Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!

For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.

You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.

Stage 6 Node Corruption

24

Comments

  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    New content also comes from interaction with other Nodes and Metros and Castles.
    Change also comes with in-game Seasons and Events.
    Change also comes with whatever IS calls their seasonal updates - every 3-4 months.
  • KrakhunKrakhun Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Don’t fix what ain’t broke??

    Its more or less a safeguard. So if a stage 6 node stays that way for 6 months, things have a greater potential to change. Its not like its kicking stage 6 nodes out the door for existing for a month lmao
    If they don't change due to a long-standing Metro, they don't change.
    If you want more change, play on a server with more change.

    I liken it to nodes as players in the open world. If a player(node) is forever beating out and beating up other playerd(nodes), why shouldn't they also get corruption as to keep things balanced out?

    I'd also like to say this is just an idea for IF it becomes and issue. Testing always comes first, but a long term deterrent like thus is hard to test out efficiently, hence why I even brought it up.

    I absolutely hate the idea of punishing players for being good at the game, and being able to protect their node.

    So would you also opt for zealous PvPers to not be restricted? After all, they're just great at it and don't want to be limited by how much they can do it. Why punish them with corruption if they can get away with it by being the better PvPer?

    For the most part, PvPers are not punished with corruption unless they are running around ganking people. (and they have the choice not to do that) Corrupting pkers that choose to do so, is not the same as making it easier to siege a node because they have done a good job protecting it.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Don’t fix what ain’t broke??

    Its more or less a safeguard. So if a stage 6 node stays that way for 6 months, things have a greater potential to change. Its not like its kicking stage 6 nodes out the door for existing for a month lmao
    If they don't change due to a long-standing Metro, they don't change.
    If you want more change, play on a server with more change.

    I liken it to nodes as players in the open world. If a player(node) is forever beating out and beating up other playerd(nodes), why shouldn't they also get corruption as to keep things balanced out?

    I'd also like to say this is just an idea for IF it becomes and issue. Testing always comes first, but a long term deterrent like thus is hard to test out efficiently, hence why I even brought it up.

    I absolutely hate the idea of punishing players for being good at the game, and being able to protect their node.

    So would you also opt for zealous PvPers to not be restricted? After all, they're just great at it and don't want to be limited by how much they can do it. Why punish them with corruption if they can get away with it by being the better PvPer?

    For the most part, PvPers are not punished with corruption unless they are running around ganking people. (and they have the choice not to do that) Corrupting pkers that choose to do so, is not the same as making it easier to siege a node because they have done a good job protecting it.

    This would be true if it wasn't for the fact that by a stage 6 node simply existing, it halts other nodes progression. Simply being max level makes it a hostile entity to any node under its influence in terms of progression
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Don’t fix what ain’t broke??

    Its more or less a safeguard. So if a stage 6 node stays that way for 6 months, things have a greater potential to change. Its not like its kicking stage 6 nodes out the door for existing for a month lmao
    If they don't change due to a long-standing Metro, they don't change.
    If you want more change, play on a server with more change.

    I liken it to nodes as players in the open world. If a player(node) is forever beating out and beating up other playerd(nodes), why shouldn't they also get corruption as to keep things balanced out?

    I'd also like to say this is just an idea for IF it becomes and issue. Testing always comes first, but a long term deterrent like thus is hard to test out efficiently, hence why I even brought it up.

    I absolutely hate the idea of punishing players for being good at the game, and being able to protect their node.

    So would you also opt for zealous PvPers to not be restricted? After all, they're just great at it and don't want to be limited by how much they can do it. Why punish them with corruption if they can get away with it by being the better PvPer?

    For the most part, PvPers are not punished with corruption unless they are running around ganking people. (and they have the choice not to do that) Corrupting pkers that choose to do so, is not the same as making it easier to siege a node because they have done a good job protecting it.

    This would be true if it wasn't for the fact that by a stage 6 node simply existing, it halts other nodes progression. Simply being max level makes it a hostile entity to any node under its influence in terms of progression

    Those emotionally bound to their node but not to the nation have integration problems.
    You want to grow old in your native node?
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    A Metro is not inherently hostile to vassal Nodes.
    Nothing stopping vassals from making connections with other Metros and Guilds and working with them to initate a Siege against the parent Metro.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    A Metro is not inherently hostile to vassal Nodes.
    Nothing stopping vassals from making connections with other Metros and Guilds and working with them to initate a Siege against the parent Metro.

    Indeed, and if this still doesn't work, my suggestion would be a sort of way to level the playing if that node wasn't able to ever be dealt with or a very long period of time.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Don’t fix what ain’t broke??

