Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Overall the specifics sound like they are a bit too on the nose about essentially being MOBA gameplay in an MMO.
But that inspired some additional thoughts for me:
First thought was: What if it's something like a troll spawning to prevent passage through a bridge, forcing one team's reinforcements to walk a long path (think several minutes) around to get to the warzone, until that troll is slain.
But the problem is, if it's possible to walk around, no one will kill that troll, because the time lost from the whole army being off the warzone map from contesting real objectives just isn't worth it - especially because the enemy might even mess with them and prevent them from properly killing off the troll anyway.
And you also shouldn't make an PvE encounter like that mandatory, because it would feel like there's no agency; you're just forced to put down everything you were doing and clear the PvE obstacles every time they spawn.
So what if, instead of being an obstacle that evenly spawns across the sides of the battle field, it's a battle balance regulation device that spawns to slow down the side with the numerical/objective-progress advantage? Now everything that was a disadvantage above becomes an advantage. The winning team knows they have the players to spare to deal with the troll *and* continue being present on the map, at least in some capacity, making it less frustrating for them to have to deal with the PvE obstacle.
Thoughts about more organic interactions with obstacles/sub-objectives like that to make the PvE interactions feel less gamified?
I dislike all the decisions and "special" abilities in node-wars being on one character (the mayor atm). I suggest distributing them. For example by appointing generals or smth. like that.
Could be anything, i wouldn't view moba design as bad though as there are a lot of mobas out there, their mechanics are pretty simple as well. So I wa trying to think of a bit more advanced idea that made since in a mmorpg and on paper atleast creating a flow around the map. Which reduces big balling being the main effective means of winning between 2 types of mandatory objectives.
Which allows also more room for flex squads or smaller guilds that enjoy pvp and being able to flex around and fight people (ie roam between major points and engage in smaller fights). On top of people that aren't as effective or into pvp as much to have some smaller more pve objectives that can help out while avoiding the major battles (which can overwhelm people not as effective or coordinated in it) Which will help ease them into pvp a bit more and slow build up confidence.
But ya anything is possible with different types of wars with different rule sets involving anything people can think of your idea as well. It just be better imo to move away from PvE just being farming mobs as the main objective. And create more of these fun mini pvp battlefields for people to enjoy. Else you are kind of suffering from issues int he past between games where its just pvp or pve injected it. Imo it needs to be all better mixed together feeling like more of a mode than just simply skilling some bad pve monsters that aren't really a threat (if the pve monsters where elites and do tons of dmg and were hp sponges to me that isn't' really a threat either). When pve can effect the landscape on either side or be manipulated by players and overpowering or zerging can't simply stop it. That is when you create a experience that is better imo. And players will need to rely on things other then gear score / numbers to win all encounters and start actually thinking about strategy and how to win besides doing things in the most simply way.
I had other idea as well but its already enough effort to do one and i have other things going on i need to be focusing on, and trying to enjoy elden ring as well. But i figured one idea enough was good enough of a frame work to spark some ideas. I'm glad you are offering some yourself as well ^_^ as I feel this is more productive.
- They would love to be able to communicate drawings/pins on the map to the raid/party.
- They loved that there were PvE options to contribute to the node siege.
- People did not like the obscured health through health sections. They either want to have it removed or have 8-10 segments instead.
- Some people suggested that the "difficulty" of the objectives change based on the level of node you're sieging
- They also found the channeling of the spike to capture it be too dull and static. Perhaps something more strategic/active.
- They'd also love to have a detailed stat page during or after the siege to see what happened.
- They felt it would be useful to be able to add symbols to significant raid members e.g. stars, numbers etc
2. Have to make the decision on cap of city population size and if you want to make it say 50v50 instance style or more of a game of politics of who can get the most people to show up which can lead to some interesting situations but usually to many people in one area and lots of lag.
