wait what? so the 100 hours on a main are more valuable than the 100 hours on an alt, therefore the alt (lower value) should have a bigger impact in the event? what what? ok...
It doesn't have a bigger impact. I don't believe I've said that even a single time. It just should have AN impact.
now, lemme ask you, if you have 2 billions in l2, are you gonna use them trying to get an homu or emi +16 for ur alt or ++ your AM or draco for your main?
This comes back to what I said before. If you believe that increasing your main's strength will give you enough of a lead over your opponents - cool, do that and disregard the lowbie alts.
If I know that the war objectives give me 20 points for the war and I know that +1-3 on my weapon that takes all the money I have will not provide me those same 20 points (because my opponents are as strong as me, so a few % won't directly lead to a win) - I'll spend a big chunk of my money making sure that my alt can definitely earn those 20 points.
If you remember L2's seven signs festival, there were lvl bracketed instanced arenas with mob waves. On the servers I've played those were usually the battlefield of people who wanted to change the upcoming seven signs allegiance for whatever reason.
And you wanted some well-geared alts, if you planned on outfarming any of your potential contestants.
Take a look at how far from the original point you are now.
My point stems directly from my initial statement on this matter. I expect people to put time/money into alts, if they believe that their mains can't win the same amount of points for sure.
And I said that I like that design. You simply disagree and that is fine.
festivals were different in l2 because people would take years to level up..................................
but hey you didn't talk bout how there arent level brackets for olys :P a level 80-85 would absolutely stomp a lvl 76 in olys and that's more impactful than catas.
but hey you didn't talk bout how there arent level brackets for olys :P a level 80-85 would absolutely stomp a lvl 76 in olys and that's more impactful than catas.
1v1s were RPS in L2, so a 76 could in fact kill someone of a higher lvl. But even outside of that, Oly had a minimum requirement and then a range of lvls that could apply to participate.
If this suggestion was implemented, it would also have a minimum requirement and then a range of lvls. I'd imagine a lvl20 player would lose out to a lvl29 player more often than not, not much unlike from lvl76 in L2 losing to lvl80-85 in Oly.
Oly was also an end-game mechanic, while node wars not only don't have a lvl requirement to include player participants, but will also happen way before players reach max lvl (node stage3 and all that).
In other words, I haven't brought up Oly because it's way too different from wars. While seven signs are way closer. They influence all player participants, they include pve and pvp and they have a variety of "objectives" (that is the festival or just seal contributions).
And I personally liked the interactions of the festival, which is why I brought it up.
Oly was also an end-game mechanic, while node wars not only don't have a lvl requirement to include player participants, but will also happen way before players reach max lvl (node stage3 and all that).
Remember that last part isn't true (or if it is true now, please update me as to the source for that).
At least for wars, which would require two of them, nearby, at odds, I wouldn't expect more than 10 of these to be 'pre-maxlevel' on any server.
Remember that last part isn't true (or if it is true now, please update me as to the source for that).
At least for wars, which would require two of them, nearby, at odds, I wouldn't expect more than 10 of these to be 'pre-maxlevel' on any server.
We don't know the scale of requirements to declare a war, but considering even just the luck buff from the objectives - I 100% expect stronger guilds to do their best to declare a war against a node that has the loot they want, so that they can increase the pace of their gear acquisition.
At least that's what I'd do if I was in their shoes.
As for the stage 3 part, I'd need to relisten to this stream in case they cleared up when we can declare, but if sieges can start from stage 3, I'd assume it's the same for wars? In fact, my lights are back for some reason, so I'll go relisten real quick
Remember that last part isn't true (or if it is true now, please update me as to the source for that).
At least for wars, which would require two of them, nearby, at odds, I wouldn't expect more than 10 of these to be 'pre-maxlevel' on any server.
We don't know the scale of requirements to declare a war, but considering even just the luck buff from the objectives - I 100% expect stronger guilds to do their best to declare a war against a node that has the loot they want, so that they can increase the pace of their gear acquisition.
At least that's what I'd do if I was in their shoes.
