Sure, high level players could - but why would they?
Quantity, ease of materials, and easy income on top of just having fun PvPing/griefing without the risk of corruption. Just because you wouldn't do something because you can buy it on the market doesn't mean that it's out of the realm of possibilities or of what players will/won't do.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
Hopefully the targeted responses also apply to all the other topics you were responding to with me and @Vargos from above, but I'll try to hit all the topics.
Indeed, no.
Caravans and Node content is something that begins the moment we leave the starting areas.
Caravans and Nodes cater to all levels.
Corruption has Stat dampening and Gear degradation and Resource drops even for Max Level Adventurers.
Even Max Level Adventurers cannot Trade while Corrupted, so it's flase that Corruption does not affect Max Level Adventurers.
It's hard to argue against what you're saying, because--although it's true--it's also relatively vague in terms of player action expectancy and while we can't entertain what that actually is because we haven't seen anything yet, we can assume the range of possibilities with the laws of current systems that we've seen/heard about from Intrepid.
For example, Caravans are an opt-in raid of attackers/defenders that do not gain corruption. This is easily abusable by higher level players for escaping that xp-debt, corruption, and stat dampening/trade blocking that you refer to.
So while Caravans and Node content is something that begins the moment we leave starting areas and does cater to all levels, you can also expect that those who have a higher level, better gear, or even have advantage in numbers with guilds or node size. So to effectively determine the range of possibilities, you can have 1v1 caravan running where one person is running a caravan and one person is attacking said caravan (unlikely to happen, but like I said, in the realm of possibilities) and/or you could have a capped-out-guild size of 300 all maxed level attacking a 1 person caravan, at whatever level you can start running caravans at, in the realm of possibilities as well.
So I want to entertain worst-case scenarios that are more likely in the realm of possibility as I stated here:
Sure, high level players could - but why would they?
Quantity, ease of materials, and easy income on top of just having fun PvPing/griefing without the risk of corruption. Just because you wouldn't do something because you can buy it on the market doesn't mean that it's out of the realm of possibilities or of what players will/won't do.
In your opinion, the ability for a character to use the rarest resources from high-level dungeons and locations, farm high-level dungeons, craft high-level gear, and take on level 50 world bosses - not endgame content?
Nope. That is not Endgame content. Endgame content is static, repeating content.
Endgame is when you are stuck repeating the exact same Dungeons and Raids over and over and over again.
Ashes doesn't have that.
Max Level content is not the same thing as Endgame content.
At Max Level Adventurer in Ashes, players will be doing similar activities they were doing before they reached Max Level Adventurer: Building and Sieging Nodes, Sieging Castles, pursuing Artisan, Naval, Social Org, Religious and Racial progression paths, Attacking and Defending Caravans and Raiding - but the content will dynamically change - just as it will for all Adventurer Levels.
Sure, the "Max Level content" will have the highest challenge rating because there is a Level Cap. That has nothing to do with being catered to differently than other Levels.
Sure, we can just not call Max-Level Adventurers doing things in Verra "End-Game content", but I'm not sure what else to call it because Max-Level Adventurers doing things in Verra is a bit of a mouthful. But for the reasons I stated above, max-level adventurers will have an inherent advantage in systems that all levels of players are interacting with and they will not have a threat of corruption to worry about as corruption only affects those who PvP in the open-world outside of those systems. Unless they fundamentally change how the corruption system works with opt-in PvP and combatants, that's just how it is.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
Sure, high level players could - but why would they?
Quantity, ease of materials, and easy income on top of just having fun PvPing/griefing without the risk of corruption. Just because you wouldn't do something because you can buy it on the market doesn't mean that it's out of the realm of possibilities or of what players will/won't do.
I'm failing to see what the issue you have here is.
The original issue was that lower level players wouldn't be able to find value in harvesting low level materials and selling them to high level players.
The fact that it may be within the realm of possibilities for some high level players to go off and gather these materials themself does not alter the fact that many high level players will not.
Thus, those low level players are still able to find that value.
I'm failing to see what the issue you have here is.