    Its more or less a safeguard. So if a stage 6 node stays that way for 6 months, things have a greater potential to change. Its not like its kicking stage 6 nodes out the door for existing for a month lmao
    If they don't change due to a long-standing Metro, they don't change.
    If you want more change, play on a server with more change.

    I liken it to nodes as players in the open world. If a player(node) is forever beating out and beating up other playerd(nodes), why shouldn't they also get corruption as to keep things balanced out?

    I'd also like to say this is just an idea for IF it becomes and issue. Testing always comes first, but a long term deterrent like thus is hard to test out efficiently, hence why I even brought it up.

    I absolutely hate the idea of punishing players for being good at the game, and being able to protect their node.

    So would you also opt for zealous PvPers to not be restricted? After all, they're just great at it and don't want to be limited by how much they can do it. Why punish them with corruption if they can get away with it by being the better PvPer?

    For the most part, PvPers are not punished with corruption unless they are running around ganking people. (and they have the choice not to do that) Corrupting pkers that choose to do so, is not the same as making it easier to siege a node because they have done a good job protecting it.

    This would be true if it wasn't for the fact that by a stage 6 node simply existing, it halts other nodes progression. Simply being max level makes it a hostile entity to any node under its influence in terms of progression

    Those emotionally bound to their node but not to the nation have integration problems.
    You want to grow old in your native node?

    More variables than just that honestly.
    Node type
    Biome
    Coastal or inland
    Player relations
    Guild relations
    Resources
    Dungeons
    Raids
    Loot
    Etc.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Indeed, and if this still doesn't work, my suggestion would be a sort of way to level the playing if that node wasn't able to ever be dealt with or a very long period of time.
    No need to have some Corruption mechanic weaken the Node.
    Citizens are free to leave and find another Metro if they wish.
    But, if the Server wants that Metro to be razed, the other 4 Metros can band together during a Siege and raze that one Metro.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    I like the idea of an ‘unstoppable’ Stage 6 metro being a stable core city in the world. So, to destabilize that node I would want something a little more epic than a corruption mechanic.

    For instance, pulling an idea from Dave Georgeson from a number of years ago, once a metro has been stable for x period of time - say 2 months - a questline is triggered. That questline could be a staged event leading to the possible waking of a dragon that would lay siege to the node.

    That siege could dramatically alter the node - not just by razing the metro - but change the biome completely from a riverlands paradise to a bubbling magma field where a dragon holds claim.

    Now you have a player population displaced and pissed, vassal nodes that have some new found freedom, an epic open world raid boss, and a uniquely changed world that will be different than any other server.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Indeed, and if this still doesn't work, my suggestion would be a sort of way to level the playing if that node wasn't able to ever be dealt with or a very long period of time.
    No need to have some Corruption mechanic weaken the Node.
    Citizens are free to leave and find another Metro if they wish.
    But, if the Server wants that Metro to be razed, the other 4 Metros can band together during a Siege and raze that one Metro.

    Assuming the other metros aren't allied. And this doesn't weaken metros, it simply allows sieges to happen at lower costs. It also doesn't increase the rate of sieges more than the cooldown already limits siege declarations. I am not sitting here saying it would constantly be a problem, it's just for IF it occurred. Ideally, a server will indeed band together to take a node down, this idea is for if that still doesn't work.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    CROW3 wrote: »
    I like the idea of an ‘unstoppable’ Stage 6 metro being a stable core city in the world. So, to destabilize that node I would want something a little more epic than a corruption mechanic.

    For instance, pulling an idea from Dave Georgeson from a number of years ago, once a metro has been stable for x period of time - say 2 months - a questline is triggered. That questline could be a staged event leading to the possible waking of a dragon that would lay siege to the node.

    That siege could dramatically alter the node - not just by razing the metro - but change the biome completely from a riverlands paradise to a bubbling magma field where a dragon holds claim.

    Now you have a player population displaced and pissed, vassal nodes that have some new found freedom, an epic open world raid boss, and a uniquely changed world that will be different than any other server.

    I don't hate this
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    I don't hate this

    Well, it’s a starting point.

    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I'd also suggest that Vassal Nodes should have espionage options to work against their superiors indirectly if they wish so they can attempt to progress. Whether it be through assisting attackers with resources in a siege with the caravan system perhaps, or even diverting the high up stages caravans to enemies, etc.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Don’t fix what ain’t broke??

    Its more or less a safeguard. So if a stage 6 node stays that way for 6 months, things have a greater potential to change. Its not like its kicking stage 6 nodes out the door for existing for a month lmao
    If they don't change due to a long-standing Metro, they don't change.
    If you want more change, play on a server with more change.