As for the stage 3 part, I'd need to relisten to this stream in case they cleared up when we can declare, but if sieges can start from stage 3, I'd assume it's the same for wars? In fact, my lights are back for some reason, so I'll go relisten real quick
No, I'm referring to the whole:
The developers estimate that players will reach level cap before a quarter of nodes reach Village (stage 3).[1]
The developers estimate that players will reach level cap before a quarter of nodes reach Village (stage 3).[1]
Ahhh, that. Yeah, I forgot about that one. But from how Steven was talking, I took it as more of a "yeah, there'll obviously be people that rush 50 no matter what, and those people will get to max before most nodes level up". But that's like a few guilds, at most, out of a dozen thousand people.
Also, I'd assume his assumption is based on the people psychology of "I want the path of least resistance for my progression", and considering how the nodes will work will be "there's 4 nodes near 4 starting gates that got the most XP and leveled up the most, so majority of people are giving even more XP to those nodes because their content is of higher lvl and it's easier to farm there than trying to build up another node".
But yes, my wording was incorrect there. I should've said "most people reach max lvl (or at least even 50%)".
If this suggestion was implemented, it would also have a minimum requirement and then a range of lvls. I'd imagine a lvl20 player would lose out to a lvl29 player more often than not, not much unlike from lvl76 in L2 losing to lvl80-85 in Oly.
Yeah maybe instead of the brackets I suggested it could be lvl 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50
Level 10s and low 20s probably should still be learning the game and not trying to cap objectives in a Node War. Level 25 is when you first get secondary class augments and a 5 level spread is probably better for this.
The developers estimate that players will reach level cap before a quarter of nodes reach Village (stage 3).[1]
Yeah that doesn't line up with 250 hours to max level and only a few days to progress a Node to level 3...
its because people will concentrate in a few nodes to level them up and be able to spawn higher level stuff and get exp. if you didn't do this, you would be stuck at level 30 doing level 10 content, for example. because there arent enough people in your node to level it up.
Well, another thing you could do is add some apparatus on the field that takes multiple people to operate (a catapult for example). You could then task your lowbie players to man it (multiplying their overall output and contribution) and then assign your higher level players to more direct combat tasks.
Actually this idea is good and I've seen it implemented in other games. Basically something like static defences or set objects with a predetermined DPS/HOTS designed to keep up with max level characters with decent gear.
My point stems directly from my initial statement on this matter. I expect people to put time/money into alts, if they believe that their mains can't win the same amount of points for sure.
And I said that I like that design. You simply disagree and that is fine.
Your argument isn't that they should put time/money in to alts, even if you think it is.
I have no issue at all in asking people to have alts - I have done it in every game, and have very few people in my guild that only ever play one character.
The problem - and the thing your suggestion would demand of players - is specifically limiting the vertical progression of those alts.
That is bad.
Also, your argument now is more along the lines of "players 'could' spend a lot of time and money on these alts so that low level non-alt characters on the opposing side have literally no chance at all against them, and this is all good and fair because of unstated reasons".
If you are going to set up a system where theoretical new players have no chance of winning in a siege due to geared out alts, why even bother with the whole thing?
The end result is the same from the perspective of that new player.
The only thing this does is encourage players to maintain a stable of characters at various levels in order to be able to maximize efforts during a war, which again, asking players to play a low level alt instead of their main is bad game design - that player considers it their main for a reason.
Also, your argument now is more along the lines of "players 'could' spend a lot of time and money on these alts so that low level non-alt characters on the opposing side have literally no chance at all against them, and this is all good and fair because of unstated reasons".
I've already said, those newbies would need to talk to highbies who have the good lowbie gear. This would not only build relationships between people, but would also allow those highbies to not log into their alts, while still having the lowbie objective in their pocket.
Also, your argument now is more along the lines of "players 'could' spend a lot of time and money on these alts so that low level non-alt characters on the opposing side have literally no chance at all against them, and this is all good and fair because of unstated reasons".
I've already said, those newbies would need to talk to highbies who have the good lowbie gear. This would not only build relationships between people, but would also allow those highbies to not log into their alts, while still having the lowbie objective in their pocket.
Everything about this is bad.
It will not go how you are thinking it will go.
Low level players aren't going to ask high level players for good gear - and if they did, high level players are going to say no.
If it becomes normal for high level players to give low level players good gear (it won't, talking a hypothetical), then players are just going to ask those high level players for that gear on alts.
If Ashes crafting and economy is anything at all like Archeages (literally everything so far points to it being so), then that low level item can be improved to a high level item, and as a player takes this item through that process, the enchanting state carries through. Thus that low level highly enchanted item can be turned in to a high level highly enchanted item without the cost of enchanting it - as that is already done.
