Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
I think the control points feel okay currently, not amazing and not awful. I do think they capture a little bit fast making it hard to really value contesting them since you can just wait for the enemy to finish leave then capture it pretty quick and continue the assault.
Final Objective Location - What did you think about the final cap objective locations?
I'm not the biggest fan of the market location as a final objective, the main reason being the buildings are really awkward to fight around, I feel like a central position of the town would be better suited for a capture point, however that runs into issues of where the respawn for defenders currently is placed.
Gate Destruction Time-To-Kill (TTK) - What did you think about the gate TTK?
I think the gate TTK even with the player balance ttk being overbearing currently is in a good spot. Once the ttk changes come in for players it will most likely need adjusted again though depending on how severe the ttk changes to players are.
Impact of Archetypes - Did any archetype stand out as having too much or too little impact? Why do you feel specific archetypes had more of an impact?
I think every archetype has a place in sieges currently, however some classes like fighter definitely find a hard time fitting in, Fighters don't really have any way to go in without dying instantly for it and best case scenario for a fighter doing ANY ability besides just bowing enemy's from afar is they will get 1-2 kills before they instantly die. This is partially due to ttk but I'm not sure how much this will change with the ttk changes.
I think the only real viable class in sieges will be the main aoe classes/high dps range classes + Supports. This tends to be the case in any ZvZ game which this qualifies as. Finding any balance where melee classes can jump in and do something impactful without also making them way too strong outside of ZvZ is insanely hard.
Bugs/Issues:
1. Players channeling the siege banner while respawned in their camp.
2. Render distance due to servers being overloaded I'd assume? A big issue here is mounts ruin server stability, they essentially act as another player or worse causing a ton of fps issues for lower end pcs as well as render issues, but they are also needed as far as being able to get back to fights ect so we can't really just not use them unless no one has access to them, One potential fix is making it where only your mount is visible to you unless you get very close to the mount once a server worker has over x amount of players or something maybe if this is possible?
3. The "Move player to waitlist" option actually promotes players in a siege to be able to organize, kick, ban people from the roster instead of moving them to the waitlist.
3.5 Would be nice to be able to move a player from the attacker/defender list to the wait list as well.
4. Not being able to drag player x on top of player y's name in the raid list to swap the position of the 2 players makes it hard to organize large scale raids for events like node wars/sieges ect.
5. Rezing where you died then walking around not being able to render anything for a couple minutes, I've heard this is a issue a lot of people have had and I've seen on streams but not personally encountered.
6. I got stuck inside of the North capture point walls outside of winstead, only way to get out was to dodge roll.
7. The walls around the capture point north of winstead were floating, unsure about other capture points since I've never been to the others.
I have read a lot about performance issues here, my performance was totally fine with around 50-60fps but getting there at the cost of not seeing anybody isn't really a worth while trade-off.
Control Point Respawns
Respawning should not have this much impact on game mechanics. Having attackers and defenders constantly and nearly instantaneously respawn 10m away from the battle turns the battle into a grind. There is no winning a fight and reaping the rewards here. Killing half the enemy Raid is useless if they just come back 10,20 or even 60s later. Dying needs to be a lot more punishing for both sides but especially for attackers.
Final Objective Location
Visually i had absolutely no idea the cap was even happening, no indicators in the game other then the cap-bar in the corner of the screen made that very vague. The marketplace as a cap point location seems ok but i would like to see more defensive options, it should be a lot more difficult to get to that point and to hold it as an attacker.
Maybe it needs to have multiple capture zones inside the Walls.
Gate Destruction Time-To-Kill (TTK)
The Gate might aswell not have been there it was entirely pointless.
Impact of Archetypes
Melee is useless in Zerg fights, the only thing left to do was trying to spam AoE ranged attacks which not everybody has access to.
I only can provide limited feedback due to performance issues.
Gate TTK - it blew up in seconds because all the attackers were geared and enchanted to the max. Gate should be more tanky or gear/ttk in general should be addressed first.
