Point stands even if you are talking about a fantasy situation with different mechanics. If you are in a allied guild you should not be able to join to oppose them.
Yeah, but we aren't talking about alliances - we are talking about every guild that just so happens to be on the attacking side on a siege.
And if we are talking about context with actual guilds, I'm not going to have my own guild members attack my own guild. That makes 0 sense they would be working together for the same goal.
Yeah, but this is one of the many contradictions I have talked about Ashes having - one I believe you denied existed.
If caravans which collect taxes are destroyed during the previous 3 weekends, owning the castle next month will be worthless, as no money goes to that guild anyway.
So defenders will keep track during the caravan defense which guilds support them and select them to help defending the castle during siege.
Who is on the other side is not relevant.
The problem is if the castle owners pick as defenders guilds which helped building up the defense and those decide to not fight.
That would be a conspiracy which makes no sense as they would have more advantage to actually attack the caravans.
But can a last moment disagreement happen, the owners to lose support and the castle too.
Point stands even if you are talking about a fantasy situation with different mechanics. If you are in a allied guild you should not be able to join to oppose them.
Yeah, but we aren't talking about alliances - we are talking about every guild that just so happens to be on the attacking side on a siege.
And if we are talking about context with actual guilds, I'm not going to have my own guild members attack my own guild. That makes 0 sense they would be working together for the same goal.
Yeah, but this is one of the many contradictions I have talked about Ashes having - one I believe you denied existed.
I'm guessing you mean they are doing a free for all on the attacking side? Which doesn't make sense to me to be honest. It should be one side vrs the other side, not one side vrs multiple groups trying to rat each other. This is when setting a leader ahead of time is important (realistically people would have decided on who was leading the attack anyway.)
Don't see why I would deny a guild wouldn't use things to their advantage. For things to be competitive rule sets should be in place I just kind of expect them since it makes sense. I have thoughts on node wars as well and there needing to be strict rules on that (but not going to muddy up thread as we need to see what they are showing anyway.)
I'm off to bed anyway tired hopefully that made sense.
I'm guessing you mean they are doing a free for all on the attacking side?
Not quite - more like maintaining the capacity to understake a double cross. The entire attacking side would need to start off being on the same side, but with the added ability for one guild or alliance to leave that side and either join the defender, or form a third side.
Since the suggestion we are talking about assumes invitations will be handed out in 15 blocks of 16 to guilds, it is not out of the bounds of reason to allocate a respawn location to each of these 15 groups of 16 players.
When a siege begins, temporary alliances are formed among attackers and defenders.[10]
For node sieges, citizens of the node or provincial nodes being attacked are automatically registered as defenders.[11]
Many incentives exist that can benefit your node and yourself personally by participating in the attack or defense of cities. These range from titles, to items, to materials, to money. Additionally, aiding others may help you strengthen bonds when your assets are threatened.[12] – Steven Sharif
So two guilds in two metro nations can be allied and also try to control the castle which has it's own ZoI covering parts of both nations. Or to control any castle anywhere on the map, far from their own node.
Because L2's design was that last one, and was my assumption for how AoC's sieges work currently.
Why exactly IS this your assumption in the first place?
because ashes is 90% l2. it normal for an l2 player to see all the similarities and then assume some of the stuff that haven't been fully explained/fleshed out to the public will work in a very similar or even the same way, until steven says otherwise (or we see otherwise during the monthly streams).
Because L2's design was that last one, and was my assumption for how AoC's sieges work currently.
Why exactly IS this your assumption in the first place?
because ashes is 90% l2. it normal for an l2 player to see all the similarities and then assume some of the stuff that haven't been fully explained/fleshed out to the public will work in a very similar or even the same way, until steven says otherwise (or we see otherwise during the monthly streams).
Ashes is 90% Archeage. It's normal for an Archeage player to see all the similarities and the assume some of the stuff that haven't been fully explained/fleshed out to the public will work in a very similar or even the same way, until steven says otherwise (or we see otherwise during the monthly streams).
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 10
The conspiracy makes plenty of sense if the multiple in-game Guilds signing up to attack the Castle are out-of-game sub-Guilds of a Mega-Guild.
AoC is AoC., Assuming to fill in the blanks is a bia because you want L3 when ti already exist Throne and liberty.
There are completely different designers working on the game, it might get a base and inspiration from some elements of L2 but that is where things are more than likely going to end up changes. Corruption system, ocean changes, etc.
This month should be interesting to see the plans for node wars.
Even more so Id almost want to ask the question if you think AoC is trying to be on the same level of T&L or above it (player base count).