The original issue was that lower level players wouldn't be able to find value in harvesting low level materials and selling them to high level players.
Maybe I misread the initial issue. I was under the impression that high-level players would be attacking low-level players with their low-level material caravans and there wasn't value for them to do so.
My argument was that high-level players would actually have incentive to attack low-level caravans for those reasons.
I do think low-level players harvesting low level materials to sell them to high-level players is a good thing and is possible with the crafting system they intend to use.
Maybe I just read into the wrong thing.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
Maybe I misread the initial issue. I was under the impression that high-level players would be attacking low-level players with their low-level material caravans and there wasn't value for them to do so.
My argument was that high-level players would actually have incentive to attack low-level caravans for those reasons.
Low level players shouldn't be running their own caravans at a point in the game when high level players exist.
They should be harvesting, putting on the local market and leaving it up to high level players to sort out transportation.
Alternatively, they should be hiring high level players for protection.
If a low level player (or group of low level players) runs a caravan and loses it to high level players, that is nothing more than a lesson to make better choices next time.
Maybe I misread the initial issue. I was under the impression that high-level players would be attacking low-level players with their low-level material caravans and there wasn't value for them to do so.
My argument was that high-level players would actually have incentive to attack low-level caravans for those reasons.
Low level players shouldn't be running their own caravans at a point in the game when high level players exist.
They should be harvesting, putting on the local market and leaving it up to high level players to sort out transportation.
Alternatively, they should be hiring high level players for protection.
If a low level player (or group of low level players) runs a caravan and loses it to high level players, that is nothing more than a lesson to make better choices next time.
Yes, I agree. That validates my statement to @Dygz that Caravans cater to high level players. That's all.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
Yes, I agree. That validates my statement to @Dygz that Caravans cater to high level players. That's all.
Also, we have to imagine that if 20 people are escorting a caravan then the caravan would have to be carrying a lot more material than what 20 people could carry or it wouldn't make any sense to use the caravan in the first place. Not sure how much carrying capacity is affected by max level, other than bag slots for special mats?
Edit: Assuming that it is harder to move a caravan. Maybe with the right buffs, it is safer but more expensive to use a caravan than run by mount?
Yes, I agree. That validates my statement to Dygz that Caravans cater to high level players. That's all.
Also, we have to imagine that if 20 people are escorting a caravan then the caravan would have to be carrying a lot more material than what 20 people could carry or it wouldn't make any sense to use the caravan in the first place. Not sure how much carrying capacity is affected by level, other than bag slots for special mats?
Or those 20 people could also be carrying stuff.
That said, early descriptions of caravans suggested they held 100 times what a player could carry.
Yes, I agree. That validates my statement to Dygz that Caravans cater to high level players. That's all.
Also, we have to imagine that if 20 people are escorting a caravan then the caravan would have to be carrying a lot more material than what 20 people could carry or it wouldn't make any sense to use the caravan in the first place. Not sure how much carrying capacity is affected by level, other than bag slots for special mats?
Or those 20 people could also be carrying stuff.
That said, early descriptions of caravans suggested they held 100 times what a player could carry.
Yes, I agree. That validates my statement to Dygz that Caravans cater to high level players. That's all.
Also, we have to imagine that if 20 people are escorting a caravan then the caravan would have to be carrying a lot more material than what 20 people could carry or it wouldn't make any sense to use the caravan in the first place. Not sure how much carrying capacity is affected by level, other than bag slots for special mats?
Or those 20 people could also be carrying stuff.
That said, early descriptions of caravans suggested they held 100 times what a player could carry.
Possible balancing knob for Alpha 2? =D
Yeah, they have said they intend to balance it there.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yes, I agree. That validates my statement to Dygz that Caravans cater to high level players. That's all.
Nope. The statement is still invalid.
Caravan raids will always be a mix of Adventurer Levels.
The very moment that Caravans become available. Which will probably be at least by Adventurer Level 15.
And we can also expect that Caravans associated with Villages and Towns will have more lower Level Adventures, while the Caravans associated with Cities and Metros will have more high Level Adventurers.
