If you're talking about castle nodes, those are supposedly only for guild members to operate and they're also not related to normal nodes, so no one "lives" in them really.
Are the castles near the middles not Nodes driven by players? if not then completely lost and if I am lost well this is what I get for not keeping up to date lmao
*Edit** nvm figured it out....
Castle nodes exist outside of the node system. They are independent of anything that's happening outside in the world with other nodes shutting off certain nodes from progressing.[33]
ahh I see, but looking at a developer stand point not sure how you can make it any lower with out adding more castles base around lower leveling and adding a level cap so it cannot be exploited by higher levels, but doing so will just lead players to specific nodes that fit their level range.
We're talking about the start of the game and/or new servers. There would be no higher-lvled people when castles are filled with lvl35 mobs.
Eventually people would get higher then 35 was the point I was getting at and they would need to increase the level and if they did that any new player would be where we are now have to be level 50. unless they added more castles and put a level cap to prevent higher levels from exploiting.
Are the castles near the middles not Nodes driven by players? if not then completely lost and if I am lost well this is what I get for not keeping up to date lmao
Eventually people would get higher then 35 was the point I was getting at and they would need to increase the level and if they did that any new player would be where we are now have to be level 50. unless they added more castles and put a level cap to prevent higher levels from exploiting.
The castles are controlled by the npcs only once, before they get taken over by players. After that there will be no mobs in the castles. There might be separate bosses during the siege, but that part of the design has been up in the air since Alpha1.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
for a game to have levels as a time sink, and have the game start at max level
what % of that content needs to be at max level only? 50%, 90%, 99%? feel free to give me any number you think might be right.
In an RPG, that should not be a thing. It's indicative of poor game design.
So 0% is the only correct answer.
now, what % of content does ashes have that can be only accessed at max level? how can you be so sure that leveling in ashes is just a time sink, based on only 2 things (castles and fh)
There should be no categories of content that can only be access at Max Level.
I'm pretty sure I've told you that several times already so I don't understand why you keep returning to that.
whats your opinion on bosses, quests or mobs that can only be killed/completed at max level? if you have bosses at level 30, 40 and 50, is the leveling process just a time sink because you cant kill all bosses at level 1?
There should be Bosses and Dungeons and Raids available in the game by Level 10 probably and certainly by Level 20. And Node Siege PvP and Caravan PvP available by Level 25.
And Castle Siege PvP should be available at least by Level 35.
There should be no categories of gameplay gated at Level 50/Max Level.
I thought you told me you understood that??
i mean, you could walk up to the bosses at level 1 but you might not be able to kill them. you might not even be able to kill a level 30 boss as soon as you hit level 30...
I'm pretty sure that Azherae and I have bonked you on the head before about your use of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
0
Options
Night WingsMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Are the castles near the middles not Nodes driven by players? if not then completely lost and if I am lost well this is what I get for not keeping up to date lmao
Eventually people would get higher then 35 was the point I was getting at and they would need to increase the level and if they did that any new player would be where we are now have to be level 50. unless they added more castles and put a level cap to prevent higher levels from exploiting.
The castles are controlled by the npcs only once, before they get taken over by players. After that there will be no mobs in the castles. There might be separate bosses during the siege, but that part of the design has been up in the air since Alpha1.
Hmm if they're no separate bosses then locking it at 50 makes zero since to me if they're separate bosses they can make the boss a lower level in the beginning once the server is starting then eventually raise the cap to 50, although I would imagine ppl who didnt get to participate at lower level cap would be little mad.
although I would imagine ppl who didnt get to participate at lower level cap would be little mad.
Majority of people who didn't start at the release of any given server wouldn't even know that castles were populated by mobs before the first siege And that's even if they look into trying to participate in a siege, cause castle sieges will be a very exclusive event.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Eventually people would get higher then 35 was the point I was getting at and they would need to increase the level and if they did that any new player would be where we are now have to be level 50. unless they added more castles and put a level cap to prevent higher levels from exploiting.
In Ashes, mob Levels are not static.
Mob Levels dynamically change as Nodes rise and fall, so it should be possible for the Events system to include Level 55 mobs attacking Castles once one or more Nodes reach Stage 6 Metro.
OK can we all agree that there should be level 50+ monsters in the game?
Cause it seems like as soon as intrepid announces where they are going to put level 50+ monsters, people will start raging about "End game!"
You don't want them in castles, others don't want them in raids.
