until the contract expire or all the gold is spent.
Why so? That sounds surprising.
I think that if the party is fighting together, they should split the warscore if anyone in the party scores a killing blow. This is good, since it allows healers and other support players to do their job, instead of keep trying to steal the kill. If you don't want to share warscore, you should leave the party,
This part sounds like griefing.
Oh, you mean that this is equivalent to putting a bounty against a node or guild?
You will have to declare war against the guild or node, this is implied, I thought you knew it.
Let's say someone opens a 30 day contract against my node, in those 30 days, every node interested in killing me could declare war or siege me and profit on the side with the contract. But the mercenary will have to farm the scrolls, declare war, do the whole thing.
The contract is not against individual players, the target in the contract should be a node or a guild,
There's no reason to leave the guild or node because of a contract, there is no icons or additional information in the UI about contracts.
If you are in war there's a war icon on you, but this belongs to the pvp event itself.
Wardeccing will probably cost a pretty penny, so how much money exactly would the contract setter would have to spend to create a contract for it to ever be viable? Also, the "mayor can set contracts for node money" sounds exactly like money laundering, which was avoided by Intrepid for the exact reason that they didn't want to give mayors too much power with the node's money. Let alone the fact that you'd be laundering taxes away from the citizens (cause everyone would've contributed into that sum, but far from everyone would benefit from even a fraction of that money).
Overall I'd say I don't really see a point in this. Guilds/players can always just make verbal agreements on paying out money and mayors should not be able to take money out, so I don't see a need for your suggestion.
This is not money laundering or theft, the money would only be paid when kills happen, specifically kills that generate gear damage, killing nakes or people with fully busted gear would generate no warscore.
If the mercenaries don't kill anything, then they get no gold and the gold returns to where it came from when the time expires.
Naval PvP needs no war declaration, a node who is suffering a pirate blockade could offer a public mercenary job and this will bring people interested in hunting pirates.
During wars and sieges, if defenders have gold to spare, they will love getting aid.
The ultimate goal is paying people for their kills, mercenaries will suffer losses and have expenses with repairs and consumables, everybody who get killed will also suffer the same expenses.
In AoC, there's no gold and gear drops (except corrupted), so people need a way of getting paid for fightignt the "official pvp"
If you are smart, you could place a contract to kill people from your own node, then they will spend with repairs and the money will go back to the node
That's why a mercenary company would take as much contracts as they can with targets in the same area.