We can also expect that the Caravan raids associated with Castles will have a diverse array of Adventurer Levels and it won’t be something that primarily Max Level Adventures in the Guilds participate in.
Also, what you actually said was, “caravan and node content is particularly catering to players that have reached the 'end-game'"
That’s simply not valid.
The very moment that Caravans become available. Which will probably be at least by Adventurer Level 15.
Inter-continental trade runs in Archeage were not introduced to players until level 35.
I would expect this to be the starting point for when resource caravans are introduced to players - but probably later (if I were to wager, I would go for level 40).
If lower level crafting uses the same but fewer materials than higher level crafting, caravans probably won't be needed until you are crafting level 50 gear.
I can perhaps see mayoral caravans being introduced earlier. Unsure about commodity caravans.
Yes, I agree. That validates my statement to Dygz that Caravans cater to high level players. That's all.
Also, what you actually said was, “caravan and node content is particularly catering to players that have reached the 'end-game'"
That’s simply not valid.
The discussion has been evolving, so statements have been getting warped by scenarios. I originally stated it would be "end-game content" by stating that level 50 players doing caravan runs would be what balance would be catered to as the game progresses later past launch. Initially for launch it's for whoever is higher level if you take into context my "pre-level 50" and "post-level 50 'End-game content'" sections in the original post.
The evolution of the conversation changed my perspective to "higher level players" instead of "max level players".
Regardless, I'll agree to disagree with you as I don't think your mind will be changed just because lower level players can participate doesn't mean that it's catered to them equally to higher level players.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
In my opinion the problem MMOs have to overcome is individual players getting gear that makes them powerful and therefore they can get more gear that makes them powerful and so on. After a short while they don't need to be good anymore and can just coast on their gear.
You have to make a genuine rock paper scissors game that has many hierarchies ideally that vary by season and by the weather. Your impenetrable heavy armor should be seriously useless in a muddy field and a thunderstorm.
It should be a team game, and only very rarely will one player stand out as MVP.
In my opinion the problem MMOs have to overcome is individual players getting gear that makes them powerful and therefore they can get more gear that makes them powerful and so on. After a short while they don't need to be good anymore and can just coast on their gear.
You have to make a genuine rock paper scissors game that has many hierarchies ideally that vary by season and by the weather. Your impenetrable heavy armor should be seriously useless in a muddy field and a thunderstorm.
It should be a team game, and only very rarely will one player stand out as MVP.
Assuming the game in question requires player ability to get gear, those players with good gear have already demonstrated their ability to play the game well.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 17
Inter-continental Caravans would be Naval Caravans. I don’t know when those open but it would be based on Node Stage, not Adventurer Level.
And, Level 35 still is not Endgame or Max Level.
Players can’t even get to Level 35 or 40 without some Nodes progressing from Village to Town and from Town to City.
And you need Caravans to accomplish that.
And then, again, once Caravans become available to the Server via Node Stage, it doesn’t really matter what Adventurer Level you are.
I’m not aware of any Level limits built into Caravan raids.
Which is why the Caravan demo was not with Level 35-40 mobs.
And the only reason the devs were at Level 25 was to be able to show us a decently wide array of Active Skills.
The primary purpose of Caravans is to move the Resources required to progress Nodes; not to make Max Level Gear.
It’s true that you have to be Max Level to own a Freehold. But, once a Freehold is established, there are no dev implemented Level restrictions.
Inter-continental Caravans would be Naval Caravans. I don’t know when those open but it would be based on Node Stage, not Adventurer Level.
And, Level 35 still is not Endgame or Max Level.
Players can’t even get to Level 35 or 40 without some Nodes progressing from Village to Town and from Town to City.
And you need Caravans to accomplish that.
And then, again, once Caravans become available to the Server via Node Stage, it doesn’t really matter what Adventurer Level you are.
I’m not aware of any Level limits built into Caravan raids.
Which is why the Caravan demo was not with Level 35-40 mobs.
And the only reason the devs were at Level 25 was to be able to show us a decently wide array of Active Skills.
