OK can we all agree that there should be level 50+ monsters in the game?
Cause it seems like as soon as intrepid announces where they are going to put level 50+ monsters, people will start raging about "End game!"
You don't want them in castles, others don't want them in raids.
This just seems absurd.
That is just your poor reading comprehension.
No one said anything about not wanting Level 50+ mobs in Castles.
What was said is that Castle content should start at Level 35-42 and increase over time to be Level 50+.
Because Ashes is supposed to be a dynamic game with content that changes over time - rather than a static game where the mobs you find in specific locations always remain the same difficulty level.
Everyone agrees Ashes should have Level 50+ mobs.
Even in Castles.
OK can we all agree that there should be level 50+ monsters in the game?
Cause it seems like as soon as intrepid announces where they are going to put level 50+ monsters, people will start raging about "End game!"
You don't want them in castles, others don't want them in raids.
This just seems absurd.
That is just your poor reading comprehension.
No one said anything about not wanting Level 50+ mobs in Castles.
What was said is that Castle content should start at Level 35-42 and increase over time to be Level 50+.
Because Ashes is supposed to be a dynamic game with content that changes over time - rather than a static game where the mobs you find in specific locations always remain the same difficulty level.
Oh, I missed the part where they said dynamic mob level scaling was going to be a thing. I thought specifically they said they wouldn't do that.
Well whatever, I don't want to argue about this anymore. It doesn't bother me so no need to comment further.
So we've got new info that mobs in castles will be lvl50, which means that yet another big part of the game is only reserved for late game (just as freeholds are), instead of being accessible throughout the game.
Literally the first sentence in the thread dude. ROFLMAO
Literally the first sentence in the thread dude. ROFLMAO
Yes, I want castles mobs to start at lower lvls, but if they do reappear during sieges - I'd be fine if they're become lvl50. Hell, it could even be one of the mechanics to put pressure on guilds that hold a castle for more than one month. Mobs that appear would grow in lvl, strength and aggression towards the defenders. This would also serve as one of the counters for the limited member exploit I've been talking about in other siege threads.
Like I said already, more than one thing can be true at the same time. New servers would have lvl35 mobs in castles before their first siege, but older servers would get lvl50 mobs during sieges, because the game progressed to that point.
Literally the first sentence in the thread dude. ROFLMAO
Yes, I want castles mobs to start at lower lvls, but if they do reappear during sieges - I'd be fine if they're become lvl50. Hell, it could even be one of the mechanics to put pressure on guilds that hold a castle for more than one month. Mobs that appear would grow in lvl, strength and aggression towards the defenders. This would also serve as one of the counters for the limited member exploit I've been talking about in other siege threads.
Like I said already, more than one thing can be true at the same time. New servers would have lvl35 mobs in castles before their first siege, but older servers would get lvl50 mobs during sieges, because the game progressed to that point.
Sure, but none of that was said in the post. So Dygz trying to insult me based on reading comprehension is just idiotic. As far as I'm concerned the dood is just an ass. Fuck him.
OK can we all agree that there should be level 50+ monsters in the game?
Cause it seems like as soon as intrepid announces where they are going to put level 50+ monsters, people will start raging about "End game!"
You don't want them in castles, others don't want them in raids.
This just seems absurd.
No, they will not. Because it's very easy to imagine 'where level 50 mobs in Ashes should be', and if they are put there, no one will need to complain about it.
But back to this 45 days leveling stage. Would you want to be even shorter? You said these days it is expected to be half of this.
I would prefer 3-6 months to reach Max Level.
Maybe longer.
If leveling would take 6 months, I would add some similar events to the castle sieges, when players would be 4 months in the leveling process. So for a level cap 50, these mini castle sieges would happen at level 33-34.
But how would you prevent level 50 players interfering with the content reserved for level 33 players?
And how would you integrate the result of those events into the open world, to have a political impact?
But back to this 45 days leveling stage. Would you want to be even shorter? You said these days it is expected to be half of this.
I would prefer 3-6 months to reach Max Level.
Maybe longer.
If leveling would take 6 months, I would add some similar events to the castle sieges, when players would be 4 months in the leveling process. So for a level cap 50, these mini castle sieges would happen at level 33-34.
But how would you prevent level 50 players interfering with the content reserved for level 33 players?
And how would you integrate the result of those events into the open world, to have a political impact?
