NiKr wrote: » I'd personally like if the defending side gets their allies into the war automatically, while the attacking side needs those special scrolls Steven mentioned, exactly because of what you said here. Alliances obviously gotta be somewhat costly, so everyone should be able to just ally with everyone around them.
Xeeg wrote: » Yeah but then who would be dumb enough to waste resources starting a Node War? They spend all the time and effort to start it and expect to be outnumbered? I wouldn't bother if that's the case, better to go camp a boss that night or something.
NiKr wrote: » Xeeg wrote: » Yeah but then who would be dumb enough to waste resources starting a Node War? They spend all the time and effort to start it and expect to be outnumbered? I wouldn't bother if that's the case, better to go camp a boss that night or something. We'll still have way stronger nodes and way weaker nodes. And like I said, alliances should be costly, so those weaker nodes aren't necessarily allied with anyone. Also, even if they are allied, that doesn't mean that all those allies will immediately jump to help them. Especially if you attack the outer nodes of a vassal system, where even just coming to help that defending node would require good 20 mins of running. All the while your attacking force obviously gathered for the war beforehand.
CROW3 wrote: » Idk. Seems like your premise is based on the two nodes being equal in wealth, size, level distribution, etc. You can have some aggressive Davids trying to take down a Goliath. David may get his clocked cleaned more times than not.
Xeeg wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Idk. Seems like your premise is based on the two nodes being equal in wealth, size, level distribution, etc. You can have some aggressive Davids trying to take down a Goliath. David may get his clocked cleaned more times than not. I am actually assuming that the Aggressor is going to choose a Node they think they can win the War on before going to war. Makes sense to me.
Depraved wrote: » Xeeg wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Idk. Seems like your premise is based on the two nodes being equal in wealth, size, level distribution, etc. You can have some aggressive Davids trying to take down a Goliath. David may get his clocked cleaned more times than not. I am actually assuming that the Aggressor is going to choose a Node they think they can win the War on before going to war. Makes sense to me. this makes sense to me as well, but their assumption might be wrong and they lose instead. also, sometimes people might just want to maintain peace for whatever reason. its possible that node wars rarely if ever happen in some servers.
Xeeg wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Xeeg wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Idk. Seems like your premise is based on the two nodes being equal in wealth, size, level distribution, etc. You can have some aggressive Davids trying to take down a Goliath. David may get his clocked cleaned more times than not. I am actually assuming that the Aggressor is going to choose a Node they think they can win the War on before going to war. Makes sense to me. this makes sense to me as well, but their assumption might be wrong and they lose instead. also, sometimes people might just want to maintain peace for whatever reason. its possible that node wars rarely if ever happen in some servers. True, but it seems like such a waste of time and resources on the Dev team for something that rarely occurs. I'd rather see Node Wars happening all the time but be of little consequence, than Node Wars being so impactful that people are afraid to do them because of it. Save that for the Node Sieges.
Depraved wrote: » i expect node sieges to happen once every month or 2 and wars to be more frequent, maybe once a week or very other week. the penalty for losing the war isn't as bad as the penalty for losing the siege I guess. disagree with penalties for the losers, only with rewards for the winners. penalty for the losers will surely make people stop trying and go to another node.
Xeeg wrote: » Depraved wrote: » i expect node sieges to happen once every month or 2 and wars to be more frequent, maybe once a week or very other week. the penalty for losing the war isn't as bad as the penalty for losing the siege I guess. disagree with penalties for the losers, only with rewards for the winners. penalty for the losers will surely make people stop trying and go to another node. Exactly... I was saying something like a -1% stat dampening debuff for 14 days as some kind of very weak punishment. But yeah we don't want the Node War loss to be a quit point for players because they are punished so badly, and were likely in a 1-sided war to begin with. Also, after a loss they shouldn't be able to get Warred on again until the debuff wears off, so 14 days Node War prevention after a loss.
nanfoodle wrote: » This is me speaking as someone who spent too much time playing DAoC and ESO. People get invested in this type of PvP. Losing becomes an insult that needs to be replied too. This is only compounded when you add advantages for winning and being knee capped for losing. I'm sure some servers may become complacent but my feeling is most servers will have very active node wars.
