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

124»

Comments

  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Milotrix wrote: »
    There's going to be 85 regular nodes and 15 castle nodes...that's a lot for a single server, and this is just at launch, eventually there will be expansions that will increase this. This means that smaller guilds can take any number of of the 85 regular nodes and big guilds will fight over the 15 castle nodes.... which is plenty. We don't know how many people can be allowed in a guild yet, or whether guilds can form in game alliances too.

    If they do introduce alliances of say 3 guilds banding together, that's 15x3 which is 45 alliances...

    Also, a guild controlling a certain node, does not prevent other people from participating in end game content... the only thing that happens is the guild controlling the node gets extra resources.

    So if you want to counter that, then just band together with other smaller guilds to make a larger alliance, or join a bigger guild etc... Like this is an mmo, it's not just your guild vs other guilds... there's more to it.

    I believe it was 300ish members for guilds with all member increase perks? And in game you can have 4 guilds in an alliance I believe?

    There hasn't been any talk of expanding to more nodes in expansions to my knowledge.

    And as far as mega guilds go, they tend to coordinate 1000+ player regardless of member limits of guilds in games.

    And I'd say MOST of the time, servers can indeed band together. My suggestion is simply for when banding together has no effect. It's just a mechanic to focus on change after a long period of the same thing
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Raven016Raven016 Member
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Milotrix wrote: »
    There's going to be 85 regular nodes and 15 castle nodes...that's a lot for a single server, and this is just at launch, eventually there will be expansions that will increase this. This means that smaller guilds can take any number of of the 85 regular nodes and big guilds will fight over the 15 castle nodes.... which is plenty. We don't know how many people can be allowed in a guild yet, or whether guilds can form in game alliances too.

    If they do introduce alliances of say 3 guilds banding together, that's 15x3 which is 45 alliances...

    Also, a guild controlling a certain node, does not prevent other people from participating in end game content... the only thing that happens is the guild controlling the node gets extra resources.

    So if you want to counter that, then just band together with other smaller guilds to make a larger alliance, or join a bigger guild etc... Like this is an mmo, it's not just your guild vs other guilds... there's more to it.

    I believe it was 300ish members for guilds with all member increase perks? And in game you can have 4 guilds in an alliance I believe?

    There hasn't been any talk of expanding to more nodes in expansions to my knowledge.

    And as far as mega guilds go, they tend to coordinate 1000+ player regardless of member limits of guilds in games.

    And I'd say MOST of the time, servers can indeed band together. My suggestion is simply for when banding together has no effect. It's just a mechanic to focus on change after a long period of the same thing
    Hypothetical question.
    If such a mega guild formed by 4×300 players end up alone on a server, should IS merge it with another server with a similar mega guild on it?
    What happens if they merge it with a server which has 30-50 player guilds?
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Milotrix wrote: »
    There's going to be 85 regular nodes and 15 castle nodes...that's a lot for a single server, and this is just at launch, eventually there will be expansions that will increase this. This means that smaller guilds can take any number of of the 85 regular nodes and big guilds will fight over the 15 castle nodes.... which is plenty. We don't know how many people can be allowed in a guild yet, or whether guilds can form in game alliances too.

    If they do introduce alliances of say 3 guilds banding together, that's 15x3 which is 45 alliances...

    Also, a guild controlling a certain node, does not prevent other people from participating in end game content... the only thing that happens is the guild controlling the node gets extra resources.

    So if you want to counter that, then just band together with other smaller guilds to make a larger alliance, or join a bigger guild etc... Like this is an mmo, it's not just your guild vs other guilds... there's more to it.

    I believe it was 300ish members for guilds with all member increase perks? And in game you can have 4 guilds in an alliance I believe?

    There hasn't been any talk of expanding to more nodes in expansions to my knowledge.

    And as far as mega guilds go, they tend to coordinate 1000+ player regardless of member limits of guilds in games.

    And I'd say MOST of the time, servers can indeed band together. My suggestion is simply for when banding together has no effect. It's just a mechanic to focus on change after a long period of the same thing
    Hypothetical question.
    If such a mega guild formed by 4×300 players end up alone on a server, should IS merge it with another server with a similar mega guild on it?
    What happens if they merge it with a server which has 30-50 player guilds?