The discussion in this thread is about only one specific period of the game that has the potential to be balanced better, and anything related to 'castle sieges' as a whole is distractive.
If leveling took 6 months, then Nodes would probably progress fast enough to have catacombs or castle-like PoI. The target of this discussion has nothing to do with the experience of the castle siege content itself, which is probably where the mismatch is coming from.
There is no 'level 50 players interfering with the level 33 player content' in that case.
If Castle Village Nodes owned by NPCs had level 38 NPCs, once those NPCs are defeated, most servers would literally never see those NPCs again.
But how would you prevent level 50 players interfering with the content reserved for level 33 players?
And how would you integrate the result of those events into the open world, to have a political impact?
L2 had petrification debuff that would completely disable anyone who was 9 lvls over the required lvl of the location. I personally wouldn't go that far, but I'd definitely want some pve-based effects that make the life of those highbies very difficult around those locations/encounters.
But ideally content would be properly designed to accommodate both lowbies and highbies at the same time. That would be my ideal preference.
But how would you prevent level 50 players interfering with the content reserved for level 33 players?
And how would you integrate the result of those events into the open world, to have a political impact?
L2 had petrification debuff that would completely disable anyone who was 9 lvls over the required lvl of the location. I personally wouldn't go that far, but I'd definitely want some pve-based effects that make the life of those highbies very difficult around those locations/encounters.
But ideally content would be properly designed to accommodate both lowbies and highbies at the same time. That would be my ideal preference.
Good answer. Is like having level brackets.
And the 2nd question? I need an answer to that too.
why do you hate risk/reward so much? every objective based pvp has risk vs reward...the devs just don't phrase things that way.
also, you are a hardcore time player, you can get to 50 fast. and even if you focus on things that rent leveling, you will get to 50 eventually, and you will be able to enjoy years and years of objective based pvp. don't look at things short term!
Because I am a non-competitive, commie, hippie, boomer, carebear player.
And because for the first 20 years of RPGs (which is when I began playing), RPGs were cooperative gameplay, rather than competitive gameplay.
And because I play RPGs to emulate the Fantasy novels I read in the 20th century - wherein the hero protagonists were not primarily motivated by rewards.
There is a reason that I capitalize Meaningful Conflict and Risk v Reward.
Just as there is a reason that I captialize Good when I'm talking about RPG Alignments.
Steven's "Risk v Reward" is different than just generic risk v reward.
Steven defines Risk v Reward for Ashes as: "There can be no Reward without significant Risk."
And that Risk primarily means PvP - especially PvP combat. Specifically, PvP combat that is not objective-based.
So, yes... I do not have an issue with the risk v reward that is a byproduct of Meaningful Conflict.
I do have an issue with Steven's obsession with Risk v Reward, where "There can be no Reward without significant Risk."
I am a Hardcore-Time player.
That has nothing to do with whether categories of content should be gated to be Max Level content in RPGs.
That kind of gating is inherently poor game design. And should be avoided where possible.
but there is risk reward in everything...even if the motivation isn't the reward, it exists. I've played tabletop dnd and there is risk and reward...
there could be alternate rooms and dungeons, you risk dying and having to restart the campaign, but you can get rewards such as having fun, loot, levels, etc. but I get it, its just the PVP...
and level gating...again why is it an issue? the entry barrier could simply be stats, as I mentioned earlier. what if you hit max level in a day but yo need to spend 2 months unlocking skills, gearing up etc. same thing. you are still gated.
also, you are gated in dnd by levels. you cant just start at level 1 and do everything. you progress, get stronger, etc.
also, steven haven't said you need 50 to do sieges. the mobs are just level 50. he has said lower level players can still contribute in a meaningful way in sieges (maybe manning siege weapons, etc) plus you have to siege nodes near a castle the weeks before the siege, they could participate on those and then man the weapons during the castle siege while level 50 players fight the mobs.
also, I'm in favor of a hard entry barrier for these things, otherwise people could just make level 1 alts, register for the siege and boycott your team (remember you cant excluded anyone). you could do it with a level 50 alt but it would take much longer, and time they are leveling an alt for that, is time they arent progressing on their main in one way or another).
And the 2nd question? I need an answer to that too.
I'd need to know about guild structure and how the mentorship feature works. Lowbie guilds would still need to work with stronger guilds, because some strong guilds will either have alts for lowbie content or will have mentorship-based groups of lowbies that will clear that content. And you'd want support of strong guilds if you want to win out in pvp or protect some content, etc.