This just seems absurd.
I have nothing against +LvL 50 Mobs. This happened in WoW, too. And it was cool, most of the time. Mobs a bit above Maxlevel. Sometimes they were even Elite Mobs, although not Worldbosses.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
WoW had categories of content that did not open until Max Level?
Which expansion was that? And what was the category of content?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
ahh I see, but looking at a developer stand point not sure how you can make it any lower with out adding more castles base around lower leveling and adding a level cap so it cannot be exploited by higher levels, but doing so will just lead players to specific nodes that fit their level range.
Why would there need to be more Castles?
When the Level 35 NPCs are kicked out of the Castles, there would not be any Level 45+ players on the server yet. And there probably would not be any Stage 6 Metros.
And then the Castle content would be the player Guilds as they progress from Level 35 to Level 50.
It's not possible for that to be exploited by higher Levels.
The Level ranges of specific Nodes increase and decrease as Towns and Cities are built and destroyed.
Only one scroll wins who can dec, not multiple people ONE guild. Multiple guilds can jump in the lottery but there is only one winner who leads the war. It is pretty standard.
I had to reread all your previous comments on this just to properly understand what you're asking for, because your term use is all over the place.
You've once again completely blurred the lines between node sieges and castle sieges, which is why I had to reread all your statements several times.
No, there isn't a single guild that "leads the siege". I dunno which games that is standard in, but that's not Ashes (nor was it L2, where Steven got inspiration from). But ok, you WANT that to be the case.
And if that were the case, you want different guilds to register and then the game randomly picks one of them to "lead the siege", and this Leader can then pick attackers out of the registered guilds. Is that a correct summation of your suggestion?
If that is correct - I refer to my point of registering a ton of mini-guilds to try and win this lottery, or even just paying off some casual/small guilds to register as well.
But I do agree that Intrepid should put in some designs in order to prevent this from happening. And considering my personal dislike of "randomness" when it comes to political mechanics of the game - I proposed a design that would address this https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/59378/castle-siege-idea/p1?new=1
I just went over this u cant just make a bunch of min guilds for it....like are we going to make arguments things are designed badly with 0 cost, and rule set for arguments?
That sounds like the biggest waste of time, assuming everything is designed badly.
Like as if there is no rule sets and it cost 0 so u make make a bunch of random 1 man sub guilds to dec. That is literally your argument lmfao.
I'm not convinced you read my post even twice tbh since I already addressed this back at the start.
for a game to have levels as a time sink, and have the game start at max level
what % of that content needs to be at max level only? 50%, 90%, 99%? feel free to give me any number you think might be right.
In an RPG, that should not be a thing. It's indicative of poor game design.
So 0% is the only correct answer.
now, what % of content does ashes have that can be only accessed at max level? how can you be so sure that leveling in ashes is just a time sink, based on only 2 things (castles and fh)
There should be no categories of content that can only be access at Max Level.
I'm pretty sure I've told you that several times already so I don't understand why you keep returning to that.
whats your opinion on bosses, quests or mobs that can only be killed/completed at max level? if you have bosses at level 30, 40 and 50, is the leveling process just a time sink because you cant kill all bosses at level 1?
There should be Bosses and Dungeons and Raids available in the game by Level 10 probably and certainly by Level 20. And Node Siege PvP and Caravan PvP available by Level 25.
And Castle Siege PvP should be available at least by Level 35.
There should be no categories of gameplay gated at Level 50/Max Level.
I thought you told me you understood that??
i mean, you could walk up to the bosses at level 1 but you might not be able to kill them. you might not even be able to kill a level 30 boss as soon as you hit level 30...
I'm pretty sure that Azherae and I have bonked you on the head before about your use of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
ok thank you for your answers. ill try one more time. also, not bad game design btw, but I wont go into that. anyway...
whats the difference between having to level to 30 as opposed to 50? isn't the content at level 30 not available to you until you hit 30? can you do level 30 content at level 1?
your argument is that content should not be restricted by level, but somehow as long as that level isn't max level then it is okay to restrict the content by level...ok
also, level is just one aspect of progression. you could say well t6 gathering is restricted to max level gathering. that's poor design, I should be able to do max level gathering without getting to max level gathering. what?
the root of the "issue" is that content is restricted by progression. the only way you could solve that is by eliminating all progression. now, that's bad design.
the reason I keep asking you about this is because you seem to hate content at max level for no apparent reason other than personal feelings, when you have content restricted by progression everywhere. that progression could be getting to level 20, 30 or 40. it could be getting certain gear to be able to kill the mobs, it could be getting to a certain level of gathering, it could be that you cant simply access something until a node develops (node progression, but somehow you are ok with that and you say its cool because dynamic world).
in the end, all I'm seeing is inconsistency. "its ok for progression to block content, unless you need max level. every blockade is fine".