Just everything about what you are talking about in this thread is bad. It asks players to do things they shouldn't be asked to do (use low level characters instead of their main for something important to their main), it assumes players will do something that there is no real reason to assume players will do (hand over good low level gear to players they do not know), and it sets the few actual new players this game may have up to think they have a shot when they really don't (people new to the game taking what gear they can scrounge going up against people that know the game and have hand picked the best equipment).
It is a mercy to literally every group of players involved in this to just not do any of it. The low level players are better off being either put up against those players at the level cap, or asked to sit it out and spend the time leveling due to the fact that they have no chance against level 50 players.
Literally a better solution to every player involved.
It is a mercy to literally every group of players involved in this to just not do any of it. The low level players are better off being either put up against those players at the level cap, or asked to sit it out and spend the time leveling due to the fact that they have no chance against level 50 players.
Literally a better solution to every player involved.
I don't think so. Let's imagine this scenario and tell me if you think I'm out to lunch:
You are a level 32 citizen of Miraleth. Losestead declares war on your Node because... They are losers! Everyone knows that.
Your plan after work on this Thursday night was to party with that dope Mage and Fighter u been wrecking up a nice grind spot with and get some midnight ore spawns that you need to level up your gathering and make some cash. You figure that you can make about 50% of your way to level 33 in a couple hours with these guys, get a few skill ups in gathering, and net about 30g worth of glint or so.
Suddenly you check your map and you see that the Node War has been declared. There is an Objective Party UI that shows 2 active Objectives in your level bracket. One party is already filled up, and the other has a couple people in it. Objective timer shows that it will start in 23 minutes, at 7pm. Objective expected to last 10-60mins, grants 30% of a level and 15g. Might be a cakewalk, balanced PVP fight, or might be a group of enemy 50s pointing at the soap on the ground and gesturing to you, you don't know yet. Even if you lose the Objective, as long as you are active and participating in it during the time frame, you still get the reward.
Turns out that the Objective is close to the grind spot you were going to. Worth giving it a shot?
It is a mercy to literally every group of players involved in this to just not do any of it. The low level players are better off being either put up against those players at the level cap, or asked to sit it out and spend the time leveling due to the fact that they have no chance against level 50 players.
Literally a better solution to every player involved.
I don't think so. Let's imagine this scenario and tell me if you think I'm out to lunch:
What you are talking about here and what NiKr are talking about are very different things.
Your scenario is much closer to what I have said should happen than to what he said.
That said, I do not like the notion of participation rewards that you have in your scenario.
That said, I do not like the notion of participation rewards that you have in your scenario.
The main function of "Participation Rewards" is to create the finite reward. Similar to zerging a boss and only getting a couple items to share, the Risk vs Reward system is based on finite rewards.
So it is actually an exclusionary reward system, only a few can participate. Everyone else doesn't get a reward. If they zerg it they are wasting their time and could be doing something more productive.
The only time more people can participate is when team vs team matches are made and the Aggressor and Defender Nodes have people willing to attack and defend. So it is a somewhat self balancing system as well, capable of expanding from very small Node Wars to very big Node Wars while maintaining the Risk vs Reward.
So it is actually an exclusionary reward system, only a few can participate
That is still a reward for participation.
Look at an open world raid boss, many may participate, but only some of those will get any loot. If your raid isn't the one dealing the most damage, then no one in your raid gets anything.
Rewards should come from being successful, not from participating. The fact that the number that can participate is limited does not mean everyone participating should be rewarded.
If there is an objective for a node war, there should be no experience, wealth or material reward for it. The reward is in the initiating side of the war getting the thing they want, or in the defending side not losing what the attacker is after.
That should be the only reason for participating in a war.
If there is an objective for a node war, there should be no experienc, wealth or material reward for it. The reward is in the initiating side of the war getting the thing they want, or in the defending side not losing what the attacker is after.
That should be the only reason for participating in a war.
Meh, if that's the case then Node Wars prolly ain't for me. I'll just go join a big Node and leech off their success while I go do other things with my time. Sounds like communism.
If there is an objective for a node war, there should be no experienc, wealth or material reward for it. The reward is in the initiating side of the war getting the thing they want, or in the defending side not losing what the attacker is after.
That should be the only reason for participating in a war.