And in my experience good strong guilds find some weak guilds that they can protect for a while and then have them as additional fighters in the future, who also have a higher level of loyalty to you.
To me all of those interactions (across time) are the politics of the game. The should be some game-based incentives for strong guilds to interact with lowbies, just so the interaction itself can start with something beneficial for both sides, and people can then choose whether they want to grow that interaction into a long relationship or not.
I've left this thread along for a bit to see how others were reacting to this.
My first thought on this is "of course". I've said this was likely to be the case in discussions with Dygz in the past - specifically stating that while it hasn't been said, the mobs in castles will obviously be end game mobs.
While I can see the issue some people have in relation to this simply meaning that the strong get stronger - with the way sieges are, with the speed of leveling, castles were always going to go to the people that hit the level cap first - whether by them being the first to get them, or by them being the first to take them in a siege.
The thing to keep in mind - Ashes is only being made for gamers like Steven. if you don't want a game where the strong get stronger, where they hold the weaker under their thumb to prevent them from rising up, then Ashes isn't the game for you, because that has always been the game Ashes was always going to be - but then I've been saying this for two years now.
you don't know if you will be able to take the castle as soon as you hit 50..what if the mobs are too strong and you need to spend some time gearing up?
players who have been 50 for a while can fight the mobs, and fresh 50 or lower levels can do other things that can be done in a siege. as steven said, lower level players will be able to contribute as well.
anyways, just because you get a castle, doesn't mean you can opress others and prevent them from progressing...
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Literally the first sentence in the thread dude. ROFLMAO
That quote does not state that the Castles should never have Level 50 mobs.
That quote states that it's new info that Castles are gated as Level 50 gameplay, rather than becoming available at lower levels.
Again, the Kickstarter interviews stated that Ashes is a dynamic game - where the difficulty of the mobs in specific locations increase (and sometimes decrease) with the rise and fall of Nodes.
Just because Castles start with Level 35 mobs does not mean they can never be occupied by Level 50 or Level 60 mobs once Nodes reach Stage 6.
OK can we all agree that there should be level 50+ monsters in the game?
Cause it seems like as soon as intrepid announces where they are going to put level 50+ monsters, people will start raging about "End game!"
You don't want them in castles, others don't want them in raids.
This just seems absurd.
That is just your poor reading comprehension.
No one said anything about not wanting Level 50+ mobs in Castles.
What was said is that Castle content should start at Level 35-42 and increase over time to be Level 50+.
Because Ashes is supposed to be a dynamic game with content that changes over time - rather than a static game where the mobs you find in specific locations always remain the same difficulty level.
Everyone agrees Ashes should have Level 50+ mobs.
Even in Castles.
oh so after a while they mobs will become 50 (or just castle content) and will reach endgame?XDD
so you are ok if the content reaches end game eventually, just not at the beginning?
that would make sense for nodes, since nodes start at level 1 and they have a low pop (the first wave of adventurers who came back to verra), but the castles were already occupied for a long time and developed by the anicents who lived there. they didn't have time to develop their stuff before we came back to verra? of course they did!
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
but there is risk reward in everything...even if the motivation isn't the reward, it exists. I've played tabletop dnd and there is risk and reward...
there could be alternate rooms and dungeons, you risk dying and having to restart the campaign, but you can get rewards such as having fun, loot, levels, etc. but I get it, its just the PVP...
You failed to understand what I've already explained to you, so...
I'm done.
We'll try again on some other topic, maybe.
But back to this 45 days leveling stage. Would you want to be even shorter? You said these days it is expected to be half of this.
I would prefer 3-6 months to reach Max Level.
Maybe longer.
If leveling would take 6 months, I would add some similar events to the castle sieges, when players would be 4 months in the leveling process. So for a level cap 50, these mini castle sieges would happen at level 33-34.
But how would you prevent level 50 players interfering with the content reserved for level 33 players?
And how would you integrate the result of those events into the open world, to have a political impact?
The discussion in this thread is about only one specific period of the game that has the potential to be balanced better, and anything related to 'castle sieges' as a whole is distractive.
If leveling took 6 months, then Nodes would probably progress fast enough to have catacombs or castle-like PoI. The target of this discussion has nothing to do with the experience of the castle siege content itself, which is probably where the mismatch is coming from.
There is no 'level 50 players interfering with the level 33 player content' in that case.