...
anyways imma drop it because we arent getting anywhere. i don't know how else I can make you see the contradictions in your logic.
but before that, even in dnd, I remember the first time I played, there was this ogre type of mob (forgot the name) that the dm kin of used as a boss. at level 1 it was soo difficult to kill, it took 3 of us to do it and we almost wiped...few levels later we foguth 3 of those at the same time, and we just obliterated them like nothing. if we had fought them at level 1, we would have faced certain death. why do I say this? because having access to all content without a certain level of progression is just an illusion. the content is there, but you cant complete it because you need to become stronger by leveling, gearing up, refining, etc. but somehow leveling, the process where you can get familiarized with your character and skills, try them against different enemies and allies, test things, not be overwhelmed by content and decisions, make friends and enemies along the way, etc, etc is somehow a useless time sink. ok...
edit: just because you or azheare say something, doesn't mean you are right ;3
in the end, all I'm seeing is inconsistency. "its ok for progression to block content, unless you need max level. every blockade is fine".
That's a good point. So I'd personally be more than fine if we got some form of sieges way sooner than even lvl35.
Hell, put a storyline where monster coin sieges are a near-necessity for optimal progress. That'd be somewhat similar to sieges and could be done at pretty much any lvl of progress.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If both Azherae and I agree… it’s probably right. And certainly right if Noaani agrees with both of us.
You can believe the Earth is flat if you wish.
And, at some point, that will mean it’s best for me to stop responding to your posts.
In Ashes, Caravans begin at Stage 3 Village.
Castles should begin right around that time.
That should also be around the same time that Secondary Archetypes begin.
RPGs are really not intended to have categories of content that are inaccessible until Max Level.
That bane of MMORPGs occurs because gamers were able to race to the end of content before devs could implement more.
Thus, gamers would hit Max Level in one month and be stuck there for a year or three until the devs could finish an expansion.
That is poor game design but limited by tech.
I'm not convinced you read my post even twice tbh since I already addressed this back at the start.
Glad to know that your inability to have a good-conscious conversation never goes away
Because i keep repeating and you keep ignoring clear points. You are relying on "They can make tons of guilds" I've outline multiple times in detail why that wont be the case.
If you had some honestly in the conversation you would have already acknowledged that. The points that are a minus to your argument you are just going to keep ignoring. Which sounds to me you aren't being genuine from the start.
If you had some honestly in the conversation you would have already acknowledged that. The points that are a minus to your argument you are just going to keep ignoring. Which sounds to me you aren't being genuine from the start.
But I do agree that Intrepid should put in some designs in order to prevent this from happening. And considering my personal dislike of "randomness" when it comes to political mechanics of the game - I proposed a design that would address this https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/59378/castle-siege-idea/p1?new=1
I literally said that I agree that there should be a design-based way to prevent the mini-guilds exploit. I simply disagree with your "randomness" suggestion, which is why I provided an alternative.
If you had some honestly in the conversation you would have already acknowledged that. The points that are a minus to your argument you are just going to keep ignoring. Which sounds to me you aren't being genuine from the start.
But I do agree that Intrepid should put in some designs in order to prevent this from happening. And considering my personal dislike of "randomness" when it comes to political mechanics of the game - I proposed a design that would address this https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/59378/castle-siege-idea/p1?new=1
I literally said that I agree that there should be a design-based way to prevent the mini-guilds exploit. I simply disagree with your "randomness" suggestion, which is why I provided an alternative.
Did not see any point in that where you acknowledged it wouldn't be much of a strong exploit to use. Based on varying methods they can use.
For me accepting some rules isn't the same as acknowledging that point is weaker. As you can have rules but still have a mind set that point is a major issue. Which is what I'm saying that is not a big deal as there will be ways to deal with it.
If both Azherae and I agree… it’s probably right. And certainly right if Noaani agrees with both of us.
You can believe the Earth is flat if you wish.
And, at some point, that will mean it’s best for me to stop responding to your posts.