The primary purpose of Caravans is to move the Resources required to progress Nodes; not to make Max Level Gear.
There will be a point in time in the game when majority of the player base is Max Level and trying to progress nodes through Caravan runs. You have to think long-term...
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 17
Yeah. That is not the same thing as Caravans a Nodes particularly catering to Max Level Adventurers.
That’s just - at some point the majority of players on the server will be Max Level.
Probably more accurate to say that Metros will be catering to high Level and Max Level Adventures.
And, sure, maybe accurate to suggest that the Caravans associated with Metros will cater more towards high Level Adventurers than low Level adventurers.
But even when a Server has 5 Metros, there will be Caravans associated with Villages and Towns for low Level Adventurers.
And there will still be a significant number of low Level Adventures striving to Siege Towns and the Caravans and Military Nodes associated with Castles.
Players can’t even get to Level 35 or 40 without some Nodes progressing from Village to Town and from Town to City.
And you need Caravans to accomplish that.
All else aside, no you don't.
There is no need for Mayoral, resource or commodity caravans to level nodes.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 17
Caravans are required to move sufficient Resources to progress Nodes from Village up through Metro.
I mean…technically you could try to use Mules to move the massive amounts of Resources required to progress a Node from Village to Metro, but…
Also, Caravans become available at Node Stage 3 - Village.
Which should begin popping up well before players hit Level 35.
I mean…technically you could try to use Mules to move the massive amounts of Resources required to progress a Node from Village to Metro, but…
So, this isn't a *need*.
I'm just picking apart what you said as you do to others. Technically your statement that you *need* caravans to level up a node was incorrect.
They are possibly useful, but that isn't *need*.
Also, caravansary buildings are unlocked at node level 3. That doesn't inherently mean that caravans are. We do not know if there are more requirements for building a caravan than that or not.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I mean…technically you could try to use Mules to move the massive amounts of Resources required to progress a Node from Village to Metro, but…
So, this isn't a *need*.
I'm just picking apart what you said as you do to others. Technically your statement that you *need* caravans to level up a node was incorrect.
They are possibly useful, but that isn't *need*.
Also, caravansary buildings are unlocked at node level 3. That doesn't inherently mean that caravans are. We do not know if there are more requirements for building a caravan than that or not.
Yeah, I think I conceded that technically you could use Mules. You quoted me conceding that, so I dunno why you reiterated it.
With Castle Sieges, Caravans are needed to move Resources fast enough to build up the Castle Defenses in preparation for the monthly Castle Siege. Players could try to move the Resources via Mules, but the design is balanced such that failure to move Resources via Caravans will have dire consequences, most likely leading to a failed Castle Siege if the Caravans were not successful.
We do know that Caravans unlock at Node Stage 3 because that's when they become available for the Military Nodes associated with Castles.
You can potentially get 99.9% EXP Debt which is basically the same as de-leveling, it's just a different name for the same shit since it means you'll need to grind that entire level again, but go ahead and type the usual bullshit. You both are used to it.
Get as cutesy as you want, you can still lose potentially 99.9% EXP which is basically the same as de-leveling, so my point stands.
XP debt leads to only a 20% loss of stats at a 100% XP debt value, which is somewhat negligible. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Death_penalties So on average, if you're at 100% debt for a level, and you got to work all that off before you can start progressing at the level again, you're at around 20% overall stat dampening. Time it takes you to regain that debt is predicated on the level you're at and how you exp. So, that's a highly variable value.
And it's doubly negligible if you compare it to gear-deleveling stages in L2 (20, 40, 52, 61, 76, 80). Stat loss from dropping to a gear stage below your previous one is way higher than 20% (well, depending on the gear itself, but still).
You can potentially get 99.9% EXP Debt which is basically the same as de-leveling, it's just a different name for the same shit since it means you'll need to grind that entire level again, but go ahead and type the usual bullshit. You both are used to it.
Ashes experience debt is nothing in relation to proper de-leveling.
This is the specific reason they didn't have de-leveling - it is more of a punishment than Intrepid want to hand players.