    I liken it to nodes as players in the open world. If a player(node) is forever beating out and beating up other playerd(nodes), why shouldn't they also get corruption as to keep things balanced out?

    I'd also like to say this is just an idea for IF it becomes and issue. Testing always comes first, but a long term deterrent like thus is hard to test out efficiently, hence why I even brought it up.

    I absolutely hate the idea of punishing players for being good at the game, and being able to protect their node.

    So would you also opt for zealous PvPers to not be restricted? After all, they're just great at it and don't want to be limited by how much they can do it. Why punish them with corruption if they can get away with it by being the better PvPer?

    For the most part, PvPers are not punished with corruption unless they are running around ganking people. (and they have the choice not to do that) Corrupting pkers that choose to do so, is not the same as making it easier to siege a node because they have done a good job protecting it.

    This would be true if it wasn't for the fact that by a stage 6 node simply existing, it halts other nodes progression. Simply being max level makes it a hostile entity to any node under its influence in terms of progression

    Those emotionally bound to their node but not to the nation have integration problems.
    You want to grow old in your native node?

    More variables than just that honestly.
    Node type
    Biome
    Coastal or inland
    Player relations
    Guild relations
    Resources
    Dungeons
    Raids
    Loot
    Etc.

    Good point but if they manage to overthrow their superior node and become themselves a node 6, they'll not support the OP.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Don’t fix what ain’t broke??

    Its more or less a safeguard. So if a stage 6 node stays that way for 6 months, things have a greater potential to change. Its not like its kicking stage 6 nodes out the door for existing for a month lmao
    If they don't change due to a long-standing Metro, they don't change.
    If you want more change, play on a server with more change.

    I liken it to nodes as players in the open world. If a player(node) is forever beating out and beating up other playerd(nodes), why shouldn't they also get corruption as to keep things balanced out?

    I'd also like to say this is just an idea for IF it becomes and issue. Testing always comes first, but a long term deterrent like thus is hard to test out efficiently, hence why I even brought it up.

    I absolutely hate the idea of punishing players for being good at the game, and being able to protect their node.

    So would you also opt for zealous PvPers to not be restricted? After all, they're just great at it and don't want to be limited by how much they can do it. Why punish them with corruption if they can get away with it by being the better PvPer?

    For the most part, PvPers are not punished with corruption unless they are running around ganking people. (and they have the choice not to do that) Corrupting pkers that choose to do so, is not the same as making it easier to siege a node because they have done a good job protecting it.

    This would be true if it wasn't for the fact that by a stage 6 node simply existing, it halts other nodes progression. Simply being max level makes it a hostile entity to any node under its influence in terms of progression

    Those emotionally bound to their node but not to the nation have integration problems.
    You want to grow old in your native node?

    More variables than just that honestly.
    Node type
    Biome
    Coastal or inland
    Player relations
    Guild relations
    Resources
    Dungeons
    Raids
    Loot
    Etc.

    Good point but if they manage to overthrow their superior node and become themselves a node 6, they'll not support the OP.

    I don't know, I feel like it'd just be a necessary check and balance for extreme cases. I doubt it'd often be a common issue, but it'd be a real concern on any server with mega guilds.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Don’t fix what ain’t broke??

    Its more or less a safeguard. So if a stage 6 node stays that way for 6 months, things have a greater potential to change. Its not like its kicking stage 6 nodes out the door for existing for a month lmao
    If they don't change due to a long-standing Metro, they don't change.
    If you want more change, play on a server with more change.

    I liken it to nodes as players in the open world. If a player(node) is forever beating out and beating up other playerd(nodes), why shouldn't they also get corruption as to keep things balanced out?

    I'd also like to say this is just an idea for IF it becomes and issue. Testing always comes first, but a long term deterrent like thus is hard to test out efficiently, hence why I even brought it up.

    I absolutely hate the idea of punishing players for being good at the game, and being able to protect their node.

    So would you also opt for zealous PvPers to not be restricted? After all, they're just great at it and don't want to be limited by how much they can do it. Why punish them with corruption if they can get away with it by being the better PvPer?

    For the most part, PvPers are not punished with corruption unless they are running around ganking people. (and they have the choice not to do that) Corrupting pkers that choose to do so, is not the same as making it easier to siege a node because they have done a good job protecting it.

    This would be true if it wasn't for the fact that by a stage 6 node simply existing, it halts other nodes progression. Simply being max level makes it a hostile entity to any node under its influence in terms of progression

    Those emotionally bound to their node but not to the nation have integration problems.
    You want to grow old in your native node?