In Ashes, Caravans begin at Stage 3 Village.
Castles should begin right around that time.
That should also be around the same time that Secondary Archetypes begin.
RPGs are really not intended to have categories of content that are inaccessible until Max Level.
That bane of MMORPGs occurs because gamers were able to race to the end of content before devs could implement more.
Thus, gamers would hit Max Level in one month and be stuck there for a year or three until the devs could finish an expansion.
That is poor game design but limited by tech.
More, later.
I’ve got dance class.
well, lots of people used to think the earth was flat. they were wrong.
lots of people nowadays think there 93457475 genders. they are wrong.
lots of people think communism is better than capitalism..they are wrong.
just because lots of people think something, doesn't mean they are right ;3
I keep replying to you mostly out of curiosity., although I've realized past 2-3 replies its pointless, we get stuck in circles. i just try to say the same thing in a different way to see if I can make you understand. its like a fun quest I decided to take xD
I don't have anything personally against you, I just like to point out inconsistencies ;3
oh I forgot, regarding time sinks
you like eq, but eq had huge time sinks for the sake of having time sinks...spend 1 minute fighting huge hp sponges, then rest for 5..lol corpse runs that got removed later. every 10 levels or so? a level that required waayy more exp for no reason...I've never seen you criticizing those time sinks.
but to be fair many games did stuff like that because of limited memory back then (but not all).
if the issue is that players can race to max level before new content is released, you can still have content that is intended to be done a tmax level...one thing has nothing to do with the other xDDD
also, many devs don't release all the content right away...they make it but don't release it, they wait and release it as an expansion later on. its the devs fault if they release everything on day one and players finish everything really quickly.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 3
Yep. You can be wrong if you want to.
We get stuck in circles because you keep restating the same thing as if I haven’t already given you the answer.
Depraved: “Is the Earth flat?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “Do you think the Earth is flat?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “You realize some parts of the Earth are flat, right?”
Dygz: “Sure. Some parts of the Earh are flat.”
Depraved: “Then the Earth is flat, right?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “But if some parts of the Earth are flat, that means all of the Earth is flat, right?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “What percentage of the Earth do you think can be flat before all of the Earth is flat?”
There are no inconsistencies in my logic.
Castle Sieges should start around the same Level as Caravans and Node Sieges.
Rather than be gated as Max Level content.
Yep. You can be wrong if you want to.
We get stuck in circles because you keep restating the same thing as if I haven’t already given you the answer.
Depraved: “Is the Earth flat?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “Do you think the Earth is flat?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “You realize some parts of the Earth are flat, right?”
Dygz: “Sure. Some parts of the Earh are flat.”
Depraved: “Then the Earth is flat, right?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “But if some parts of the Earth are flat, that means all of the Earth is flat, right?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “What percentage of the Earth do you think can be flat before all of the Earth is flat?”
wait what xD
so your logic is: some people say I'm wrong, therefore I'm wrong.
using your own logic, some people say you are wrong, therefore you are wrong. some people say I'm right, therefore I'm right.
dygz logic ;3
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
oh I forgot, regarding time sinks
you like eq, but eq had huge time sinks for the sake of having time sinks...spend 1 minute fighting huge hp sponges, then rest for 5..lol corpse runs that got removed later. every 10 levels or so? a level that required waayy more exp for no reason...I've never seen you criticizing those time sinks.
Your logic is far too flawed to accurately point out logical inconsistencies.
Find a quote of mine that states “I like EQ.”
I’m pretty sure you cannot find a quote where I say “I like EQ2”.
I haven’t played EQ in 20 years.
It’s probably been 10 years since I played EQ2.
You might be able to find some quotes in these Forums about why I preferred WoW over EQ2.
I usually talk about that more on The Ashen Forge podcast and in Discord, I think.
But you are unlikely to find me talking about those games much because I stopped playing them long ago.
I might jump into the EQ2 Origins Beta because Fantm loves that game and wants a group to play with.
But, I’m not expecting to enjoy it.
if the issue is that players can race to max level before new content is released, you can still have content that is intended to be done a tmax level...one thing has nothing to do with the other xDDD
I don’t think I said something as simple as, “The issue is that players can race to max level before new content is released.”
The issue is that it encourages and normalizes racing to Max Level and supports the perception that Leveling is just a time-sink grind to reach the real game. Because the real game begins at Max Level.