Performance on my 3070 was terrible, as it almost always is in town or around other players (recommended specs for A2 btw). Drops to 3 fps etc, with everything on low. I know optimization is not a prio right now but come on.
Networking also was a major issue for me. Tons of rubberbanding, random teleports, getting killed by seemingly nothing. I have a good fiber internet so its not on my side.
Also, GMs stood here and there inside the node and prevented Rogues from going into stealth. Thanks guys
just don't implement these, and definately not node death, until the back end can handle 1 <-> 199 communications so we can see who,what and where for everyone involved, for 100% of the time!
being only able to see 3~5 enemies at a time is not viable, some of us have outragours setups and the performance in large scale pvp is abysmal, even at raid v raid scale, this was so much worse
The term siege is meaningful, this was not a siege by the definition of the word, make it a siege.
pointless (pun intended), they are too close, serve no useful purpose for defenders and are captured far too quickly by a single person to be strategically relevant or warrant dividing your forces.
The problem here is there is no progression!
the outside capture points should need to be taken before the gates can be taken
ther should be the town as its own objective.
then the inner "keep" (there should be no gate directly to the heart of a settlement no one would build it that way) there would be an inner wall and second larger stronger gate
we had no way to sally and defend properly, fortified towns and castles have sally ports for a reason
What gate it was gone within seconds of us arriving at it.
we couldn't have done anything about it anyway, let us get some verticality and be in the towers or on the walls, where are the ramparts and tower defences
the walls should be meaningful people can just jump over or glitch around them right now
Melee is pointless in large scale pvp i feel bad for the fighters who are just bad archers, and myself as a tank we can be a "little" more useful however...and its a big however!
For large scale pvp tank wall abilities take upwards of 10 or more seconds to land and often don't land where you place them, nor can you rotate them so tanks are also pretty useless except as long bow poke in this form of battle.
Bugs
if lower players are to be involved we need to have brackets where the siege is played out across different level ranges, i understand people want to help but honestly there was not point in anyone who is not at least 450power being there period, and unless something changes there won't be as they won't contribute meaningfully towards the desired outcome for their side.
It would be interesting to see you try out a few other positions, maybe one near storage, or one halfway between "the well" and the hunting lodge, on the road, to see how those play out.
Ideally the defenders would have a slight advantage in the final cap's position.
Tonight with Miraleth layout, I imagine it will feel a lot better, if the position remains in the same location at the market.
With current available power the gates, even with boosted health, are simply too weak. If they need to last for any meaningful time they will need some sort of additional defensive boost.
This could be in the form of:
- Regeneration
- Armor and Magic Resist values increasing to that of a very high quality caravan
- Reduction against certain, but not all, damage types (pierce/bludgeon/fire/lightning/frost etc)
- Reflect damage to attackers
- Allow defenders to buff and heal the gates.
It all depends on how long the "gate phase" should last, but I hope it is more than 5 - 10 minutes.
Mage lvl 25
Lotharia / Winstead.
A HUGE difference was the gear levels, on PTR the gear we get given is avg 260-280 but on the PROD server the average for those taking part was around 400+
The gate next to the caravan office went down in under a minute, on PTR it takes several minutes usually.
When it went down our group rushed the gate and were amongst the defenders before either side knew the other was there.
The render distance to see opposing players was way down, just a few meters, I could only get off 'combust' (instant cast) anytime I was able to target a defender before they were out of view.
I only ever saw 3-4 defenders together at a time, though there must have been more, they just didnt render in time for me.
If I threw a lava AOE out, (max range=30m) then I didnt see it render on the floor even though the spell completed correctly.
The server workers for PROD node sieges need a huge uplift, it felt like it couldn't cope with the number of players/abilities/processes that it had to track.
The gates need a massive buff, also set a min lvl of 23 for these tests as any lower is a detriment to their team and will skew your data collection.