If Castle Village Nodes owned by NPCs had level 38 NPCs, once those NPCs are defeated, most servers would literally never see those NPCs again.
That is the case for the lvl 50 npc's too which defend the castle sieges. Once defeated they do not seem to come back. Even though we never asked what happens if the guild which owns them is disbanded and nobody wants to take castle ownership, when the server is mostly empty.
We know caravans with taxes leave every weekend toward those castles but if there are no players in those deserted nodes, all these events make no sense. The caravans would drop no loot anyway because there would be no payed taxes.
It makes more sense to let the castles get those NPCs back, though NPC invasions, if players leave half of the map empty.
If players fail to address these corrupted areas, the frequency of NPC events against their node will increase. These can lead to node buildings and services being disabled, increasing the node's vulnerability to node sieges.[11]
If at release players want to fight and defeat some NPCs in those castles at lower levels too, then the main castle has 3 adjacent castle nodes. Those can also have lover level NPCs.
Once all were defeated, the weekly caravans start and the 4th week we will see the first castle siege if there is a contender.
And the owner guild, to defend it, according to wiki:
It will be possible, but very difficult for a single guild to fully develop these nodes. They will likely need assistance from the broader community.[31]
So with an average leveling time of 45 days, I still oppose making the very first castle sieges accessible at lower level. The vast majority of players can still refuse supporting those guilds to build up defenses by attacking and looting the caravans.
but there is risk reward in everything...even if the motivation isn't the reward, it exists. I've played tabletop dnd and there is risk and reward...
there could be alternate rooms and dungeons, you risk dying and having to restart the campaign, but you can get rewards such as having fun, loot, levels, etc. but I get it, its just the PVP...
You failed to understand what I've already explained to you, so...
I'm done.
We'll try again on some other topic, maybe.
And the 2nd question? I need an answer to that too.
I'd need to know about guild structure and how the mentorship feature works. Lowbie guilds would still need to work with stronger guilds, because some strong guilds will either have alts for lowbie content or will have mentorship-based groups of lowbies that will clear that content. And you'd want support of strong guilds if you want to win out in pvp or protect some content, etc.
And in my experience good strong guilds find some weak guilds that they can protect for a while and then have them as additional fighters in the future, who also have a higher level of loyalty to you.
To me all of those interactions (across time) are the politics of the game. The should be some game-based incentives for strong guilds to interact with lowbies, just so the interaction itself can start with something beneficial for both sides, and people can then choose whether they want to grow that interaction into a long relationship or not.
I don't care much about lowbies who join the game or social relationship but about a reason to have alts at lower level for impact onto the map. The high level castles take taxes through caravans. What would the low level castles do?
I just pray that no-lifers will not get so powerful that other 90% of the playerbase stops playing.
The inability of a player to safe the stuff they have at home in a node when their node gets destroyed is just a horrible announcement I cannot recover from.
And now this unacceptability is just always in my mind, no matter what topic I read.
I hope there is some kind of place/dimension/safe that only I or my guild have access to, which cannot get raided or destroyed or whatever.
Imagine "Sea of Thieves" but unlike stealing just treasure which as not yet sold in... you can rob a players gold coins directly.
Ahh ahh no I am for some reason fearing everything right now.
Everything that could bring Ashes down.
There is no way Lord Steven's and Intrepits "Vision" will be this elitist will it?
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't care much about lowbies who join the game or social relationship but about a reason to have alts at lower level for impact onto the map. The high level castles take taxes through caravans. What would the low level castles do?
Tax Caravans and Nodes before any of the Nodes on the server hit Stage 6.
Caravans begin at Stage 3 Village.
The issue is that both freeholds and castles are now ONLY available at 50. Yes, you could argue that some true pro uber pvers can kill the castle boss at below lvl 50, but then it's a question of how hard is the pve in the game, rather than a question of when the content is available.
Having freeholds at lower lvls would mean that guilds need to spend their money against each other sooner. Having castles at lower lvls means that guilds need to spend more time on non-progression activities. Neither of those things mean that normal castle sieges won't be filled by purely lvl50 people or that all freeholds won't be operated by lvl50 players. It simply means that earlier access to them would create a shift in general top skill player behavior.
Not all who want a freehold have to power level
So what we do there is we spread out the availability of freeholds to different playstyles and different focuses so the player that might rush to level 50- they might have an advantage when bidding on gold-based freeholds, but they may not have the advantage of the Favor player or the Honor player, who is going to be progressing within those playstyles.[19] – Steven Sharif
I just pray that no-lifers will not get so powerful that other 90% of the playerbase stops playing.