And needlessly gates a category of gameplay that could and should start in the mid-Level range.
also, many devs don't release all the content right away...they make it but don't release it, they wait and release it as an expansion later on. its the devs fault if they release everything on day one and players finish everything really quickly.
That is a ridiculously irrelevant observation.
I think you keep trolling just to see how absurd you can possibly be.
oh I forgot, regarding time sinks
you like eq, but eq had huge time sinks for the sake of having time sinks...spend 1 minute fighting huge hp sponges, then rest for 5..lol corpse runs that got removed later. every 10 levels or so? a level that required waayy more exp for no reason...I've never seen you criticizing those time sinks.
Your logic is far too flawed to accurately point out logical inconsistencies.
Find a quote of mine that states “I like EQ.”
I’m pretty sure you cannot find a quote where I say “I like EQ2”.
I haven’t played EQ in 20 years.
It’s probably been 10 years since I played EQ2.
You might be able to find some quotes in these Forums about why I preferred WoW over EQ2.
I usually talk about that more on The Ashen Forge podcast and in Discord, I think.
But you are unlikely to find me talking about those games much because I stopped playing them long ago.
I might jump into the EQ2 Origins Beta because Fantm loves that game and wants a group to play with.
But, I’m not expecting to enjoy it.
if the issue is that players can race to max level before new content is released, you can still have content that is intended to be done a tmax level...one thing has nothing to do with the other xDDD
I don’t think I said something as simple as, “The issue is that players can race to max level before new content is released.”
The issue is that it encourages and normalizes racing to Max Level and supports the perception that Leveling is just a time-sink grind to reach the real game. Because the real game begins at Max Level.
And needlessly gates a category of gameplay that could and should start in the mid-Level range.
also, many devs don't release all the content right away...they make it but don't release it, they wait and release it as an expansion later on. its the devs fault if they release everything on day one and players finish everything really quickly.
That is a ridiculously irrelevant observation.
I think you keep trolling just to see how absurd you can possibly be.
I’m placing you on Ignore.
1- I inferred you liked eq cuz of some things uve said, and eq devss, etc. i suppose I was wrong. that's on me.
2- not really. people who will want to rush to max level will do so, regardless, and people who don't want to, wont.
3- not really. many games do that. they make content that they don't release on day one and release later. or for example like throne and liberty and revelations online, the content is there but its inaccessible by players until global server progression. so you have mini end games over and over and over every few months. but I suppose you would be against that.
I've left this thread along for a bit to see how others were reacting to this.
My first thought on this is "of course". I've said this was likely to be the case in discussions with Dygz in the past - specifically stating that while it hasn't been said, the mobs in castles will obviously be end game mobs.
While I can see the issue some people have in relation to this simply meaning that the strong get stronger - with the way sieges are, with the speed of leveling, castles were always going to go to the people that hit the level cap first - whether by them being the first to get them, or by them being the first to take them in a siege.
The thing to keep in mind - Ashes is only being made for gamers like Steven. if you don't want a game where the strong get stronger, where they hold the weaker under their thumb to prevent them from rising up, then Ashes isn't the game for you, because that has always been the game Ashes was always going to be - but then I've been saying this for two years now.
you don't know if you will be able to take the castle as soon as you hit 50..what if the mobs are too strong and you need to spend some time gearing up?
I would expect there to be a need to level up, then gear up, and also level up the guild. I fail to see why this is something that would warrant a "you don't know if" statement, as my previous comment doesn't change if this is true or not.
players who have been 50 for a while can fight the mobs, and fresh 50 or lower levels can do other things that can be done in a siege. as steven said, lower level players will be able to contribute as well.
We have been told that lower level players may have some tasks they can participate in during sieges.
The initial taking over of a castle is not considered a siege. While they *may* have a part to play, there is no current reason to assume they would.
anyways, just because you get a castle, doesn't mean you can opress others and prevent them from progressing...
Doing this is literally the entire point of castles.
Castle Sieges should start around the same Level as Caravans and Node Sieges.
Rather than be gated as Max Level content.
Just a Suggestion ... ...
Why not being able to start Caravans around LvL 20 ?
Would also work nicely as first Form of PvP.
Then Node-Sieges could start around LvL 35 to LvL 40.
And then finally Castle Sieges could start around LvL 45.
Should be VERY HARD to start. With Mobs being in the Levels of 50 and above.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 3
Castles can't start before Caravans become available on the server after some Nodes hit Stage 3 Village.