Because L2's design was that last one, and was my assumption for how AoC's sieges work currently.
Why exactly IS this your assumption in the first place?
because ashes is 90% l2. it normal for an l2 player to see all the similarities and then assume some of the stuff that haven't been fully explained/fleshed out to the public will work in a very similar or even the same way, until steven says otherwise (or we see otherwise during the monthly streams).
Ashes is 90% Archeage. It's normal for an Archeage player to see all the similarities and the assume some of the stuff that haven't been fully explained/fleshed out to the public will work in a very similar or even the same way, until steven says otherwise (or we see otherwise during the monthly streams).
damn you pulled a "me" on me.
but nah trust it isn't 90% archeage. the archetypes, wars, PVP, even the stats system and the way you capture a castle is a copy of l2.
the other 10% is naval combat, caravans, etc from aa and the crafting system for sw it think?
AoC is AoC., Assuming to fill in the blanks is a bia because you want L3 when ti already exist Throne and liberty.
There are completely different designers working on the game, it might get a base and inspiration from some elements of L2 but that is where things are more than likely going to end up changes. Corruption system, ocean changes, etc.
This month should be interesting to see the plans for node wars.
Even more so Id almost want to ask the question if you think AoC is trying to be on the same level of T&L or above it (player base count).
nah T & L isn't L3
well ashes is more like L2.5
I think aoc will have more players than TnL simply because no p2w, no ah with $_$, more pvp, better combat etc.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Sounds like it is 180% of Archeage and L2... wonder what the other % is.
AoC is AoC., Assuming to fill in the blanks is a bia because you want L3 when ti already exist Throne and liberty.
There are completely different designers working on the game, it might get a base and inspiration from some elements of L2 but that is where things are more than likely going to end up changes. Corruption system, ocean changes, etc.
This month should be interesting to see the plans for node wars.
Even more so Id almost want to ask the question if you think AoC is trying to be on the same level of T&L or above it (player base count).
nah T & L isn't L3
well ashes is more like L2.5
I think aoc will have more players than TnL simply because no p2w, no ah with $_$, more pvp, better combat etc.
T&L is literarily linage though lmao that would be the 2.5 if anything. AoC is Aoc the combat is going to be so much different, same with general gameplay.
AoC is AoC., Assuming to fill in the blanks is a bia because you want L3 when ti already exist Throne and liberty.
There are completely different designers working on the game, it might get a base and inspiration from some elements of L2 but that is where things are more than likely going to end up changes. Corruption system, ocean changes, etc.
This month should be interesting to see the plans for node wars.
Even more so Id almost want to ask the question if you think AoC is trying to be on the same level of T&L or above it (player base count).
nah T & L isn't L3
well ashes is more like L2.5
I think aoc will have more players than TnL simply because no p2w, no ah with $_$, more pvp, better combat etc.
T&L is literarily linage though lmao that would be the 2.5 if anything. AoC is Aoc the combat is going to be so much different, same with general gameplay.
the combat isn't the only thing that makes a game similar to another. it isn't even similar to l2, except that you click people and target them (or you can use action mode if you want) and ashes works the same way. tnl was gonna be l3 but they changed direction mid journey.
in terms of systems and gameplay, the only thing that tnl has that is similar to l2 is the castle sieges and that tanks can pull (they can only do so in l2 after 2012).. off the top of my head, cant think of any other similarities. will review later. its 5 am need some sleep
Because L2's design was that last one, and was my assumption for how AoC's sieges work currently.
Why exactly IS this your assumption in the first place?
because ashes is 90% l2. it normal for an l2 player to see all the similarities and then assume some of the stuff that haven't been fully explained/fleshed out to the public will work in a very similar or even the same way, until steven says otherwise (or we see otherwise during the monthly streams).
Ashes is 90% Archeage. It's normal for an Archeage player to see all the similarities and the assume some of the stuff that haven't been fully explained/fleshed out to the public will work in a very similar or even the same way, until steven says otherwise (or we see otherwise during the monthly streams).
damn you pulled a "me" on me.
but nah trust it isn't 90% archeage. the archetypes, wars, PVP, even the stats system and the way you capture a castle is a copy of l2.
the other 10% is naval combat, caravans, etc from aa and the crafting system for sw it think?
Archetypes, wars, PvP, stats and castle capture.
Lets look at them.
Castle capture is the same as Archeage from what we know so far.
Stat system is the same as Archeage from what we know so far.
PvP is the same as Archeage from what we know so far.
Wars are the same as Archeage from what we know so far.
As for Archetypes - was your final class in L2 a combination of selecting different classes? Because it was in Archeage.