3. Siege time is super important nobody likes having to be on at 3am in the morning for a siege.
4. Kinda an odd one but has to be said and should have been number one DO NOT LET CHINA ON THE SERVERS or they will ruin not only sieging but the rest of the game for everybody. They have ruined so many games. If you must let them play they HAVE TO PLAY ON THERE OWN SERVERS PERIOD.
5. Some kind of points system for kills vs deaths in sieges and titles special mounts etc for known strong pvpers in the city/alliance to flex
6. Not to sure how the map setup is finalized yet but in darkfall you wanted to siege places because they were cool or had good mob spawns/resources near or were super defensible. Some places were on the water and you brought ships to siege they had shipyards you wanted to build ships. Some in an underground super tight tunnel that had a rare ore mine. Some you had to work your way up platforms/elevators to the top which was near impenetrable. If node/cities in this game were very very different and that effected the sieging that would be awasome.
Mayor Skills should exist in sieges, mayors should decide what they will bring. The team with fewer members should have their group consumables cooldowns reduced. The team with less people should have the cooldows reduced and with this they will have better odds against a zerg.
In a 500 x 100 fight, the 100 group would have 5x faster cooldowns and shower catapults, arrow volleys, beasts unleashed and everything else.... it won't fully fix the problem of having much less people, but people will have a ton of fun at least.
I known I am genious, thanks.
Dislike:
-PvP in general is a motivation for me
-Looting and Rewards
-Node Acquisition/advancement/destruction
-Notoriety/Achievement
-Locking out War declarations and Siege Declarations on a cooldown in a tactical way
-grudges/politics
War System/Mechanics Suggestions
-Vassal nodes should be incentivized to defend their parent node and vice versa, but they shouldn't be exempt from being allowed to attack each other if they deem either as an issue, in-fighting can be fun and used as an advantage for espionage.
-Clear indicators of players your guild, alliance, or node are at war with should be visible
-Anyone you are at war with should not grant corruption upon killing, even low levels due to them potentially being used as a sort of PvE weapon by destroying environments with mass gathering. I would even go as far to say that gathering anywhere outside your home node would mark you as a combatant, at war or not, so that alts cant be created to abuse this, alternatively if that is too much, players gathering could be marked as combatants only when gathering in nodes who are at war, with the exception of their home node.
-Disruption objectives should be made available and change depending upon the node types. These objectives can increase or decrease defending nodes or attackers. This should be implemented with caravans and even world events. Perhaps also espionage/spy objectives as well.
-War efforts for resources/crafted items should be a thing, not only for the immersion but so there can be a sort of sink for resources and gold to manage inflation of economies
-Allow for alliance guilds to opt out of the war or alliance when wars are declared as opposed to having to accept a war another guild in the alliance has made
-Guild siege/war perks
-Upon a defending nodes loss, they could possibly obtain a sort of refugee buff, as to keep the players on their feet and continue to push the game on. A loss like that will hurt and even possibly push players away, so this would potentially be a way to keep spirits up. The buff could be anything from being taken in by another node, to providing gathering and questing bonuses if you opt to stay in the node that was defeated. This buff could remain until the players join another node, or until they level up the destroyed node to stage 2 or 3
Siege Event Suggestions
-map topography with a focus on fun gameplay while also positioning things to sort of guide players to objectives and advantageous defense/attack points. These maps should be big enough for the battles they plan to have on them
-Have no AOE caps for attacks against players so that zerg groups can be caught lacking and dispatched by smaller groups who outplay them. Have AoE caps for Buffs and heals to friendly players to discourage wrecking ball groups. AoE caps may be good to have on siege engines so they cant be instantly deleted.
-Siege engines should either be roughly as slow as a players walk or stationary. It would be good to have a mix of both, especially since stationary engines would require considering protecting.
-Siege should be able to be used by anyone. So if an enemy takes over a wall or they push out into the field of battle and overtake the attacking siege weapons, they should be able to use them against their owners.