    More variables than just that honestly.
    Node type
    Biome
    Coastal or inland
    Player relations
    Guild relations
    Resources
    Dungeons
    Raids
    Loot
    Etc.

    Good point but if they manage to overthrow their superior node and become themselves a node 6, they'll not support the OP.

    I don't know, I feel like it'd just be a necessary check and balance for extreme cases. I doubt it'd often be a common issue, but it'd be a real concern on any server with mega guilds.

    I know. If each level 6 node will survive 2+ years, even when players try to siege it, something is wrong.
    How will this dynamic be tested during Alpha 2? They have to avoid wiping the servers...
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Don’t fix what ain’t broke??

    Its more or less a safeguard. So if a stage 6 node stays that way for 6 months, things have a greater potential to change. Its not like its kicking stage 6 nodes out the door for existing for a month lmao
    If they don't change due to a long-standing Metro, they don't change.
    If you want more change, play on a server with more change.

    I liken it to nodes as players in the open world. If a player(node) is forever beating out and beating up other playerd(nodes), why shouldn't they also get corruption as to keep things balanced out?

    I'd also like to say this is just an idea for IF it becomes and issue. Testing always comes first, but a long term deterrent like thus is hard to test out efficiently, hence why I even brought it up.

    I absolutely hate the idea of punishing players for being good at the game, and being able to protect their node.

    So would you also opt for zealous PvPers to not be restricted? After all, they're just great at it and don't want to be limited by how much they can do it. Why punish them with corruption if they can get away with it by being the better PvPer?

    For the most part, PvPers are not punished with corruption unless they are running around ganking people. (and they have the choice not to do that) Corrupting pkers that choose to do so, is not the same as making it easier to siege a node because they have done a good job protecting it.

    This would be true if it wasn't for the fact that by a stage 6 node simply existing, it halts other nodes progression. Simply being max level makes it a hostile entity to any node under its influence in terms of progression

    Those emotionally bound to their node but not to the nation have integration problems.
    You want to grow old in your native node?

    More variables than just that honestly.
    Node type
    Biome
    Coastal or inland
    Player relations
    Guild relations
    Resources
    Dungeons
    Raids
    Loot
    Etc.

    Good point but if they manage to overthrow their superior node and become themselves a node 6, they'll not support the OP.

    I don't know, I feel like it'd just be a necessary check and balance for extreme cases. I doubt it'd often be a common issue, but it'd be a real concern on any server with mega guilds.

    I know. If each level 6 node will survive 2+ years, even when players try to siege it, something is wrong.
    How will this dynamic be tested during Alpha 2? They have to avoid wiping the servers...

    Exactly, this isn't me trying to constantly flip metros, literally 6 months of constant wins is a LONG streak
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    6 months = 3 Sieges?
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Dygz wrote: »
    6 months = 3 Sieges?

    Edit: Jesus, if you can only siege a metro 3 times in a 6 month period, that's horrible.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • There will be castle sieges too, every month
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges

    The risk vs reward of node sieges should be balanced to make players feel the risk and attack only if they accept the consequences of not wining.

    And a siege should act as a resource and gold sink on both sides.
    How many metros do we expect to exist on a map at any moment?

    Traveling on the map will not be hard and vassals will go often to the nearest metro to access whatever content exists there.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    5 Metros max per server.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Raven016 wrote: »
    There will be castle sieges too, every month
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges

    The risk vs reward of node sieges should be balanced to make players feel the risk and attack only if they accept the consequences of not wining.

    And a siege should act as a resource and gold sink on both sides.
    How many metros do we expect to exist on a map at any moment?

    Traveling on the map will not be hard and vassals will go often to the nearest metro to access whatever content exists there.

    Sure, I think typically the siege should be costly, but if I have to wait 2 months before looking forward to defending my node again, that's terrible design.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • KrakhunKrakhun Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    There will be castle sieges too, every month
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges

    The risk vs reward of node sieges should be balanced to make players feel the risk and attack only if they accept the consequences of not wining.

    And a siege should act as a resource and gold sink on both sides.
    How many metros do we expect to exist on a map at any moment?

    Traveling on the map will not be hard and vassals will go often to the nearest metro to access whatever content exists there.

    Sure, I think typically the siege should be costly, but if I have to wait 2 months before looking forward to defending my node again, that's terrible design.

    I think most people are not going to want to put there homes on the line more often than that. There will plenty of other pvp battles to fight. If there is no stability, it would just be a pvp game, and not pvx.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    There will be castle sieges too, every month
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges

    The risk vs reward of node sieges should be balanced to make players feel the risk and attack only if they accept the consequences of not wining.