Once we had the GodSpike in position and channelling in progress it was game over, the defenders never got close unlike on the PTR where we have the time to group and push as a whole.
The few AOE's which did make it into the marketplace from the defenders had no impact.
Overall the difference between PTR and PROD sieges was night and day.
Ignoring the very obvious poor performance, i.e., too short character render distance, unresponsive health and stamina bars on targets and self (including the gate's health bar), and known issues like the very low TTK.
Control Point Respawns
Control points turned out to be irrelevant for both teams as their only purpose is to serve as spawn points:
- Defenders may respawn within city walls, so respawning outside is pointless when all foes are inside.
- Attackers barely got any casualties and the difference between respawning at the main camp or at a control point is under 30 seconds travel time without enemy presence.
Control points need to be made relevant.
Wave respawns are the way to go but the time between waves needs to be increased as the opposing team completes some specific objectives. For example, devices built by either team in preparation for the siege could reduce the time between waves, and the destruction of these devices by the opposing team during the siege could increase it. Please don't simply increase the time between waves based on how long the siege has been going on for, that is really shallow design.
Attackers could also have a limit to how many times they may respawn at the main camp. Think a ticket system like in other games with conquer and hold game modes, such as Battlefield or Squad - respawning at the main camp consumes X tickets for the team, respawning at the control points consumes Y tickets for the team. Building some devices before the siege increases the number of tickets available, the destruction of one of these devices by the opposing team consumes Z tickets from the team.
Final Objective Location
First of all, running the game at low settings made the final objective completely invisible, including the supposed giant red beam. If I hadn't been told we were channelling there, I would have never known.
As for the location iteself:
- From a roleplay perspective, it's in a place of too little importance - it would make more sense to have it on top of the hill, closer to the town hall.
- From a gameplay perspective, it's way too in the open and too close to the possible entry points - attackers should need to get past several layers of defences to get to the final objective, as well as traverse a final set of terrain/obstacles leading directly to the objective, which attackers may then use to hold off defenders - again, it would make more sense to have it on top of the hill, but within a building.
As for interrupting the channelling, we were told by someone from Intrepid staff that the channelling of the final objective should not be interrupted by any ability. This is really poor design - the channelling should be interruptable. If the intention is to make attackers have a chance at channelling, the solution is not to make the channeller impervious to effects, but to move the capping point away from out in the open where it can be easily interrupted from a distance and to provide ways for other attackers to aid him, such as:
- Move the final objective location inside a building so that attackers may make use of terrain to hold off defenders once they take the building.
- Make it so that only one attacker may channel at a time and make the channelling time longer, but also make it so that if the channelling is stopped, the progress is not completely reset but rather it is set back by a fixed amount and then decays over time. The progress should resume increasing whether the channelling is resumed by the same or a different attacker.
Gate Destruction Time-To-Kill (TTK)
The gate was destroyed way too fast - it needs to take more time to destroy it. But to be fair I think this has more to do with the power creep in unbalanced gear and stats than with the gate itself. Attackers were fairly well geared, too.
Impact of Archetypes
From most to least impactful:
Bards - the most impactful one because of all of their ranged AoE buffing, debuffing, CCing and damaging capabilities. Way too overpowered in all situations, including sieges. They not only make others stronger but are themselves too strong - you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too.
Mages and rangers - too impactful because of all of their ranged AoE CCing and damaging capabilities, although this is to be expected.
Tank - placing walls is a cool mechanic when fighting in difficult terrain such as cities with alleyways and whatnot, too easy to channel with because of CC immunity while channelling and greater defenses than other archetypes - CC immunity should be removed.
Rogue - far too great mobility, overpowered damage output - still not very impactful in large scale fights or sieges for the same reasons as fighter below.