Meh, if that's the case then Node Wars prolly ain't for me. I'll just go join a big Node and leech off their success while I go do other things with my time. Sounds like communism.
I mean, character progression isn't the point of node wars.
The point of a node war is that a rival node has decided they want to claim a part of your node so that they get experience for any activity within it, or they want to destroy a service in your node, or they want to instil a mayor of their own in your node for a day - the point of defending against a war is to stop these things happening.
Stopping that happening could be the difference between your node being a parent or a vassal. This aspect of them being something you may need to participate in just to maintain the status quo makes them more akin to sieges than to any content you would participate in for progression.
I mean, character progression isn't the point of node wars.
The point of a node war is that a rival node has decided they want to claim a part of your node so that they get experience for any activity within it, or they want to destroy a service in your node, or they want to instil a mayor of their own in your node for a day - the point of defending against a war is to stop these things happening.
Stopping that happening could be the difference between your node being a parent or a vassal. This aspect of them being something you may need to participate in just to maintain the status quo makes them more akin to sieges than to any content you would participate in for progression.
I doubt it. If they are declaring war on our node they likely already know they got us beat in a 1v1 Node situation or they wouldn't waste their time and resources doing it. As I said before, most Node Wars will (and arguably should) be 1 sided victories for the Aggressor, otherwise they are idiots or people will just stop doing them.
I'd rather see node wars happening all the time. A couple always active on the map somewhere basically. Just no land stealing or any of that stuff. Keep the punishments simple and small. Maybe 5% node contribution leech.
Punishing players for things way outside their control is bad game design in my opinion. Expecting that to be "motivation" for suiciding into an unbalanced node war, and still getting punished, is even worse.
I doubt it. If they are declaring war on our node they likely already know they got us beat in a 1v1 Node situation or they wouldn't waste their time and resources doing it.
This is pure speculation.
We don't know specifically what every win condition will be, or if there will be weighting of any form.
Punishing players for things way outside their control is bad game design in my opinion. Expecting that to be "motivation" for suiciding into an unbalanced node war, and still getting punished, is even worse.
Agreed - which is why I don't believe that they will be as one sided as has been discussed.
I mean, we both see that it would be bad game design if node wars were heavily weighted to the initiator winning most of the time, so we should probably both assume that Intrepid won't implment them in that way.
The fact that we don't know how they will achieve this now doesn't mean we shouldn't assume they will come up with something.
I mean, we both see that it would be bad game design if node wars were heavily weighted to the initiator winning most of the time, so we should probably both assume that Intrepid won't implment them in that way.
Actually I think the opposite, I think that is good game design. Because otherwise no one is ever going to start a Node War. Why go through all the time and effort to start a Node War that you think you might lose on? Then you paid node resources, wasted player commissions and bought a scroll just to give THEM your land and stuff? That's insanity.
You do this twice in a row and your citizens will fire u if you try to do another Node War commission.
Again, I'd rather see more node wars happening, not less. They put all the time and effort into this system, let's see it on a regular basis. If it's mostly upsides then it can compete with other activities you could be doing, such as professions, raiding, levelling or farming mobs.
That said, I do not like the notion of participation rewards that you have in your scenario.
The main function of "Participation Rewards" is to create the finite reward. Similar to zerging a boss and only getting a couple items to share, the Risk vs Reward system is based on finite rewards.
So it is actually an exclusionary reward system, only a few can participate. Everyone else doesn't get a reward. If they zerg it they are wasting their time and could be doing something more productive.
The only time more people can participate is when team vs team matches are made and the Aggressor and Defender Nodes have people willing to attack and defend. So it is a somewhat self balancing system as well, capable of expanding from very small Node Wars to very big Node Wars while maintaining the Risk vs Reward.
here will be incentives to participate. so even if you get rolled as a level 30, you can still participate. also, the other node might have level 30s as well
I don't think we are in favor of excluding lowbies. we are just against being forced to use lowbie alts instead of our mains.
Punishing players for things way outside their control is bad game design in my opinion. Expecting that to be "motivation" for suiciding into an unbalanced node war, and still getting punished, is even worse.
Actually I think the opposite, I think that is good game design. Because otherwise no one is ever going to start a Node War.
I don't follow your logic here.
You think that node wars will need to be one sided in order for one side to start them, but you also don't see it being good design to put players (defenders) in a suicidal position as being good game design.