Then when you add naval content, caravans and the economy, Ashes is FAR more like Archeage than it is L2.
When a siege begins, temporary alliances are formed among attackers and defenders.[10]
For node sieges, citizens of the node or provincial nodes being attacked are automatically registered as defenders.[11]
Many incentives exist that can benefit your node and yourself personally by participating in the attack or defense of cities. These range from titles, to items, to materials, to money. Additionally, aiding others may help you strengthen bonds when your assets are threatened.[12] – Steven Sharif
So two guilds in two metro nations can be allied and also try to control the castle which has it's own ZoI covering parts of both nations. Or to control any castle anywhere on the map, far from their own node.
Now that I know we are only going to have Scientific Nodes at the start of A2, I believe the second quote there is likely to change.
It's easy to understand why we didn't get Military or Divine nodes to start, but no 'explicitly economic' Nodes at A2 start, I'd start making bets.
And this therefore relates to Castles quite a lot too, the incentives for Castle ownership might finally be done correctly in an MMO.
And this therefore relates to Castles quite a lot too, the incentives for Castle ownership might finally be done correctly in an MMO.
I'm missing several steps of your logical chain. Why do you now think this?
The way I see it is that all the other nodes are one particular deviation from the scientific one, which also has democratic elections.
It is better to balance the incentives for Castle ownership first having only scientific nodes, see how the dynamic is and then decide how big the deviations are for the other 3 node types.
And this therefore relates to Castles quite a lot too, the incentives for Castle ownership might finally be done correctly in an MMO.
I'm missing several steps of your logical chain. Why do you now think this?
Not sure if it'll help but:
1. If being Mayor can lead to power which in some way leads directly to money, then being able to 'buy your way ahead' is a denial type of control. You aren't paying money just to make money, it's to keep other people from making money.
2. If no one can end up as Mayor and then have their own citizens want the Node to be destroyed (without explicitly being a 'liar') it's easier to short-test certain systems related to node stability.
3. The above two things allow Intrepid to focus testing on the growth and more 'natural' friction points in the Alpha, basically 'testing something other than the thing that is driven by the bloodthirsty'.
4. This opens the option for testing Castles from the same perspective, where they are an information/control source of power, not a wealth source of power (Castles nearly never work as a 'defensive' source of power in games because they're added specifically to be attacked)
I don't intend to defend this logic, btw, so any alternative reasonings are just as valid. Like I said, I'd be betting. Hence 'might' finally be done 'correctly'.
And this therefore relates to Castles quite a lot too, the incentives for Castle ownership might finally be done correctly in an MMO.
I'm missing several steps of your logical chain. Why do you now think this?
The way I see it is that all the other nodes are one particular deviation from the scientific one, which also has democratic elections.
It is better to balance the incentives for Castle ownership first having only scientific nodes, see how the dynamic is and then decide how big the deviations are for the other 3 node types.
(yeah basically this is why I think my point #2, count this as 2.5 or something)
Ok, I think I understand. It's easier to set a base lvl of player interaction and see how it impacts the game's design, before implementing designs that have direct ways for players to influence the game's power structures.
And if the design of "guilds can use a part of taxes for their own means" still stands - it can be tested for its influences on even scientific mayors, cause it's obvious that it would majorly influence every other node election.
Comments
Yeah, but this is one of the many contradictions I have talked about Ashes having - one I believe you denied existed.
So defenders will keep track during the caravan defense which guilds support them and select them to help defending the castle during siege.
Who is on the other side is not relevant.
The problem is if the castle owners pick as defenders guilds which helped building up the defense and those decide to not fight.
That would be a conspiracy which makes no sense as they would have more advantage to actually attack the caravans.
But can a last moment disagreement happen, the owners to lose support and the castle too.
I'm guessing you mean they are doing a free for all on the attacking side? Which doesn't make sense to me to be honest. It should be one side vrs the other side, not one side vrs multiple groups trying to rat each other. This is when setting a leader ahead of time is important (realistically people would have decided on who was leading the attack anyway.)
Don't see why I would deny a guild wouldn't use things to their advantage. For things to be competitive rule sets should be in place I just kind of expect them since it makes sense. I have thoughts on node wars as well and there needing to be strict rules on that (but not going to muddy up thread as we need to see what they are showing anyway.)
I'm off to bed anyway tired hopefully that made sense.
Not quite - more like maintaining the capacity to understake a double cross. The entire attacking side would need to start off being on the same side, but with the added ability for one guild or alliance to leave that side and either join the defender, or form a third side.