The inability of a player to safe the stuff they have at home in a node when their node gets destroyed is just a horrible announcement I cannot recover from.
And now this unacceptability is just always in my mind, no matter what topic I read.
I hope there is some kind of place/dimension/safe that only I or my guild have access to, which cannot get raided or destroyed or whatever.
Imagine "Sea of Thieves" but unlike stealing just treasure which as not yet sold in... you can rob a players gold coins directly.
Ahh ahh no I am for some reason fearing everything right now.
Everything that could bring Ashes down.
There is no way Lord Steven's and Intrepits "Vision" will be this elitist will it?
I don't care much about lowbies who join the game or social relationship but about a reason to have alts at lower level for impact onto the map. The high level castles take taxes through caravans. What would the low level castles do?
Tax Caravans and Nodes before any of the Nodes on the server hit Stage 6.
Caravans begin at Stage 3 Village.
I was talking with NiKr what some hypothetical low level castles would do on the world map.
Because he gave a possibility where that lower level content could be available only for those specific player levels 33-34.
You say those would collect taxes from lower level nodes only and the caravans could also be for these intermediate level players?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm pretty sure what I wrote answers your question.
I'm saying that most likely Level 33-34 Guilds would only occupy Castles for a few months - until higher Level Guilds appear on the server. They would be collecting from whatever Nodes are in their ZOI.
It's most likely that Level 33-34 Guilds would only occupy Castles before there are any Stage 6 Metros on the server. By the time there are Stage 6 Metros on the server, the Guilds occupying Castles will very likely be Level 50 or close to it. And, they would also be taxing the Nodes in their ZOI.
I don't care much about lowbies who join the game or social relationship but about a reason to have alts at lower level for impact onto the map. The high level castles take taxes through caravans. What would the low level castles do?
This is already 3 theoretical separations away from what the game will be, but in case we do have even longer leveling and we do have some form of "mini-castle content for lower lvls", I'd probably make them similar to L2's fortresses.
They'd be smaller in scale, they'd have sieges more frequently (and cheaper), there'd be a variety of them (going up to max lvl), they'd have pve in them that doesn't give XP but drops special items, and those items could be used by anyone to trade for some resource/mats/augments/etc/whatever.
Max lvl sources for those things would still be more beneficial (to decrease the amount of people that create alts for these fortresses), but the general demand for the items would be high enough that lowbies who do participate in fortress sieges could either sell them or keep them for their own max lvl usage.
But, again, I completely do not expect anything of this sort in the game (at the very least nowhere in the first 4-6 years) and, as Azherae said, further discussions of these levels of separation from the main topic would be fruitless.
I just pray that no-lifers will not get so powerful that other 90% of the playerbase stops playing.
The inability of a player to safe the stuff they have at home in a node when their node gets destroyed is just a horrible announcement I cannot recover from.
And now this unacceptability is just always in my mind, no matter what topic I read.
I hope there is some kind of place/dimension/safe that only I or my guild have access to, which cannot get raided or destroyed or whatever.
Imagine "Sea of Thieves" but unlike stealing just treasure which as not yet sold in... you can rob a players gold coins directly.
Ahh ahh no I am for some reason fearing everything right now.
Everything that could bring Ashes down.
There is no way Lord Steven's and Intrepits "Vision" will be this elitist will it?
I've went over this before and I'm sure in the zerg thread as well. Hardcore guilds will both be friends and enemies, politics are important. Based on the vassal system you will have a sweaty guild that will be your parent and defending nodes in their area. It shouldn't be viewed just as you vrs all other nodes but your kingdom vrs the other kingdoms on the map.
What is important is have different tiers of content so people are that not as skilled / geared can fight against others closer to their own skill level.
Comments
No one said anything about not wanting Level 50+ mobs in Castles.
What was said is that Castle content should start at Level 35-42 and increase over time to be Level 50+.
Because Ashes is supposed to be a dynamic game with content that changes over time - rather than a static game where the mobs you find in specific locations always remain the same difficulty level.
Everyone agrees Ashes should have Level 50+ mobs.
Even in Castles.
Oh, I missed the part where they said dynamic mob level scaling was going to be a thing. I thought specifically they said they wouldn't do that.
Well whatever, I don't want to argue about this anymore. It doesn't bother me so no need to comment further.