    And a siege should act as a resource and gold sink on both sides.
    How many metros do we expect to exist on a map at any moment?

    Traveling on the map will not be hard and vassals will go often to the nearest metro to access whatever content exists there.

    Sure, I think typically the siege should be costly, but if I have to wait 2 months before looking forward to defending my node again, that's terrible design.

    I think most people are not going to want to put there homes on the line more often than that. There will plenty of other pvp battles to fight. If there is no stability, it would just be a pvp game, and not pvx.

    Youre maintaining a stable PvE centric home by fighting for it through PvP. Sounds very PvX to me. If I am time gated to play certain content by 2 months, that's a problem.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • KrakhunKrakhun Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    There will be castle sieges too, every month
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges

    The risk vs reward of node sieges should be balanced to make players feel the risk and attack only if they accept the consequences of not wining.

    And a siege should act as a resource and gold sink on both sides.
    How many metros do we expect to exist on a map at any moment?

    Traveling on the map will not be hard and vassals will go often to the nearest metro to access whatever content exists there.

    Sure, I think typically the siege should be costly, but if I have to wait 2 months before looking forward to defending my node again, that's terrible design.

    I think most people are not going to want to put there homes on the line more often than that. There will plenty of other pvp battles to fight. If there is no stability, it would just be a pvp game, and not pvx.

    Youre maintaining a stable PvE centric home by fighting for it through PvP. Sounds very PvX to me. If I am time gated to play certain content by 2 months, that's a problem.

    So after all the work, time, resources, defending a node to the point it reaches lvl 6, what is the appropriate amount of time to give residents of that node to relax and work on other aspects of the game?
  • tautautautau Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I would say at least two years, @Krakhun
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    iirc 2 months before you can declare on that node again
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    There will be castle sieges too, every month
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges

    The risk vs reward of node sieges should be balanced to make players feel the risk and attack only if they accept the consequences of not wining.

    And a siege should act as a resource and gold sink on both sides.
    How many metros do we expect to exist on a map at any moment?

    Traveling on the map will not be hard and vassals will go often to the nearest metro to access whatever content exists there.

    Sure, I think typically the siege should be costly, but if I have to wait 2 months before looking forward to defending my node again, that's terrible design.

    I think most people are not going to want to put there homes on the line more often than that. There will plenty of other pvp battles to fight. If there is no stability, it would just be a pvp game, and not pvx.

    Youre maintaining a stable PvE centric home by fighting for it through PvP. Sounds very PvX to me. If I am time gated to play certain content by 2 months, that's a problem.

    So after all the work, time, resources, defending a node to the point it reaches lvl 6, what is the appropriate amount of time to give residents of that node to relax and work on other aspects of the game?

    I'd say 3 weeks to a month tops as far as a stage 6 siege cooldown goes. For how many people would potentially be working on said node, that's a ton of time to build up a stockpile for either defenders or attackers imo.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    I'd also like to know what do you think of the earlier suggestion of a PvE event occurring for the same sort of purpose instead? Such as what @CROW3 suggested? I can only see people actually wanting stage 6 nodes to be capable of being permanent if they plan on being that node. Where if they're stuck in a stage 4 or 5, they'd likely have a different outlook after shooting themselves es in the foot so to speak.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • KrakhunKrakhun Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Krakhun wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    There will be castle sieges too, every month
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges

    The risk vs reward of node sieges should be balanced to make players feel the risk and attack only if they accept the consequences of not wining.

    And a siege should act as a resource and gold sink on both sides.
    How many metros do we expect to exist on a map at any moment?

    Traveling on the map will not be hard and vassals will go often to the nearest metro to access whatever content exists there.

    Sure, I think typically the siege should be costly, but if I have to wait 2 months before looking forward to defending my node again, that's terrible design.

    I think most people are not going to want to put there homes on the line more often than that. There will plenty of other pvp battles to fight. If there is no stability, it would just be a pvp game, and not pvx.

    Youre maintaining a stable PvE centric home by fighting for it through PvP. Sounds very PvX to me. If I am time gated to play certain content by 2 months, that's a problem.

    So after all the work, time, resources, defending a node to the point it reaches lvl 6, what is the appropriate amount of time to give residents of that node to relax and work on other aspects of the game?

    I'd say 3 weeks to a month tops as far as a stage 6 siege cooldown goes. For how many people would potentially be working on said node, that's a ton of time to build up a stockpile for either defenders or attackers imo.

    What kinda time frame would you give stages 3-5? would it even be worth buying an in-node house if you could loose it every few weeks at lvl 6?
Sign In or Register to comment.