Fighter - has no place in the game as it is, it is outshined by all other classes in every situation and aspect of the game, including and especially in sieges and large scale battles - for the better part of any fight, fighters are restricted to autoattacking with longbow only; they can play as their archetype is meant to only when the outcome of the fight is nearly decided in their favor, otherwise they die instantly before having any impact.
Fighters will obviously benefit from a rework to stats, gear and TTK, but even in the current state of things they would be more impactful in sieges if there were actual secondary objectives in a siege. Secondary objectives would force teams to split into smaller groups where melee classes could have some impact. It should be noted that secondary and main objectives should be tackled simultaneously so that teams actually need to split and strategize, and not move in quick succession from one objective to the next as a single zerg blob.
Team selection
The system to select attackers and defenders is too slow. Requirements to join sieges should be defined by mayors, such as minimum level. Teams should be made hours before a siege starts, there should be a main roster and a secondary roster (queue) - only the main roster gets to join the siege, but if any of them is offline at the time, the players in the secondary roster may join the siege in order as sorted by the mayor, not in the order they clicked the Join Event button. Some slots in the main roster should be guaranteed to certain officers of both nodes, such as mayor and other eventual positions - other than that, individuals for the teams should be selected by the mayor or another node officer, but everyone (even if not in the attacking or defending team) should be allowed to aid either team in the preparation for the siege by bringing materials, building siege engines or devices, etc.
Thanks!
All in all, I really appreciate the involvement of Intrepid with the community, making such events possible and taking feedback on them.
One gate I have observed has been destroyed in about a minute. I would expect the siege to take longer before the streets are swarmed.
Due to small size of the node, there wasn't much reason or space to spread defenders and attackers apart so ranged was the obvious king. Especially ranged AoE CC.
Due to low TTK, melee damage was practically useless.
If there was a reason to split forces, melee would be able to function.
Also low render distance, low FPS and other networking issues made anything besides blind AoE spam mostly useless in zerg situations.
"Gate Destruction Time-To-Kill (TTK) - What did you think about the gate TTK?
Impact of Archetypes - Did any archetype stand out as having too much or too little impact? Why do you feel specific archetypes had more of an impact?"
When siege weapons, moster coins, defense weapons etc get introduced, all of this changes in a major way. If it's just going to be a kill and res fest for the entire thing, you'll miss the mark regardless of ttk or Archetype balance. The Archetype diversity is what it is ... people will find a meta. It's already been shown that each Archetype has good pros and cons... slight tweaking is still needed, but on a good track. I've had different fun with the different ones I've played. Although my playstyle favors some over others, it was still fun nonetheless. The impact could be that, fighters and tanks for eg, while not great at the zerg runs to the control points, they may be very beneficial in a siege weapon or manning rooftop ballistas due their survivabilty.
I think any experienced mmo player would agree that anything that can be spammed/abused/exploited will be spammed/abused/exploited...
Is it wise to introduce a system that will effectively place the materials hard won by players, in many cases the product of thousands of hours of gameplay, at risk at any time?
Even EVE Online, arguably the "granddaddy" of open-world PvX games, where risk is ever present, provides players with safe/safer options for storage and use of crafting mats...
What "brakes" are going to be put the Node Siege system? How do you prevent players from having to be in a constant loop of relocating toons and mats from one node to another to either prevent loss, or to "rebase" after node destruction (and associated stations) occurs?
I like the concept, but I strongly feel that the system must be tuned such that a node being destroyed, it's warehouse looted, etc. has to be a very, very rare occurrence... if not, the game will bleed crafter-centric players, the economy will suffer greatly, and as the dominoes fall, it will be a net negative for the entire server.
I don't think anyone wants Ashes to become "Node Siege Online".
We took this event seriously. We rallied our battle-ready members, just like you asked. Level 25s, geared, ready to participate, eager to help stress test and give meaningful feedback. And what happened?
Two of the largest PvP guilds - Cartel and Death Company - were immediately handed leadership of the attacking side. No discussion, no opportunity for other guilds to participate meaningfully in team formation or strategy.