I don't know what Level Adventurers are expected to be at that point.
I'm guessing Level 25. Because that's the half-way mark for both.
And, then, Steven says "Castles will initially be occupied by an NPC adversary. These are the primary antagonists in the storyline. Guilds have a period of time to level up in order to siege these castles."
I think adding 10 extra Levels still fits that concept without it being Max Level content.
So... I'm suggesting Level 35 - give or take 5 Levels.
Node Sieges would start earlier because Node Sieges start at Stage 3 Village.
Which, again, should be around Level 25.
And then finally Castle Sieges could start around LvL 45.
Should be VERY HARD to start. With Mobs being in the Levels of 50 and above.
"VERY HARD to start" could still be a thing at Level 35.
After that, it's going to be Guild v Guild, so VERY HARD will be relative at that point.
It's mostly moot because The Open Seas is already the dealbreaker for me, so I won't be participating in Sieges after launch regardless, but...
I backed the game for the Meaningful Conflict of Sieges and Caravans.
And Steven's obsession with Risk v Reward acts as anti-hype for me - I'm not a fan PvP motivated by Risk v Reward.
But also, I backed Ashes hoping that Nodes would put an end to the MMORPG design of having categories of gameplay that do not open until Max Level.
So, on several levels, Freeholds and Castles beginning around Level 50 would not be something I'm a fan of.
Which is OK.
It just makes it clearer that I'm not in the Target Audience for Steven's vision.
Steadily moving farther away from the Kickstarter vision.
This seems to be a notion you are actively pushing, both on the forums and your podcast.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I am sorry you are bummed about not liking the game.
I do not believe Steven has budged at all from his original vision. You may be understanding it better, for sure, and for that, I am disappointed with you.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm not bummed about the game steadily moving farther from Kickstarter.
There are plenty of other games for me to play.
You can believe that Steven has not budged from his original vision even when he states that he's implemented changes, like the Open Seas.
You can believe whatever you want.
Comments
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_nodes
The castles are controlled by the npcs only once, before they get taken over by players. After that there will be no mobs in the castles. There might be separate bosses during the siege, but that part of the design has been up in the air since Alpha1.
So 0% is the only correct answer.
There should be no categories of content that can only be access at Max Level.
I'm pretty sure I've told you that several times already so I don't understand why you keep returning to that.
There should be Bosses and Dungeons and Raids available in the game by Level 10 probably and certainly by Level 20. And Node Siege PvP and Caravan PvP available by Level 25.
And Castle Siege PvP should be available at least by Level 35.
There should be no categories of gameplay gated at Level 50/Max Level.
I thought you told me you understood that??
I'm pretty sure that Azherae and I have bonked you on the head before about your use of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
Mob Levels dynamically change as Nodes rise and fall, so it should be possible for the Events system to include Level 55 mobs attacking Castles once one or more Nodes reach Stage 6 Metro.
I have nothing against +LvL 50 Mobs. This happened in WoW, too. And it was cool, most of the time. Mobs a bit above Maxlevel. Sometimes they were even Elite Mobs, although not Worldbosses.
Which expansion was that? And what was the category of content?
When the Level 35 NPCs are kicked out of the Castles, there would not be any Level 45+ players on the server yet. And there probably would not be any Stage 6 Metros.
And then the Castle content would be the player Guilds as they progress from Level 35 to Level 50.
It's not possible for that to be exploited by higher Levels.
The Level ranges of specific Nodes increase and decrease as Towns and Cities are built and destroyed.
I just went over this u cant just make a bunch of min guilds for it....like are we going to make arguments things are designed badly with 0 cost, and rule set for arguments?
That sounds like the biggest waste of time, assuming everything is designed badly.
Like as if there is no rule sets and it cost 0 so u make make a bunch of random 1 man sub guilds to dec. That is literally your argument lmfao.