Again though, look up death penalties for objective based PvP in Ashes. This includes things like sieges and caravans (and will probably include world bosses when we get more information about them).
The only penalty associated with death in objective based PvP is gear degradation, so even experience debt isn't a factor.
Again though, look up death penalties for objective based PvP in Ashes. This includes things like sieges and caravans (and will probably include world bosses when we get more information about them).
Wars are considered events, so even if world boss locations aren't auto-flag - I fully expect majority of guilds to wardec any competitive guild that they think they can beat.
There's a small chance that Steven will copy L2's wardeccing and make it so that both sides gotta agree to the war, but I dearly hope that is not the case, considering the PK penalties.
In my opinion, the main reason MMORPGs fail these days is that they a) are poorly monetized b) add expansions that negate the original content of the game and typically create a short cut c) just flat out aren't interesting enough to keep people playing.
I just glanced over one of Asmondgold's videos that was titled something like... this ex-WoW developer thinks mmorpgs should have a tip feature. After giving it a bit of consideration, I actually think that's a fantastic idea. I mean those who can afford to support the game monetarily and feel the urge to do so... can. Tipping won't take away other people's experience with the game because the tipper simply doesn't gain anything other than the feeling that they're helping out in some way. I mean, I'm forced to tip waiters and waitresses who truly don't deserve it. Why wouldn't I tip a gaming studio that I think is doing a fantastic job? I'm really happy to see a studio that not only stands up for its ideas but also involves us in them to a reasonable degree.
Just a side note - I would honestly rather give Intrepid a tip and gain nothing at all.. than buy something from the cash shop that makes others who can't afford it feel inferior. When we blur the lines between playing a game and real life (which is what cash shops do for me) - it just makes it another version of the same life you're already in. Fantasy MMORPGs should feel like an escape. Yes, I bought A2 access but I did so to test it and provide feedback. If they gave me nothing in return, I would still be satisfied because I want the game to succeed and I feel like that's the best way I can do so at the moment.
I love vertical progression. Being rewarded for your time and effort feels great. If I get rekt by someone who is higher level and has better gear than me, then I have a reference for what can be achieved, and I can work towards and look forward to becoming stronger myself. In an RPG, skill should be an important, but not the sole factor determining the outcome of a fight.
Comments
Quantity, ease of materials, and easy income on top of just having fun PvPing/griefing without the risk of corruption. Just because you wouldn't do something because you can buy it on the market doesn't mean that it's out of the realm of possibilities or of what players will/won't do.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
It's hard to argue against what you're saying, because--although it's true--it's also relatively vague in terms of player action expectancy and while we can't entertain what that actually is because we haven't seen anything yet, we can assume the range of possibilities with the laws of current systems that we've seen/heard about from Intrepid.
For example, Caravans are an opt-in raid of attackers/defenders that do not gain corruption. This is easily abusable by higher level players for escaping that xp-debt, corruption, and stat dampening/trade blocking that you refer to.
So while Caravans and Node content is something that begins the moment we leave starting areas and does cater to all levels, you can also expect that those who have a higher level, better gear, or even have advantage in numbers with guilds or node size. So to effectively determine the range of possibilities, you can have 1v1 caravan running where one person is running a caravan and one person is attacking said caravan (unlikely to happen, but like I said, in the realm of possibilities) and/or you could have a capped-out-guild size of 300 all maxed level attacking a 1 person caravan, at whatever level you can start running caravans at, in the realm of possibilities as well.
So I want to entertain worst-case scenarios that are more likely in the realm of possibility as I stated here:
For your response to Vargos:
Sure, we can just not call Max-Level Adventurers doing things in Verra "End-Game content", but I'm not sure what else to call it because Max-Level Adventurers doing things in Verra is a bit of a mouthful. But for the reasons I stated above, max-level adventurers will have an inherent advantage in systems that all levels of players are interacting with and they will not have a threat of corruption to worry about as corruption only affects those who PvP in the open-world outside of those systems. Unless they fundamentally change how the corruption system works with opt-in PvP and combatants, that's just how it is.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
The original issue was that lower level players wouldn't be able to find value in harvesting low level materials and selling them to high level players.