Then, in full view of Intrepid staff, Lopata (leader of Death Company) asked if he could kick low levels. He was told yes - but instead of kicking low levels, he kicked every member of our guild, despite us being max level, geared, and signed up early. Every time we reapplied, we were kicked again.
By the time the siege began, the attacking team was made up of 95% Cartel and Death Company members - a public playtest hijacked by two of the most openly antagonistic and self-serving groups on the server.
The whole thing felt like a slap in the face to everyone else. We were invited to a community event - and watched it get turned into a private scrim for the very people whose entire reputation is built on exclusion, ego, and toxicity. They even mocked players afterwards with “join the dark side” comments in Discord.
If Ashes is supposed to reward long-term investment, trust, and character reputation - this event did the opposite. It left dozens of guilds and solo players standing on the sidelines while the loudest and most selfish groups took over.
The solution is very simple:
This was a missed opportunity to show off one of the core values of Ashes - that community and character matter. Please don’t let a few bad actors keep stealing the spotlight from everyone else who are here to help build something real.
- Glandallin
Maybe Intrepid could create a minimum and maximum DPS thresholds for structures like gates and such. It’d control how long it takes to crash a gate, setting a clear time range for people to work with. That way, we’d get more drawn-out scraps at gates, more defending, more action, instead of big groups steamrolling or a few random guys slowly bashing undefended spots. Sieges go through stages and these stages would feel predictable, with slow-burn fights where people can pile up and lash it out for a certain amount of time at each strategic spot. With DPS caps, a gate’s bash time stays steady for 10 minutes at max DPS or 20 at the minimum DPS. If the attackers don’t even meet the minimum DPS threshold, the gate should take no damage at all and this group would have to bring everybody they have running around the map and do one big push together.
By setting a minimum and maximum DPS cap on structures, the time to destroy a gate becomes consistent regardless of group size. For example, if a group exceeds the maximum DPS cap, it might take 10 minutes to destroy the gate, but if I have just 20 people capable of reaching the maximum damage thresholds then it would also take 10 minutes to bash the same structure. If a smaller group only hits the minimum DPS cap, it could take 20 minutes.
Simply increasing structure HP isn’t the solution, as that would disproportionately punish and discourage smaller groups from participating. If I have a group of 20 players, we should be able to hit the maximum DPS cap and destroy a gate in 10 minutes, just as a group of 200 would. This keeps sieges fair and accessible, regardless of group size.
Siege weapons could be built around DPS thresholds, a battering ram is quicker but always hits the minimum damage mark, while a catapult is slower but always nails the max damage cap. Pairing a few catapults to fire one after another could keep that max threshold humming every second. This would require from people to think tactically, making it way more fun for everybody than just spamming attack.
With this setup, siege blitzing gets shut down, otherwise in the future people will roll in with 500 players and nuke everything every structure. Intrepid would then have to jack up HP across the board on everything, and that’d screw over smaller crews. A group of 100-150 would end up taking three or four times longer to do the same stuff since now Intrepid had to increase the HP of everything, it would be terrible, do not go through the path of simply increasing HP on everything.
I hope there will be more spontaneous creative strategy.
I don't like the prospect of defence just being "wait it out for 60 minutes."
Interactions with realm wars preceding the realm siege could add additional objectives, and the duration and requirements for a successful defence could vary depending on the status of these objectives before and during the siege. This could take the shape of simple outposts, but also be about accessible paths of attack (that might be hard-blocked, but you could also make it so the outcome of a node war gives the attackers or defenders area control tools that make those paths unusable as long as the defender/attacker has a small amount of troops stationed there), or the availability of area control methods for defenders or attackers in certain hotspots. It might lead as far as allowing for simultaneous sieges to take place in different nodes, and the outcome of one affecting the other; so you can siege your attacker back at an opportune moment to wreak havoc in the army coordination.