WIth that in mind, your conclusion is particpation rewards, rather than fixing broken things?
To me, the best way forward is to have a system where by the reward for winning a war is worth declaring them (though not all the time - a mayor probably shouldn't be declaring more than one in a given term), but also making it where it is perfectly reasonable for a node that has had war declared on them to expect to be able to win.
Making the above statements true is good game deisgn - designing with the pre-existing assumption that the attacker will mostly win is defeatist product development.
If that was an assumption Intrepid had going in to developing node wars, they would have scraped them.
Punishing players for things way outside their control is bad game design in my opinion. Expecting that to be "motivation" for suiciding into an unbalanced node war, and still getting punished, is even worse.
Actually I think the opposite, I think that is good game design. Because otherwise no one is ever going to start a Node War.
I don't follow your logic here.
You think that node wars will need to be one sided in order for one side to start them, but you also don't see it being good design to put players (defenders) in a suicidal position as being good game design.
WIth that in mind, your conclusion is particpation rewards, rather than fixing broken things?
First off, the logic is that there shouldn't be a huge punishment for the defenders if they lose. This is if we expect the attackers to win most of the time, which I am assuming.
If that's the case, then the participation reward is the main incentive for both sides to try regardless of whether or not they think they can win or lose. But yeah it still might lead to suicides into zerg balls so it isn't the greatest solution. We are dealing with open world PVP here so we really shouldn't expect even teams to occur naturally at all.
However, one thing I wasn't thinking about last night is that maybe the attackers don't lose anything if they lose the Node War. Like maybe it is only the defenders that can lose land and resources and stuff. If that's the case then the risk for the attackers is just the resources to declare war. They could still lose most of their wars and be worth the attempt. I would assume a defender's advantage in this setup.
To me, the best way forward is to have a system where by the reward for winning a war is worth declaring them (though not all the time - a mayor probably shouldn't be declaring more than one in a given term), but also making it where it is perfectly reasonable for a node that has had war declared on them to expect to be able to win.
Making the above statements true is good game deisgn - designing with the pre-existing assumption that the attacker will mostly win is defeatist product development.
If that was an assumption Intrepid had going in to developing node wars, they would have scraped them.
Well at any rate, however the game is designed it will either end up being in the attacker's favour or the defender's favour. There is no way to guarantee even teams without instanced lobbies, or pvp flags or some game system that is forcing it. Even the system I am proposing doesn't force even fights, it just nudges some reward system in that direction.
So if one side is more likely to lose by game design, then they shouldn't punish players from that node too harshly.
If your idea is that this system will naturally produce 100% fair and balanced pvp with even numbers on both sides and an unknown outcome I'd love to see the explanation for how that will occur when one Node has 400 people online that evening and the other Node has 120 people online.
If Ashes crafting and economy is anything at all like Archeages (literally everything so far points to it being so), then that low level item can be improved to a high level item, and as a player takes this item through that process, the enchanting state carries through. Thus that low level highly enchanted item can be turned in to a high level highly enchanted item without the cost of enchanting it - as that is already done.
Could you disassemble the lowbie item into parts that you could use for highbie items, while they kept their enhancements?
If not, then what exactly has pointed you to thinking that AoC's crafting system will be the same?
I think the suggestion in the OP, as it currently is, is overthinking the issue and taking away some agency from players. I understand the suggestion is not just about the levels, but also about adding some shorter, quick events to join.
I think we should see multiple event zones like Highwayman Hills from the stream happen simultaneously during a single nodewar. The level of NPCs in those event areas are already determined by the node level and the world manager system before the war starts. Ideally those different event areas will have different level NPCs, so several level brackets have level-relevant content in them.
Highwayman Hills might forever stay as a lvl 15-20 area, also during nodewars. Another event area in the same nodewar might be for lvl 30-40 content. For nodewars between villages and towns, we might rarely or never see a lvl 50 event area.
Having multiple different levels of event areas solves the whole issue of having content for lower level players.
Each event area gives area-level personal rewards for participation. A level 20 could try their hand in a lvl 50 event area, but their personal contribution might not be high enough to really make it worth it. Inversely, a level 50 going to the lvl 15 highwayman hills event might do well for the war effort, but their personal reward would be really low. And even if a lot of lvl 50s come to the highwayman hills event areas, the lvl 20s there can still kill the mobs and participate well in the PvE, even if at a disadvantage in the PvP aspect. At least the NPCs won't be one-shotting them. It's not going to be very balanced, but that's ok.