Since the suggestion we are talking about assumes invitations will be handed out in 15 blocks of 16 to guilds, it is not out of the bounds of reason to allocate a respawn location to each of these 15 groups of 16 players.
When a siege begins, temporary alliances are formed among attackers and defenders.[10]
For node sieges, citizens of the node or provincial nodes being attacked are automatically registered as defenders.[11]
Many incentives exist that can benefit your node and yourself personally by participating in the attack or defense of cities. These range from titles, to items, to materials, to money. Additionally, aiding others may help you strengthen bonds when your assets are threatened.[12] – Steven Sharif
So two guilds in two metro nations can be allied and also try to control the castle which has it's own ZoI covering parts of both nations. Or to control any castle anywhere on the map, far from their own node.
because ashes is 90% l2. it normal for an l2 player to see all the similarities and then assume some of the stuff that haven't been fully explained/fleshed out to the public will work in a very similar or even the same way, until steven says otherwise (or we see otherwise during the monthly streams).
Ashes is 90% Archeage. It's normal for an Archeage player to see all the similarities and the assume some of the stuff that haven't been fully explained/fleshed out to the public will work in a very similar or even the same way, until steven says otherwise (or we see otherwise during the monthly streams).
There are completely different designers working on the game, it might get a base and inspiration from some elements of L2 but that is where things are more than likely going to end up changes. Corruption system, ocean changes, etc.
This month should be interesting to see the plans for node wars.
Even more so Id almost want to ask the question if you think AoC is trying to be on the same level of T&L or above it (player base count).
damn you pulled a "me" on me.
but nah trust it isn't 90% archeage. the archetypes, wars, PVP, even the stats system and the way you capture a castle is a copy of l2.
the other 10% is naval combat, caravans, etc from aa and the crafting system for sw it think?
nah T & L isn't L3
well ashes is more like L2.5
I think aoc will have more players than TnL simply because no p2w, no ah with $_$, more pvp, better combat etc.
T&L is literarily linage though lmao that would be the 2.5 if anything. AoC is Aoc the combat is going to be so much different, same with general gameplay.
the combat isn't the only thing that makes a game similar to another. it isn't even similar to l2, except that you click people and target them (or you can use action mode if you want) and ashes works the same way. tnl was gonna be l3 but they changed direction mid journey.
in terms of systems and gameplay, the only thing that tnl has that is similar to l2 is the castle sieges and that tanks can pull (they can only do so in l2 after 2012).. off the top of my head, cant think of any other similarities. will review later. its 5 am need some sleep
Archetypes, wars, PvP, stats and castle capture.
Lets look at them.
Castle capture is the same as Archeage from what we know so far.
Stat system is the same as Archeage from what we know so far.
PvP is the same as Archeage from what we know so far.
Wars are the same as Archeage from what we know so far.
As for Archetypes - was your final class in L2 a combination of selecting different classes? Because it was in Archeage.
Then when you add naval content, caravans and the economy, Ashes is FAR more like Archeage than it is L2.
Now that I know we are only going to have Scientific Nodes at the start of A2, I believe the second quote there is likely to change.
It's easy to understand why we didn't get Military or Divine nodes to start, but no 'explicitly economic' Nodes at A2 start, I'd start making bets.
And this therefore relates to Castles quite a lot too, the incentives for Castle ownership might finally be done correctly in an MMO.
It is better to balance the incentives for Castle ownership first having only scientific nodes, see how the dynamic is and then decide how big the deviations are for the other 3 node types.
Not sure if it'll help but:
1. If being Mayor can lead to power which in some way leads directly to money, then being able to 'buy your way ahead' is a denial type of control. You aren't paying money just to make money, it's to keep other people from making money.
2. If no one can end up as Mayor and then have their own citizens want the Node to be destroyed (without explicitly being a 'liar') it's easier to short-test certain systems related to node stability.
3. The above two things allow Intrepid to focus testing on the growth and more 'natural' friction points in the Alpha, basically 'testing something other than the thing that is driven by the bloodthirsty'.
4. This opens the option for testing Castles from the same perspective, where they are an information/control source of power, not a wealth source of power (Castles nearly never work as a 'defensive' source of power in games because they're added specifically to be attacked)
I don't intend to defend this logic, btw, so any alternative reasonings are just as valid. Like I said, I'd be betting. Hence 'might' finally be done 'correctly'.
(yeah basically this is why I think my point #2, count this as 2.5 or something)
And if the design of "guilds can use a part of taxes for their own means" still stands - it can be tested for its influences on even scientific mayors, cause it's obvious that it would majorly influence every other node election.