Input on existing comments: @Arya_Yeshe I'd second this, with the simple caveat that it should be soft caps, not hard caps.
The problem with making 20 players deal identical damage to 200 players is that you're basically forcing the meta to be a bunch of 20 player squads, and that gets boring and predictable.
200 people should always have more pressure than 20 people, it should just be that 20 people well-placed and undetected at a critical moment should also be able to pull their weight.
It's more fun if you have to worry about both: The 200 man group coordinating a blitz strike that takes the objective down in 3 minutes, *and* the 20 man group sneaking it down in 10.
If that is the problem, the solution always needs to be giving the defenders more tools to punish the 500 players for deathballing.
There should be waitlists and the waitlists should be by guild, like this:
That’s 384 total for the siege, averaging 96 per guild. Say the cap’s 250 players.
Guilds below the average get in fully, Guild D’s 15 and Guild C’s 57 join, making 72 deployed.
Now, 178 spots are left for A and B, who have 312 players combined. Split it even, 89 each. That leaves Guild B with 36 waiting and Guild A with 98 on hold.
If someday we have 35 guilds and the average is 8 players, then everybody should have 8 players deployed, no guild should have less than the average
The substitution would happen during the siege, when a guildmate dies, you hop off the waitlist and take their place, while they shuffle to the back of your guild’s queue.
The icing on the cake would be swapping roles for roles or archetype by archetype, like if a healer dies then another healer takes his place. If no healers are in line, then just pull the next person up. Guild leaders could toggle that option however they want, if they wanna pull the next or pull role for role.
Once the battle starts, the system should keep an eye out for AFK players, if someone in your guild is idle, your guild loses a spot, and that AFK player gets shoved to the end of the waitlist. Guild leaders running the show should have the power to boot or ban anyone from their guild for that specific siege, basically boot the guy from the event.
Say you are in the waitlist of Guild A that has those 98 waiting, and it’s finally your turn to jump in. But you’ve been chilling so long you alt-tabbed to Netflix, totally AFKing the siege. Your guild loses a spot, down to 88 max, while Guild B can now use 90 spots instead.
Later, if Guild B bails entirely and everyone leaves. for now Guild A fills all the open slots, hitting 250 deployed across all guilds. But if a new massive guild shows up, they’d grab 90 spots since and Guild A was penalized in 1 spot, and Guild A will drop back to 88 since they penalized by your AFK earlier.
If guild leaders don’t show, a guild member should be able step up and organize the guild for the siege. They need the power to kick/ban their own guildmates from the siege and handle some options.
Here’s the thing: the waitlist is per guild, it is NOT a general waitlist for everyone. Some guilds might have no one waiting, maybe just 1 or 2, while others could have 100+ just waiting.
Yep, I recognize it is a policy that totally favors smaller groups and it is fine like this.
I tend to agree with you Glandallin; I can't speak to the attacker-side events, as I ran with defense-side, and our FC's did as good a job as could be expected.
That said, and @Intrepid I say this with love... the entire experience came across as very ill-conceived/poorly planned/amateurish... raid comms rooms were not setup in advance, comms rooms text was not enabled, and a similar experience on the defense side with FC/Leader selection... basically whomever raised their hand got picked, and handed the authority on the entire process.
Again, we were fortunate that Vall (of Asylum) and Cadden (of HoU) - I may have those guilds reversed, apologies if so - were good FC's and did the best one could expect given the chaos of the setup.
Would have expected a great deal more planning and forethought on the part of IS, and to ensure that a degree of fairness and community consent was present.
That said, there is now a long and well established history of Intrepid catering to/advantaging the large zerg guilds - even in core design direction - so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
- Gates should not be fully breakable before the Attackers gained Control over Control Points.
could solve this with a Damage Multiplier: Give the Gates an enormous amount of HP or DMG Reduce, and for each Control Point taken by the Attackers, the Gate gets more Damage/less DMG Reduce.