Since the events should be simultaneous, it's up to the players to organise and decide where to go. If too many lvl 50s go to the low level event areas, the enemy node might win the higher level events. The incentives from a personal reward standpoint should always be to go to the closest level-relevant area.
I think the suggestion in the OP, as it currently is, is overthinking the issue and taking away some agency from players. I understand the suggestion is not just about the levels, but also about adding some shorter, quick events to join.
Definitely overthinking the issue lol. And yes, taking away some player agency, but for a good cause!
At the core of what I am trying to do is use incentives to direct the player base to some kind of balanced PVP scenarios, while still allowing the Node Wars to be as imbalanced as the other side wants.
Part of this design is to use the "Finite Reward" style argument that Steven recently used when answering "Why don't players just zerg the bosses and render the boss mechanics trivial?"
The answer was that they absolutely CAN just zerg the boss and render the boss mechanics trivial.
However, there will only be a few items dropping from the boss, so you bring more players but the loot stays finite. At some point players are suffering an opportunity cost for zerging. Instead of being on that boss run, they could be running a caravan, or doing a node war, or gathering mats etc. They ain't getting any reward from this boss run.
Same goes for this system. You can zerg the node war, but only Objective Parties get individual player rewards for being in the node war. So at some point the extra players might just decide to do something else unless they just want to ensure the win.
The whole level bracket thing is kind of arbitrary, but people have been talking about how Ashes' "End game shouldn't be the real game" and so I combined it in with the overall Objective Party System.
If Ashes crafting and economy is anything at all like Archeages (literally everything so far points to it being so), then that low level item can be improved to a high level item, and as a player takes this item through that process, the enchanting state carries through. Thus that low level highly enchanted item can be turned in to a high level highly enchanted item without the cost of enchanting it - as that is already done.
Could you disassemble the lowbie item into parts that you could use for highbie items, while they kept their enhancements?
If not, then what exactly has pointed you to thinking that AoC's crafting system will be the same?
No, the low level item was already a component for a high level item.
In order to make a level 50 long sword, the first component in the recipe was a level 40 long sword, as well as a few other items. In order to make a level 40 long sword, the first component was a level 30 long sword, as well as a few other items.
You also could deconstruct items in order to vet some of the material components back. However, it isn't the deconstruction of items for components that I think is the reason my above statement will be true - it is the comment that low level materials will be of use to high level crafters. Requiring lower level items (going all the way back to level 1 crafted items, if desired) is an obvious way of doing this that will be at the front of Steven's mind.
Making this the case also makes it worth enchanting items at low levels, where as if you are just leveling up normally and dont have the above aystem, replacing the item is going to net better results every time.
I know you will want to say "but in L2..." but try and remember that L2 is a pretty bad game for everything other than PvP.
Comments
festivals were different in l2 because people would take years to level up..................................
but hey you didn't talk bout how there arent level brackets for olys :P a level 80-85 would absolutely stomp a lvl 76 in olys and that's more impactful than catas.
If this suggestion was implemented, it would also have a minimum requirement and then a range of lvls. I'd imagine a lvl20 player would lose out to a lvl29 player more often than not, not much unlike from lvl76 in L2 losing to lvl80-85 in Oly.
Oly was also an end-game mechanic, while node wars not only don't have a lvl requirement to include player participants, but will also happen way before players reach max lvl (node stage3 and all that).
In other words, I haven't brought up Oly because it's way too different from wars. While seven signs are way closer. They influence all player participants, they include pve and pvp and they have a variety of "objectives" (that is the festival or just seal contributions).
And I personally liked the interactions of the festival, which is why I brought it up.
Remember that last part isn't true (or if it is true now, please update me as to the source for that).
At least for wars, which would require two of them, nearby, at odds, I wouldn't expect more than 10 of these to be 'pre-maxlevel' on any server.
At least that's what I'd do if I was in their shoes.
As for the stage 3 part, I'd need to relisten to this stream in case they cleared up when we can declare, but if sieges can start from stage 3, I'd assume it's the same for wars? In fact, my lights are back for some reason, so I'll go relisten real quick
No, I'm referring to the whole:
The developers estimate that players will reach level cap before a quarter of nodes reach Village (stage 3).[1]
Yeah that doesn't line up with 250 hours to max level and only a few days to progress a Node to level 3...