The fact that it may be within the realm of possibilities for some high level players to go off and gather these materials themself does not alter the fact that many high level players will not.
Thus, those low level players are still able to find that value.
So again, whats the issue?
Maybe I misread the initial issue. I was under the impression that high-level players would be attacking low-level players with their low-level material caravans and there wasn't value for them to do so.
My argument was that high-level players would actually have incentive to attack low-level caravans for those reasons.
I do think low-level players harvesting low level materials to sell them to high-level players is a good thing and is possible with the crafting system they intend to use.
Maybe I just read into the wrong thing.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
They should be harvesting, putting on the local market and leaving it up to high level players to sort out transportation.
Alternatively, they should be hiring high level players for protection.
If a low level player (or group of low level players) runs a caravan and loses it to high level players, that is nothing more than a lesson to make better choices next time.
Yes, I agree. That validates my statement to @Dygz that Caravans cater to high level players. That's all.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
Also, we have to imagine that if 20 people are escorting a caravan then the caravan would have to be carrying a lot more material than what 20 people could carry or it wouldn't make any sense to use the caravan in the first place. Not sure how much carrying capacity is affected by max level, other than bag slots for special mats?
Edit: Assuming that it is harder to move a caravan. Maybe with the right buffs, it is safer but more expensive to use a caravan than run by mount?
That said, early descriptions of caravans suggested they held 100 times what a player could carry.
Possible balancing knob for Alpha 2? =D
Yeah, they have said they intend to balance it there.
Caravan raids will always be a mix of Adventurer Levels.
The very moment that Caravans become available. Which will probably be at least by Adventurer Level 15.
And we can also expect that Caravans associated with Villages and Towns will have more lower Level Adventures, while the Caravans associated with Cities and Metros will have more high Level Adventurers.
We can also expect that the Caravan raids associated with Castles will have a diverse array of Adventurer Levels and it won’t be something that primarily Max Level Adventures in the Guilds participate in.
Also, what you actually said was, “caravan and node content is particularly catering to players that have reached the 'end-game'"
That’s simply not valid.
I would expect this to be the starting point for when resource caravans are introduced to players - but probably later (if I were to wager, I would go for level 40).
If lower level crafting uses the same but fewer materials than higher level crafting, caravans probably won't be needed until you are crafting level 50 gear.
I can perhaps see mayoral caravans being introduced earlier. Unsure about commodity caravans.
The discussion has been evolving, so statements have been getting warped by scenarios. I originally stated it would be "end-game content" by stating that level 50 players doing caravan runs would be what balance would be catered to as the game progresses later past launch. Initially for launch it's for whoever is higher level if you take into context my "pre-level 50" and "post-level 50 'End-game content'" sections in the original post.
The evolution of the conversation changed my perspective to "higher level players" instead of "max level players".
Regardless, I'll agree to disagree with you as I don't think your mind will be changed just because lower level players can participate doesn't mean that it's catered to them equally to higher level players.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
You have to make a genuine rock paper scissors game that has many hierarchies ideally that vary by season and by the weather. Your impenetrable heavy armor should be seriously useless in a muddy field and a thunderstorm.
It should be a team game, and only very rarely will one player stand out as MVP.
Assuming the game in question requires player ability to get gear, those players with good gear have already demonstrated their ability to play the game well.
And, Level 35 still is not Endgame or Max Level.
Players can’t even get to Level 35 or 40 without some Nodes progressing from Village to Town and from Town to City.
And you need Caravans to accomplish that.
And then, again, once Caravans become available to the Server via Node Stage, it doesn’t really matter what Adventurer Level you are.
I’m not aware of any Level limits built into Caravan raids.
Which is why the Caravan demo was not with Level 35-40 mobs.
And the only reason the devs were at Level 25 was to be able to show us a decently wide array of Active Skills.
The primary purpose of Caravans is to move the Resources required to progress Nodes; not to make Max Level Gear.
It’s true that you have to be Max Level to own a Freehold. But, once a Freehold is established, there are no dev implemented Level restrictions.