I'm not convinced you read my post even twice tbh since I already addressed this back at the start.
ok thank you for your answers. ill try one more time. also, not bad game design btw, but I wont go into that. anyway...
whats the difference between having to level to 30 as opposed to 50? isn't the content at level 30 not available to you until you hit 30? can you do level 30 content at level 1?
your argument is that content should not be restricted by level, but somehow as long as that level isn't max level then it is okay to restrict the content by level...ok
also, level is just one aspect of progression. you could say well t6 gathering is restricted to max level gathering. that's poor design, I should be able to do max level gathering without getting to max level gathering. what?
the root of the "issue" is that content is restricted by progression. the only way you could solve that is by eliminating all progression. now, that's bad design.
the reason I keep asking you about this is because you seem to hate content at max level for no apparent reason other than personal feelings, when you have content restricted by progression everywhere. that progression could be getting to level 20, 30 or 40. it could be getting certain gear to be able to kill the mobs, it could be getting to a certain level of gathering, it could be that you cant simply access something until a node develops (node progression, but somehow you are ok with that and you say its cool because dynamic world).
in the end, all I'm seeing is inconsistency. "its ok for progression to block content, unless you need max level. every blockade is fine".
...
anyways imma drop it because we arent getting anywhere. i don't know how else I can make you see the contradictions in your logic.
but before that, even in dnd, I remember the first time I played, there was this ogre type of mob (forgot the name) that the dm kin of used as a boss. at level 1 it was soo difficult to kill, it took 3 of us to do it and we almost wiped...few levels later we foguth 3 of those at the same time, and we just obliterated them like nothing. if we had fought them at level 1, we would have faced certain death. why do I say this? because having access to all content without a certain level of progression is just an illusion. the content is there, but you cant complete it because you need to become stronger by leveling, gearing up, refining, etc. but somehow leveling, the process where you can get familiarized with your character and skills, try them against different enemies and allies, test things, not be overwhelmed by content and decisions, make friends and enemies along the way, etc, etc is somehow a useless time sink. ok...
edit: just because you or azheare say something, doesn't mean you are right ;3
Hell, put a storyline where monster coin sieges are a near-necessity for optimal progress. That'd be somewhat similar to sieges and could be done at pretty much any lvl of progress.
You can believe the Earth is flat if you wish.
And, at some point, that will mean it’s best for me to stop responding to your posts.
In Ashes, Caravans begin at Stage 3 Village.
Castles should begin right around that time.
That should also be around the same time that Secondary Archetypes begin.
RPGs are really not intended to have categories of content that are inaccessible until Max Level.
That bane of MMORPGs occurs because gamers were able to race to the end of content before devs could implement more.
Thus, gamers would hit Max Level in one month and be stuck there for a year or three until the devs could finish an expansion.
That is poor game design but limited by tech.
More, later.
I’ve got dance class.
Because i keep repeating and you keep ignoring clear points. You are relying on "They can make tons of guilds" I've outline multiple times in detail why that wont be the case.
If you had some honestly in the conversation you would have already acknowledged that. The points that are a minus to your argument you are just going to keep ignoring. Which sounds to me you aren't being genuine from the start.
Did not see any point in that where you acknowledged it wouldn't be much of a strong exploit to use. Based on varying methods they can use.
For me accepting some rules isn't the same as acknowledging that point is weaker. As you can have rules but still have a mind set that point is a major issue. Which is what I'm saying that is not a big deal as there will be ways to deal with it.
well, lots of people used to think the earth was flat. they were wrong.
lots of people nowadays think there 93457475 genders. they are wrong.
lots of people think communism is better than capitalism..they are wrong.
just because lots of people think something, doesn't mean they are right ;3
I keep replying to you mostly out of curiosity., although I've realized past 2-3 replies its pointless, we get stuck in circles. i just try to say the same thing in a different way to see if I can make you understand. its like a fun quest I decided to take xD
I don't have anything personally against you, I just like to point out inconsistencies ;3
oh I forgot, regarding time sinks
you like eq, but eq had huge time sinks for the sake of having time sinks...spend 1 minute fighting huge hp sponges, then rest for 5..lol corpse runs that got removed later. every 10 levels or so? a level that required waayy more exp for no reason...I've never seen you criticizing those time sinks.
but to be fair many games did stuff like that because of limited memory back then (but not all).
if the issue is that players can race to max level before new content is released, you can still have content that is intended to be done a tmax level...one thing has nothing to do with the other xDDD
also, many devs don't release all the content right away...they make it but don't release it, they wait and release it as an expansion later on. its the devs fault if they release everything on day one and players finish everything really quickly.
We get stuck in circles because you keep restating the same thing as if I haven’t already given you the answer.
Depraved: “Is the Earth flat?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “Do you think the Earth is flat?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “You realize some parts of the Earth are flat, right?”
Dygz: “Sure. Some parts of the Earh are flat.”