100% DMG Reduction on spawn, after Capping Control Point 1, the Gate only has 80% DMG Reduction and so on, until 5 Control Points are Capped or a Gate is broken.
- Gates need more HP in total - they've been destroyed while some people still had been in loading screen from the first initial spawn
- Final Objective Location: Right now with Nodes on Level 3, not a big fan of the tiny-marketplace as the final Channeling point. If the decorative stands in the middle would be moved during a siege and the channeling point will be a bit more central it'll be fine, but right now the AOE's are too big for the narrow passages imo
- Do not allow Mounts during siege. Whether it was flying, ground, or soon even gliding - they do not belong in a siege imo. There are plenty of other ways to get faster movement speed (potions, bards buffs, party strider from rangers, sprint, movement abilities per class)
also the respawn system in general during node sieges is phenomenal. We did not have a single person complain about respawning in waves, some even wanted to suggest to use the same wave-respawn system for attackers on caravans, to give the defenders a bit more room to breath during huge attacks.
It might have felt a little short tho. But that might be because the defender respawn should be shorter than the attackers respawn, since there is a bigger risk on the defendersite.
Thank you for holding this siege test on the public alpha two servers, it was a pleasure to test this feature for the first basic iteration!
I will still stand with what I said about having the minimum and maximum damage caps, if I have 20 heavy hitters backed by healers and support that should take the same amount of time as 200 people spamming attack on the gate. Otherwise the 200 will just make the gate disappear and this will force Intrepid to increase the amount of HP the gate has, and the consequence will be game breaking for the smaller groups since they wo'n't be effective anymore, so people will be forced to join a bigger group..
If a gate fully takes damage from 200 people then the gate will go down fast regardless what you do on the defenders side, that wouldn't be optimal. Imagine waiting for days for the siege and when it is finally here the attackers will jut spam attack on the gate, just keep overhealing and spamming attack on any structure. The siege event will become a total flop.
For sure Intrepid could find an agreeable cap, like the max cap is usually reached in 100 people attacking the gate and the min cap demands at least 20 dealing damage good, if the minimum damage is not reached then the gate doesn't take damage at all. Low level weaklings wouldn't be able to reach the min cap, they would have to bring 100 weaklings instead.
So, if only one guild is attacking and they have just 15 players, they would absolutely need some catapults and gear up accordingly for high damage just to reach the minimum DPS cap. Sometimes they would fail in shooting the catapults, sometimes people would die at the gate, and they would fail multiple times in reaching the minimum DPS and the gate wouldn't take damage from time to time.
People should have a good idea about how long a Siege would last, 30 to 60 minutes.
i actually have a suggestion for the system in general that involves the node sieges.
It would be nice to have a notification in the character screen when a siege is going on in the town where your character is located. Today i was logging in and my character was located in Miraleth when the siege was going on. I didnt have a clue that the siege was going on and my character was instantly killed while i was waiting in the loading screen. With that notification this fate could be prevented for many players later one.
Purgafox
Plenty of solid feedback was already shared in voice after the test, and I’m stoked to keep pushing on siege content in more grounded scenarios—especially once engines, larger node layouts, and the ongoing TTK/balance tuning get more iterations. That’ll really shape how these fights play out long-term.
Final Objective Location - Seemed fine.
Gate Destruction Time-To-Kill (TTK) - Felt ok.
Impact of Archetypes - Will see after TTK fix.
Still need a Hard Lock Hold keybind option that Hard Locks when you hold down the button, releases when you let go of button. And does not overwrite other keybinds so you can bind it to the same button as weapon attack, or integrate it into weapon attacks. Targeting in Action Camera is terrible in mass pvp. When multiple people are stacked up, you are constantly swapping who you are attacking. Also option to disable soft lock, because abilities locking you to a target also causes problems.
Nodes sieges shouldnt be entirely enforced by the guild of the mayor of the node. That should be mostly reserved for castles.