Cheers,
Just for the record. Dygz, you have poor reading comprehension.
Literally the first sentence in the thread dude. ROFLMAO
Like I said already, more than one thing can be true at the same time. New servers would have lvl35 mobs in castles before their first siege, but older servers would get lvl50 mobs during sieges, because the game progressed to that point.
Sure, but none of that was said in the post. So Dygz trying to insult me based on reading comprehension is just idiotic. As far as I'm concerned the dood is just an ass. Fuck him.
No, they will not. Because it's very easy to imagine 'where level 50 mobs in Ashes should be', and if they are put there, no one will need to complain about it.
This is a particularly oddly shaped strawman.
If leveling would take 6 months, I would add some similar events to the castle sieges, when players would be 4 months in the leveling process. So for a level cap 50, these mini castle sieges would happen at level 33-34.
But how would you prevent level 50 players interfering with the content reserved for level 33 players?
And how would you integrate the result of those events into the open world, to have a political impact?
The discussion in this thread is about only one specific period of the game that has the potential to be balanced better, and anything related to 'castle sieges' as a whole is distractive.
If leveling took 6 months, then Nodes would probably progress fast enough to have catacombs or castle-like PoI. The target of this discussion has nothing to do with the experience of the castle siege content itself, which is probably where the mismatch is coming from.
There is no 'level 50 players interfering with the level 33 player content' in that case.
If Castle Village Nodes owned by NPCs had level 38 NPCs, once those NPCs are defeated, most servers would literally never see those NPCs again.
But ideally content would be properly designed to accommodate both lowbies and highbies at the same time. That would be my ideal preference.
Good answer. Is like having level brackets.
And the 2nd question? I need an answer to that too.
but there is risk reward in everything...even if the motivation isn't the reward, it exists. I've played tabletop dnd and there is risk and reward...
there could be alternate rooms and dungeons, you risk dying and having to restart the campaign, but you can get rewards such as having fun, loot, levels, etc. but I get it, its just the PVP...
and level gating...again why is it an issue? the entry barrier could simply be stats, as I mentioned earlier. what if you hit max level in a day but yo need to spend 2 months unlocking skills, gearing up etc. same thing. you are still gated.
also, you are gated in dnd by levels. you cant just start at level 1 and do everything. you progress, get stronger, etc.
also, steven haven't said you need 50 to do sieges. the mobs are just level 50. he has said lower level players can still contribute in a meaningful way in sieges (maybe manning siege weapons, etc) plus you have to siege nodes near a castle the weeks before the siege, they could participate on those and then man the weapons during the castle siege while level 50 players fight the mobs.
also, I'm in favor of a hard entry barrier for these things, otherwise people could just make level 1 alts, register for the siege and boycott your team (remember you cant excluded anyone). you could do it with a level 50 alt but it would take much longer, and time they are leveling an alt for that, is time they arent progressing on their main in one way or another).
And in my experience good strong guilds find some weak guilds that they can protect for a while and then have them as additional fighters in the future, who also have a higher level of loyalty to you.
To me all of those interactions (across time) are the politics of the game. The should be some game-based incentives for strong guilds to interact with lowbies, just so the interaction itself can start with something beneficial for both sides, and people can then choose whether they want to grow that interaction into a long relationship or not.
you don't know if you will be able to take the castle as soon as you hit 50..what if the mobs are too strong and you need to spend some time gearing up?
players who have been 50 for a while can fight the mobs, and fresh 50 or lower levels can do other things that can be done in a siege. as steven said, lower level players will be able to contribute as well.
anyways, just because you get a castle, doesn't mean you can opress others and prevent them from progressing...
That quote states that it's new info that Castles are gated as Level 50 gameplay, rather than becoming available at lower levels.
Again, the Kickstarter interviews stated that Ashes is a dynamic game - where the difficulty of the mobs in specific locations increase (and sometimes decrease) with the rise and fall of Nodes.
Just because Castles start with Level 35 mobs does not mean they can never be occupied by Level 50 or Level 60 mobs once Nodes reach Stage 6.
oh so after a while they mobs will become 50 (or just castle content) and will reach endgame?XDD
so you are ok if the content reaches end game eventually, just not at the beginning?
that would make sense for nodes, since nodes start at level 1 and they have a low pop (the first wave of adventurers who came back to verra), but the castles were already occupied for a long time and developed by the anicents who lived there. they didn't have time to develop their stuff before we came back to verra? of course they did!