Also, I'd assume his assumption is based on the people psychology of "I want the path of least resistance for my progression", and considering how the nodes will work will be "there's 4 nodes near 4 starting gates that got the most XP and leveled up the most, so majority of people are giving even more XP to those nodes because their content is of higher lvl and it's easier to farm there than trying to build up another node".
But yes, my wording was incorrect there. I should've said "most people reach max lvl (or at least even 50%)".
Yeah maybe instead of the brackets I suggested it could be lvl 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50
Level 10s and low 20s probably should still be learning the game and not trying to cap objectives in a Node War. Level 25 is when you first get secondary class augments and a 5 level spread is probably better for this.
its because people will concentrate in a few nodes to level them up and be able to spawn higher level stuff and get exp. if you didn't do this, you would be stuck at level 30 doing level 10 content, for example. because there arent enough people in your node to level it up.
Actually this idea is good and I've seen it implemented in other games. Basically something like static defences or set objects with a predetermined DPS/HOTS designed to keep up with max level characters with decent gear.
Your argument isn't that they should put time/money in to alts, even if you think it is.
I have no issue at all in asking people to have alts - I have done it in every game, and have very few people in my guild that only ever play one character.
The problem - and the thing your suggestion would demand of players - is specifically limiting the vertical progression of those alts.
That is bad.
Also, your argument now is more along the lines of "players 'could' spend a lot of time and money on these alts so that low level non-alt characters on the opposing side have literally no chance at all against them, and this is all good and fair because of unstated reasons".
If you are going to set up a system where theoretical new players have no chance of winning in a siege due to geared out alts, why even bother with the whole thing?
The end result is the same from the perspective of that new player.
The only thing this does is encourage players to maintain a stable of characters at various levels in order to be able to maximize efforts during a war, which again, asking players to play a low level alt instead of their main is bad game design - that player considers it their main for a reason.
Go level.
Everything about this is bad.
It will not go how you are thinking it will go.
Low level players aren't going to ask high level players for good gear - and if they did, high level players are going to say no.
If it becomes normal for high level players to give low level players good gear (it won't, talking a hypothetical), then players are just going to ask those high level players for that gear on alts.
If Ashes crafting and economy is anything at all like Archeages (literally everything so far points to it being so), then that low level item can be improved to a high level item, and as a player takes this item through that process, the enchanting state carries through. Thus that low level highly enchanted item can be turned in to a high level highly enchanted item without the cost of enchanting it - as that is already done.
Just everything about what you are talking about in this thread is bad. It asks players to do things they shouldn't be asked to do (use low level characters instead of their main for something important to their main), it assumes players will do something that there is no real reason to assume players will do (hand over good low level gear to players they do not know), and it sets the few actual new players this game may have up to think they have a shot when they really don't (people new to the game taking what gear they can scrounge going up against people that know the game and have hand picked the best equipment).
It is a mercy to literally every group of players involved in this to just not do any of it. The low level players are better off being either put up against those players at the level cap, or asked to sit it out and spend the time leveling due to the fact that they have no chance against level 50 players.
Literally a better solution to every player involved.
I don't think so. Let's imagine this scenario and tell me if you think I'm out to lunch:
You are a level 32 citizen of Miraleth. Losestead declares war on your Node because... They are losers! Everyone knows that.
Your plan after work on this Thursday night was to party with that dope Mage and Fighter u been wrecking up a nice grind spot with and get some midnight ore spawns that you need to level up your gathering and make some cash. You figure that you can make about 50% of your way to level 33 in a couple hours with these guys, get a few skill ups in gathering, and net about 30g worth of glint or so.
Suddenly you check your map and you see that the Node War has been declared. There is an Objective Party UI that shows 2 active Objectives in your level bracket. One party is already filled up, and the other has a couple people in it. Objective timer shows that it will start in 23 minutes, at 7pm. Objective expected to last 10-60mins, grants 30% of a level and 15g. Might be a cakewalk, balanced PVP fight, or might be a group of enemy 50s pointing at the soap on the ground and gesturing to you, you don't know yet. Even if you lose the Objective, as long as you are active and participating in it during the time frame, you still get the reward.
Turns out that the Objective is close to the grind spot you were going to. Worth giving it a shot?