Uncapped size of groups in sieges would be just asking for problems from mega guilds, giving them a large advantage. A Higher cap could be potentially good. Still think there should be a priority system funneling players into the siege as opposed to having a couple people inviting or barring people as they see fit. Maybe give the players leading the attack and defense of the node a set reservation amount for their chosen players, then the rest get sorted prioritizing citizenship/level/gear power, preventing and node from being monopolized by any individual guild or alliance.
That being said, Castles should definitely be entirely managed by their owners because its guild based, not node community based.
Tanks when used the correct way and the team leaders use all the tanks skills conjoined they become a super power.
I do not agree at all with the people who said tanks are weak....
THANKS FOR THE FUN!!!
1. You can hit people through walls which makes some very scuffed scenarios
2. It would be nice to have several stages of defenses, so after gate falls you have something to fall back to. Currently destroying one gate gives direct access to banner. There could be some lower health blockades inside the node made out of barrels, wooden boxes, etc. to simulate citizens building some resistance.
3. It would be also nice to have comisions that you can complete to improve node defenses before the siege
4. I wish there was more objectives to play for, because after gate falls it turns into 2 zergs running against each other over and over without any depth or strategy
5. Node currently lacks good defensive positions, especially to defend the gates while they are still closed. Your only shot is to do big pushes through the gate or try to flank, but there are no good positions to bully attackers while they attack the gate without walking into their spells.
6. The performance is really bad, the fps are not very good and there is still rubber banding
PS. There should not be a way for attacks to just jump through wall, because if thats possible, then whats the point of the wall and gates?
1. give us an option to be able to change the color of our 8 man group within a raid.
2. reduce HP of the gates 10mil is a lot
3. have Numbers visible on capture points so we can see it on map insted of hovering my mouse on it to see what camp number that is, same for the gates have a blue/red line on gate and number or abcd to show on mini map and if a gate is down make it red or if its not demolished we see it blue
4. lag and rubber banding + render distance is still a big problem when number of players goes up.
GATES:
Respawns:
Mana:
Flag:
Layouts:
Mounts:
Rewards:
Siege Cost:
Relics:
Sign-ups / Pre War Screen
Aren’t sieges supposed to be attackers vs. defenders only? What’s the advantage of not having them instanced, other than allowing people to watch the fight?
I participated in both sieges on EU yesterday as an attacker and today as a defender.
Control Point Respawns
They didn’t work on the first day as an attacker. As a defender, having only one respawn point might not help with performance it was really bad when we first teleported, with tents and other assets loading in. Maybe adding more than one could help? Not sure if that would be too much of an advantage for the defending team.
Final Objective Location
Roofs are overpowered. I don’t really like the flag being in such a clunky area, but I guess there isn’t much space on the node anyway.
Gate Destruction Time-To-Kill (TTK)
As an attacker, it was a joke we melted it. (We didn’t get teleported and had too many people on one gate.) It wasn’t buffed in the patch, but I have a feeling it would have gone down fast anyway.
As a defender, attackers seemed to get teleported and split across the gates, so they lasted for a while. Still, I’m pretty sure that if 100 organized players focus on it, the gate is going to get destroyed really fast. By the time people notice and group up, it’ll probably be too late.
Impact of Archetypes
As always in group fights, Fighters aren’t that great. Other than that, every class has a strong role. It totally depends on team organization and strategy. Hard to say much about this point when TTK is like this, and you have to adapt your playstyle around it.
Gotta say, the second siege performed better, but in the first one, attackers didn’t get teleported, so we might have had fewer people at the same point than yesterday.
Loving all the work you doing! Boats are in a better state than i would think and map is growing fast!!
Last question, how do I get PTR access?
I noticed a few times the defenders couldn't get a good angle to fight the attackers when the attackers were pressing a gate, but the watch towers would make the ideal position if usable, it also makes sense from an immersion perspective as these structures would be specifically designed for that purpose in reality.