Depraved: “Then the Earth is flat, right?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “But if some parts of the Earth are flat, that means all of the Earth is flat, right?”
Dygz: “No.”
Depraved: “What percentage of the Earth do you think can be flat before all of the Earth is flat?”
There are no inconsistencies in my logic.
Castle Sieges should start around the same Level as Caravans and Node Sieges.
Rather than be gated as Max Level content.
wait what xD
so your logic is: some people say I'm wrong, therefore I'm wrong.
using your own logic, some people say you are wrong, therefore you are wrong. some people say I'm right, therefore I'm right.
dygz logic ;3
Find a quote of mine that states “I like EQ.”
I’m pretty sure you cannot find a quote where I say “I like EQ2”.
I haven’t played EQ in 20 years.
It’s probably been 10 years since I played EQ2.
You might be able to find some quotes in these Forums about why I preferred WoW over EQ2.
I usually talk about that more on The Ashen Forge podcast and in Discord, I think.
But you are unlikely to find me talking about those games much because I stopped playing them long ago.
I might jump into the EQ2 Origins Beta because Fantm loves that game and wants a group to play with.
But, I’m not expecting to enjoy it.
I don’t think I said something as simple as, “The issue is that players can race to max level before new content is released.”
The issue is that it encourages and normalizes racing to Max Level and supports the perception that Leveling is just a time-sink grind to reach the real game. Because the real game begins at Max Level.
And needlessly gates a category of gameplay that could and should start in the mid-Level range.
That is a ridiculously irrelevant observation.
I think you keep trolling just to see how absurd you can possibly be.
I’m placing you on Ignore.
1- I inferred you liked eq cuz of some things uve said, and eq devss, etc. i suppose I was wrong. that's on me.
2- not really. people who will want to rush to max level will do so, regardless, and people who don't want to, wont.
3- not really. many games do that. they make content that they don't release on day one and release later. or for example like throne and liberty and revelations online, the content is there but its inaccessible by players until global server progression. so you have mini end games over and over and over every few months. but I suppose you would be against that.
The initial taking over of a castle is not considered a siege. While they *may* have a part to play, there is no current reason to assume they would. Doing this is literally the entire point of castles.
Just a Suggestion ... ...
Why not being able to start Caravans around LvL 20 ?
Would also work nicely as first Form of PvP.
Then Node-Sieges could start around LvL 35 to LvL 40.
And then finally Castle Sieges could start around LvL 45.
Should be VERY HARD to start. With Mobs being in the Levels of 50 and above.
I don't know what Level Adventurers are expected to be at that point.
I'm guessing Level 25. Because that's the half-way mark for both.
And, then, Steven says "Castles will initially be occupied by an NPC adversary. These are the primary antagonists in the storyline. Guilds have a period of time to level up in order to siege these castles."
I think adding 10 extra Levels still fits that concept without it being Max Level content.
So... I'm suggesting Level 35 - give or take 5 Levels.
Node Sieges would start earlier because Node Sieges start at Stage 3 Village.
Which, again, should be around Level 25.
"VERY HARD to start" could still be a thing at Level 35.
After that, it's going to be Guild v Guild, so VERY HARD will be relative at that point.
It's mostly moot because The Open Seas is already the dealbreaker for me, so I won't be participating in Sieges after launch regardless, but...
I backed the game for the Meaningful Conflict of Sieges and Caravans.
And Steven's obsession with Risk v Reward acts as anti-hype for me - I'm not a fan PvP motivated by Risk v Reward.
But also, I backed Ashes hoping that Nodes would put an end to the MMORPG design of having categories of gameplay that do not open until Max Level.
So, on several levels, Freeholds and Castles beginning around Level 50 would not be something I'm a fan of.
Which is OK.
It just makes it clearer that I'm not in the Target Audience for Steven's vision.
Oh I plan to! But what about gold you earn?
We won't drop our GOLD under any circumstance, right? Right?
as far as I know, you wont. so sell your glint too, don't hoard it ;3
tbh, this is fairly solid basic advice for everyone in Ashes.
Hoard gold - until you need to spend it. Don't hoard anything else.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I am sorry you are bummed about not liking the game.
I do not believe Steven has budged at all from his original vision. You may be understanding it better, for sure, and for that, I am disappointed with you.
There are plenty of other games for me to play.
You can believe that Steven has not budged from his original vision even when he states that he's implemented changes, like the Open Seas.
You can believe whatever you want.