No rez-at-shrine for guild/node sieges?

While I am not a hardcore player, there is something to be said for having death being permanent. Node wars and guild keep sieges are instanced and time-limited. To me this sounds like a great place to have harder limits on rezzing.

The idea is that if you die in a siege, you can't just rez back at camp. You need to be rezzed by an ally before some specific timer ends. IE, get rezzed within a few minutes of death or you're out of the siege for good. So if your group goes to cap/destroy some objective and gets wiped, you might be out of the siege for good. Or, you call for backup and win then get rezzed.

Other options:

1) Death counter/limits would be another way to implement this, but then you get weaker players deathrushing and using up your allowed rezzes. So I don't like this idea, especially if anyone can sign up.

2) A personal rez-at-camp limit, which would not tick if you were rezzed by an ally. Maybe combined with a progressive rez timer could also work. IE: wait 1 minute to rez after you die/release the first time, wait 3 minutes after you die/release the second time, and after the third death without a player rez you are out.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Spif

NiKr wrote: »

Spif wrote: »

It's not a limit on deaths, but a limit on how many times you can rez at camp/town/shrine. That's why a player rezzing you doesn't impact that limit.

People would be dying either right under the walls or within the castle/node itself. If you have no respawn points - no one's gonna rez you there, because it'd be a suicide mission. This will just snowball into everyone running out of respawn points and the siege ending prematurely.

Spif wrote: »

We have some hints from IS that node siege will have several (many?) objectives, and fulfilling enough/all of them will result in a win. Destroying select areas but not getting enough will still result in disabling those node/city functions until they are fixed.

Defender's win is to survive and attackers' win is to cast a several-minute-long ability deep within the castle/node. Don't think there's been any changes to this (and this was L2's mechanic as well).

Spif wrote: »

We can take some lessons from NW's node battles, even though they are just 50v50 and the maps sucked.
Coordination of a large force is *tough* for anyone but the most organized guilds. It will be even tougher in AoC because of the infrequency of siege, especially in the first few months of the game.

Deathrushing will be thing and one of the worst types of gameplay

Heavily lopsided battles where the attacker is getting farmed need a way to end faster

I don't know how often people play in groups in NW, but organizing a big group of people isn't that hard, as long as each party within your guild has played together for longer than a few days. I've done this with a huge guild of absolutely casual players who barely even played together. Literally any slightly more coordinated guild would easily do this. I feel like NW's soloness just ruins this.

NW definitely has solo-ability. But on the other side, a person could "respec" from solo damage dealer to raid healer with just a gear swap. In a game like AoC, the number of optimal-setup groups are going to be limited by available key classes

There are big differences between set weekly raids within a guild, and random-day battles (the time may be pre-set, but the day of week probably will not be) with an unknown roster. Yes, a node defenders will likely have core groups. And the person declaring war will have their core too.

And then there will be the many other groups, partial groups and soloists that will sign up. Most of them will show up. Some may not. And here's where the headaches come. Because if you don't force organization on the "randoms", they will be mostly useless. They can't be allowed to organize themselves, because that's a clusterf all by itself.

If IS splits the difference and allows 160v160, that's 20 set groups per side. "Slightly more coordinated groups would easily do this"...I really don't think that's the case.

We're getting a little away from the original topic of players having limited rezzes. Doesn't seem to be a popular idea though. No big deal.

Ludullu

Spif wrote: »

We're getting a little away from the original topic of players having limited rezzes. Doesn't seem to be a popular idea though. No big deal.

That's simply because it's not fun in majority of cases. Ashes will already be a pretty stressful game with a shitton of limitations on your gameplay. Why have a yet another limitation in the best content in the game?

Spif

Because unlimited rezzing promotes poor battleground playing. It promotes people going off and soloing like idiots to see if they can take an objective by themselves or gank the most people. Their derping around causes them no downside, just rez and try again. In the open world, dying stupidly has a downside. Loss of stuff and loss of time traveling.

Costing the enemy a resource (players), is a reason to do strategically interesting things like set traps so you can get a wipe, or hold a reserve to support an overwhelmed group and get them rezzed. IMO this would elevate gameplay. Also you would have a chance to wipe out an opposing force, more like an actual siege.