There will be a point in time in the game when majority of the player base is Max Level and trying to progress nodes through Caravan runs. You have to think long-term...
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
That’s just - at some point the majority of players on the server will be Max Level.
Probably more accurate to say that Metros will be catering to high Level and Max Level Adventures.
And, sure, maybe accurate to suggest that the Caravans associated with Metros will cater more towards high Level Adventurers than low Level adventurers.
But even when a Server has 5 Metros, there will be Caravans associated with Villages and Towns for low Level Adventurers.
And there will still be a significant number of low Level Adventures striving to Siege Towns and the Caravans and Military Nodes associated with Castles.
There is no need for Mayoral, resource or commodity caravans to level nodes.
I mean…technically you could try to use Mules to move the massive amounts of Resources required to progress a Node from Village to Metro, but…
Also, Caravans become available at Node Stage 3 - Village.
Which should begin popping up well before players hit Level 35.
I'm just picking apart what you said as you do to others. Technically your statement that you *need* caravans to level up a node was incorrect.
They are possibly useful, but that isn't *need*.
Also, caravansary buildings are unlocked at node level 3. That doesn't inherently mean that caravans are. We do not know if there are more requirements for building a caravan than that or not.
With Castle Sieges, Caravans are needed to move Resources fast enough to build up the Castle Defenses in preparation for the monthly Castle Siege. Players could try to move the Resources via Mules, but the design is balanced such that failure to move Resources via Caravans will have dire consequences, most likely leading to a failed Castle Siege if the Caravans were not successful.
We do know that Caravans unlock at Node Stage 3 because that's when they become available for the Military Nodes associated with Castles.
You can potentially get 99.9% EXP Debt which is basically the same as de-leveling, it's just a different name for the same shit since it means you'll need to grind that entire level again, but go ahead and type the usual bullshit. You both are used to it.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Death_penalties
So on average, if you're at 100% debt for a level, and you got to work all that off before you can start progressing at the level again, you're at around 20% overall stat dampening. Time it takes you to regain that debt is predicated on the level you're at and how you exp. So, that's a highly variable value.
And it's doubly negligible if you compare it to gear-deleveling stages in L2 (20, 40, 52, 61, 76, 80). Stat loss from dropping to a gear stage below your previous one is way higher than 20% (well, depending on the gear itself, but still).
Ashes experience debt is nothing in relation to proper de-leveling.
This is the specific reason they didn't have de-leveling - it is more of a punishment than Intrepid want to hand players.
Again though, look up death penalties for objective based PvP in Ashes. This includes things like sieges and caravans (and will probably include world bosses when we get more information about them).
The only penalty associated with death in objective based PvP is gear degradation, so even experience debt isn't a factor.
There's a small chance that Steven will copy L2's wardeccing and make it so that both sides gotta agree to the war, but I dearly hope that is not the case, considering the PK penalties.
I just glanced over one of Asmondgold's videos that was titled something like... this ex-WoW developer thinks mmorpgs should have a tip feature. After giving it a bit of consideration, I actually think that's a fantastic idea. I mean those who can afford to support the game monetarily and feel the urge to do so... can. Tipping won't take away other people's experience with the game because the tipper simply doesn't gain anything other than the feeling that they're helping out in some way. I mean, I'm forced to tip waiters and waitresses who truly don't deserve it. Why wouldn't I tip a gaming studio that I think is doing a fantastic job? I'm really happy to see a studio that not only stands up for its ideas but also involves us in them to a reasonable degree.
Just a side note - I would honestly rather give Intrepid a tip and gain nothing at all.. than buy something from the cash shop that makes others who can't afford it feel inferior. When we blur the lines between playing a game and real life (which is what cash shops do for me) - it just makes it another version of the same life you're already in. Fantasy MMORPGs should feel like an escape. Yes, I bought A2 access but I did so to test it and provide feedback. If they gave me nothing in return, I would still be satisfied because I want the game to succeed and I feel like that's the best way I can do so at the moment.
Who are you and how have you managed to access Dygz's account?