    I'd prefer that mega guilds reside on the same server, but that's not exactly controllable. And I'm not entirely worried about 50 player guilds as long as the perks make up for the numbers. But even I have planned for dispersing a large guild into several 50 player guilds with full perks, so I am sure a mega guild would consider doing the same.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Steven expects mega-guilds to fracture due to the member caps in-game.
  • AbaratAbarat Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Steven expects mega-guilds to fracture due to the member caps in-game.

    please provide some support for this claim.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Steven expects mega-guilds to fracture due to the member caps in-game.

    As someone who got bored and infiltrated a mega guild to observe their decision making, interactions, and goals. I highly doubt a simple cap will stop megaguilds from damaging the server they're on
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    As someone who got bored and infiltrated a mega guild to observe their decision making, interactions, and goals. I highly doubt a simple cap will stop megaguilds from damaging the server they're on
    It’s a couple of guild caps, a bunch of diverse guild perks, diverse racial, social org and religion progression and a variety of different Node Types and services - just to name a few of the pressures expected to cause fractures.

  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    As someone who got bored and infiltrated a mega guild to observe their decision making, interactions, and goals. I highly doubt a simple cap will stop megaguilds from damaging the server they're on
    It’s a couple of guild caps, a bunch of diverse guild perks, diverse racial, social org and religion progression and a variety of different Node Types and services - just to name a few of the pressures expected to cause fractures.

    Thats fair. But honestly most megaguilds are basically hive minds, where their only purpose is winning by throwing bodies at things. The members tend to care more about domination than any individual motivation of how theyd like to play. I liken them to people who enjoy cruise ships, where they are part of a large group, but they all get to shut off their brains and let the staff and crew make their decisions for them, steering them to the destination and waving shiny things in their faces in return for their support to keep the crew paid and fed.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • NoaaniNoaani 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, are you saying it is still PvX is the PvE and PvP components happen at different times?

    I may be mistaken, but I thought that was something you were against.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani 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, are you saying it is still PvX is the PvE and PvP components happen at different times?

    I may be mistaken, but I thought that was something you were against.

    I am not sure what you mean by PvE and PvP components happening at different times in this scenario? Can you clarify? Are you saying that a siege is only PvP and not PvE?
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Are you saying that a siege is only PvP and not PvE?
    I mean, unless we want to count flags in capture the flag mode as being PvE, yes, I expect sieges to be pure PvP.

    You said maintaining a PvE centric home (by which I assume you mean freehold) by fighting for it through PvP (by which I assume you mean sieges) is PvX.

    To me, since those things (working on your freehold and participating in a siege) happen at different times, this would seem to suggest you consider it to be PvX if PvP and PvE happen at different times.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Are you saying that a siege is only PvP and not PvE?
    I mean, unless we want to count flags in capture the flag mode as being PvE, yes, I expect sieges to be pure PvP.

    You said maintaining a PvE centric home (by which I assume you mean freehold) by fighting for it through PvP (by which I assume you mean sieges) is PvX.

    To me, since those things (working on your freehold and participating in a siege) happen at different times, this would seem to suggest you consider it to be PvX if PvP and PvE happen at different times.

    I was referring to nodes themselves as far as PvE Centric homes go. Sieges require all sorts of PvE provisions, which seem to also be affected by PvP themselves for a varying outcome. All of which can lead up to how well prepared attackers and defenders are. Not to mention, according to the alpha test siege showcase, you can even fight dragons/bosses during sieges for advantages. Objectives can be PvE, though I would think said objectives would need either NPCs to fight, or environmental mechanics to deal with. So I don't really see PvE and PvP happening separately in this scenario. And while I do believe design should focus on combining PvP and PvE as much as possible, this doesnt mean that there can't be moments of reprieve to balance things out mechanically. A perfect example is corruption preventing rampant killing, instead causing players who are corrupted to work it off, giving other players either a reprieve or an opportunity to get involved.

    What I am definitely against is complete separation, where one has no affect on the other regardless of when they are taking place.
    GJjUGHx.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.