-Siege sizes should depend on the stage of the nodes as far as player caps go. Guild War Sieges should be 50 to 100 players tops. Castle Sieges should accommodate Entire Alliances.
-Ability to repair Siege engines comes down to win condition mechanics and time to kill the engines. I think resources should be required to do so if applicable, or maybe allow it where you can combine 2 destroyed siege engines of the same type to build a new one at 75% health.
- Objectives should be a range of different things, and the types should either depend on the upgrades chosen within the node, or potentially even be chosen during development as to play to the defending players strengths as a home field advantage.
-Commander icons and map pings that are easily identifiable to each commander
-Objective ideas: Holding a point, destroying specific objectives with siege such as walls, gates, or barricades to move up to the next objectives, backdoor objectives for infiltrators, Cascading objectives where you have to complete one to move onto the next, side objectives for unlocking certain siege abilities and resources, Throne rooms should be more than just a room to sit in, maybe have a big bad NPC assist defenders in there at the end.
-Traps and magic explosives should be considered for both defense and offense, less as siege and more as player handled objects that hinder movement until placed. These shouldnt be nearly as effective as siege engines, but if left unattended they can add up. You dont want a meta where everyone just brings these and runs for the gate instead. These could tie in well with backdoor infiltration objectives.
-no spectating
-This one would need to be tested but a kill ticket countdown system being tracked as to discourage just throwing bodies into the fray, this would act as a sort of background win/loss condition as well if players just decide to outright kill each other. It is also a double edged sword for groups who outnumber the other, because more bodies is more kills. It could also be less of a win condition and more along the lines of however so many kills a side gets grants a sort of siege event currency, which can be spent on repairs, siege engines, class siege abilities etc.
-Freehold defense upgrades applicable during sieges
-Zerg discouragement, this could be done by a debuff if too many players are stacked too closely. This could decrease stats or even cause players to be able to friendly fire eachother with abilities and attacks when bunched up in close proximity.
-Appropriate Respawn timers and death run reinsertions. Pace it enough to not instantly reinsert players into a battle while also not forcing players to wait an eternity to get back in on the action or run forever to get back to it. Can also have several spawn points for choice of where to reinforce after death
Class Siege ability ideas
-Mages: have several mages channel on a waypoint to activate it after a minute or so allowing players to teleport to set waypoints on the map. Channel must be maintained and needs to be done all over again once disengaged. The mages cant use the portal themselves.
-Summoners: summon a siege golem or a guardian golem
-Fighters: Calvary charge, big wide line attack that goes in one direction across the field
-Ranger: Volley, exactly what it is
-Guardian: Testudo/Phalanx/Some sort of shield wall. Could be a moving wall to push forward or hold a position
-Bard: Horns of Battle, Mass buff
-Cleric: Probably some sort of mass heal/cleanse or a large rez, maybe pray to a temple or something for them
-Rogue: Disable something on the battlefield such as siege in a zone, lock an objective that is being taken, or unlock the ability for the rogues involved to activate the backdoor infiltration option
GW2 WvW maps were great examples for siege environments, though clearly not perfect.
Verticality, multiple points of attack to choose from, some wide open hyper open fighting areas as well as bottleneck side entrances to push as well. I would say to push for 3 tier maps or even 4 if applicable to the gameplay. Scale and ascending through floors of a castle provide an epic environment to fight in while also providing a lot of dynamics for attacking and defending.
Likes:
-quick access to targets and PC info without having to over-customize my UI
-in which a better communication gets more kills
-longterm wars
Dislike:
-insta kills
-sophisticated mob interference
Motivations
For a war:
-revenge/help ally more than reward
For a siege:
-if it can be done on a short notice (less preparations required)
-if no siege is limiting progression
Sieges
-Must be at war beforehand to declare
-Favorable competitiveness towards smaller group if defending but not while attacking
-Equal reward distribution
-Detailed after-siege report