Ludullu

Spif wrote: »

Because unlimited rezzing promotes poor battleground playing. It promotes people going off and soloing like idiots to see if they can take an objective by themselves or gank the most people. Their derping around causes them no downside, just rez and try again. In the open world, dying stupidly has a downside. Loss of stuff and loss of time traveling.

Costing the enemy a resource (players), is a reason to do strategically interesting things like set traps so you can get a wipe, or hold a reserve to support an overwhelmed group and get them rezzed. IMO this would elevate gameplay. Also you would have a chance to wipe out an opposing force, more like an actual siege.

You see, you're talking from a standpoint of a person who likes to minmax their actions and strategies. That's a commendable pov to have, but it doesn't apply to the majority of people. Others just want to have fun.

Castle sieges will be about guilds. Most likely about best guilds on the server. There won't be any dicking around in castle sieges, so there's already no point in limiting rezzes there.

Node sieges will be for anyone who wants to join on the fun. Yes, there's obviously huge repercussions for dumb actions, but that's just part of the process. If a player decides to do smth dumb and then his node falls - he'd probably not do that dumb thing again (well, that is if he doesn't just leave the game lol).

But if that player does smth dumb within the first minute of the siege and then he is pretty much out of the siege forever (his own defense btw, with his stuff on the line) - he'll just go complain about it on the forums and will start crying how the game is shit because "everyone else lost the siege for him". And I agree with you that this player would be dumb for saying this, but that's just how quite a lot of people operate. Limiting their actions to the extent you want would just lead to them being upset at the game, rather than reflecting on their actions.

HumblePuffin

What if, like the summoner, clerics had a group siege mechanic where 5 could get together to establish a rez area for a period of time.

Attackers would have to strategically choose where to place their rez area, and have people coordinated to ensure that they are keeping them up.

This would give defenders incentive to not just turtle forcing them to need to eliminate clerics to stop the rezzes and requires them to keep pressure on at the frontline forcing more healers to stay in the frontline area healing rather than setting up rez areas in safe locations.

As a bonus this helps to reduce spawn camping since spawns won’t be at predictable locations.

Ludullu

HumblePuffin wrote: »

What if, like the summoner, clerics had a group siege mechanic where 5 could get together to establish a rez area for a period of time.

Attackers would have to strategically choose where to place their rez area, and have people coordinated to ensure that they are keeping them up.

This would give defenders incentive to not just turtle forcing them to need to eliminate clerics to stop the rezzes and requires them to keep pressure on at the frontline forcing more healers to stay in the frontline area healing rather than setting up rez areas in safe locations.

As a bonus this helps to reduce spawn camping since spawns won’t be at predictable locations.

L2 had respawn flags that people could place anywhere within the siege area. Would definitely like a similar mechanic, be it in the form of just an item or a certain skill or a group skill. Hell, have it as all 3, with different effects.

Maybe item-based respawner is a personal spot with a single use, skill-based is for your party and group-based is for the entire guild. These would introduce a ton of sneaky strats to the process.

HumblePuffin

NiKr wrote: »

HumblePuffin wrote: »

What if, like the summoner, clerics had a group siege mechanic where 5 could get together to establish a rez area for a period of time.

Attackers would have to strategically choose where to place their rez area, and have people coordinated to ensure that they are keeping them up.

This would give defenders incentive to not just turtle forcing them to need to eliminate clerics to stop the rezzes and requires them to keep pressure on at the frontline forcing more healers to stay in the frontline area healing rather than setting up rez areas in safe locations.

As a bonus this helps to reduce spawn camping since spawns won’t be at predictable locations.

Be it in the form of just an item.

Maybe item-based respawner

Item is the only one I really don’t want to see. Well idc actually but Steven said we won’t have these kind of things, so because of that I don’t want to see them in sieges.

Mah immersion getting all broken when some how we can make personal respawners for sieges but no where else.

I think it’s reasonable to expect clerics to battlefield rez important allies and also manage other respawn locations.

If 5 clerics is too restrictive it could work like summoners where they don’t all need to be summoners.

In both cases I would like to see it cause a toll on the groups. Maybe the cleric siege ability takes a percentage of the groups health forcing them to rest before joining the battle.

Maybe to expand on that the length of the rez location is based on the health channeled into it and works like a held ability where you can channel quick for a strategic temporary respawn location or drain everyone to 1 Hp for a long uptime and longer time to heal up.

Child Item