I'm done.
We'll try again on some other topic, maybe.
That is the case for the lvl 50 npc's too which defend the castle sieges. Once defeated they do not seem to come back. Even though we never asked what happens if the guild which owns them is disbanded and nobody wants to take castle ownership, when the server is mostly empty.
We know caravans with taxes leave every weekend toward those castles but if there are no players in those deserted nodes, all these events make no sense. The caravans would drop no loot anyway because there would be no payed taxes.
It makes more sense to let the castles get those NPCs back, though NPC invasions, if players leave half of the map empty.
If players fail to address these corrupted areas, the frequency of NPC events against their node will increase. These can lead to node buildings and services being disabled, increasing the node's vulnerability to node sieges.[11]
If at release players want to fight and defeat some NPCs in those castles at lower levels too, then the main castle has 3 adjacent castle nodes. Those can also have lover level NPCs.
Once all were defeated, the weekly caravans start and the 4th week we will see the first castle siege if there is a contender.
And the owner guild, to defend it, according to wiki:
It will be possible, but very difficult for a single guild to fully develop these nodes. They will likely need assistance from the broader community.[31]
So with an average leveling time of 45 days, I still oppose making the very first castle sieges accessible at lower level. The vast majority of players can still refuse supporting those guilds to build up defenses by attacking and looting the caravans.
no I got it, it just the PVP part
I don't care much about lowbies who join the game or social relationship but about a reason to have alts at lower level for impact onto the map. The high level castles take taxes through caravans. What would the low level castles do?
There will be a Q&A interview in a couple of days. I hope nobody asks anything about castles being gated at lvl 50
The inability of a player to safe the stuff they have at home in a node when their node gets destroyed is just a horrible announcement I cannot recover from.
And now this unacceptability is just always in my mind, no matter what topic I read.
I hope there is some kind of place/dimension/safe that only I or my guild have access to, which cannot get raided or destroyed or whatever.
Imagine "Sea of Thieves" but unlike stealing just treasure which as not yet sold in... you can rob a players gold coins directly.
Ahh ahh no I am for some reason fearing everything right now.
Everything that could bring Ashes down.
There is no way Lord Steven's and Intrepits "Vision" will be this elitist will it?
Caravans begin at Stage 3 Village.
Not all who want a freehold have to power level
So what we do there is we spread out the availability of freeholds to different playstyles and different focuses so the player that might rush to level 50- they might have an advantage when bidding on gold-based freeholds, but they may not have the advantage of the Favor player or the Honor player, who is going to be progressing within those playstyles.[19] – Steven Sharif
don't hoard bro, use your mats xD
I was talking with NiKr what some hypothetical low level castles would do on the world map.
Because he gave a possibility where that lower level content could be available only for those specific player levels 33-34.
You say those would collect taxes from lower level nodes only and the caravans could also be for these intermediate level players?
I'm saying that most likely Level 33-34 Guilds would only occupy Castles for a few months - until higher Level Guilds appear on the server. They would be collecting from whatever Nodes are in their ZOI.
It's most likely that Level 33-34 Guilds would only occupy Castles before there are any Stage 6 Metros on the server. By the time there are Stage 6 Metros on the server, the Guilds occupying Castles will very likely be Level 50 or close to it. And, they would also be taxing the Nodes in their ZOI.
They'd be smaller in scale, they'd have sieges more frequently (and cheaper), there'd be a variety of them (going up to max lvl), they'd have pve in them that doesn't give XP but drops special items, and those items could be used by anyone to trade for some resource/mats/augments/etc/whatever.
Max lvl sources for those things would still be more beneficial (to decrease the amount of people that create alts for these fortresses), but the general demand for the items would be high enough that lowbies who do participate in fortress sieges could either sell them or keep them for their own max lvl usage.
But, again, I completely do not expect anything of this sort in the game (at the very least nowhere in the first 4-6 years) and, as Azherae said, further discussions of these levels of separation from the main topic would be fruitless.
I've went over this before and I'm sure in the zerg thread as well. Hardcore guilds will both be friends and enemies, politics are important. Based on the vassal system you will have a sweaty guild that will be your parent and defending nodes in their area. It shouldn't be viewed just as you vrs all other nodes but your kingdom vrs the other kingdoms on the map.
What is important is have different tiers of content so people are that not as skilled / geared can fight against others closer to their own skill level.