Your scenario is much closer to what I have said should happen than to what he said.
That said, I do not like the notion of participation rewards that you have in your scenario.
The main function of "Participation Rewards" is to create the finite reward. Similar to zerging a boss and only getting a couple items to share, the Risk vs Reward system is based on finite rewards.
So it is actually an exclusionary reward system, only a few can participate. Everyone else doesn't get a reward. If they zerg it they are wasting their time and could be doing something more productive.
The only time more people can participate is when team vs team matches are made and the Aggressor and Defender Nodes have people willing to attack and defend. So it is a somewhat self balancing system as well, capable of expanding from very small Node Wars to very big Node Wars while maintaining the Risk vs Reward.
Look at an open world raid boss, many may participate, but only some of those will get any loot. If your raid isn't the one dealing the most damage, then no one in your raid gets anything.
Rewards should come from being successful, not from participating. The fact that the number that can participate is limited does not mean everyone participating should be rewarded.
If there is an objective for a node war, there should be no experience, wealth or material reward for it. The reward is in the initiating side of the war getting the thing they want, or in the defending side not losing what the attacker is after.
That should be the only reason for participating in a war.
Meh, if that's the case then Node Wars prolly ain't for me. I'll just go join a big Node and leech off their success while I go do other things with my time. Sounds like communism.
I mean, character progression isn't the point of node wars.
The point of a node war is that a rival node has decided they want to claim a part of your node so that they get experience for any activity within it, or they want to destroy a service in your node, or they want to instil a mayor of their own in your node for a day - the point of defending against a war is to stop these things happening.
Stopping that happening could be the difference between your node being a parent or a vassal. This aspect of them being something you may need to participate in just to maintain the status quo makes them more akin to sieges than to any content you would participate in for progression.
I doubt it. If they are declaring war on our node they likely already know they got us beat in a 1v1 Node situation or they wouldn't waste their time and resources doing it. As I said before, most Node Wars will (and arguably should) be 1 sided victories for the Aggressor, otherwise they are idiots or people will just stop doing them.
I'd rather see node wars happening all the time. A couple always active on the map somewhere basically. Just no land stealing or any of that stuff. Keep the punishments simple and small. Maybe 5% node contribution leech.
Punishing players for things way outside their control is bad game design in my opinion. Expecting that to be "motivation" for suiciding into an unbalanced node war, and still getting punished, is even worse.
We don't know specifically what every win condition will be, or if there will be weighting of any form. Agreed - which is why I don't believe that they will be as one sided as has been discussed.
I mean, we both see that it would be bad game design if node wars were heavily weighted to the initiator winning most of the time, so we should probably both assume that Intrepid won't implment them in that way.
The fact that we don't know how they will achieve this now doesn't mean we shouldn't assume they will come up with something.
Actually I think the opposite, I think that is good game design. Because otherwise no one is ever going to start a Node War. Why go through all the time and effort to start a Node War that you think you might lose on? Then you paid node resources, wasted player commissions and bought a scroll just to give THEM your land and stuff? That's insanity.
You do this twice in a row and your citizens will fire u if you try to do another Node War commission.
Again, I'd rather see more node wars happening, not less. They put all the time and effort into this system, let's see it on a regular basis. If it's mostly upsides then it can compete with other activities you could be doing, such as professions, raiding, levelling or farming mobs.
here will be incentives to participate. so even if you get rolled as a level 30, you can still participate. also, the other node might have level 30s as well
I don't think we are in favor of excluding lowbies. we are just against being forced to use lowbie alts instead of our mains.
You think that node wars will need to be one sided in order for one side to start them, but you also don't see it being good design to put players (defenders) in a suicidal position as being good game design.
WIth that in mind, your conclusion is particpation rewards, rather than fixing broken things?
To me, the best way forward is to have a system where by the reward for winning a war is worth declaring them (though not all the time - a mayor probably shouldn't be declaring more than one in a given term), but also making it where it is perfectly reasonable for a node that has had war declared on them to expect to be able to win.
Making the above statements true is good game deisgn - designing with the pre-existing assumption that the attacker will mostly win is defeatist product development.
If that was an assumption Intrepid had going in to developing node wars, they would have scraped them.
First off, the logic is that there shouldn't be a huge punishment for the defenders if they lose. This is if we expect the attackers to win most of the time, which I am assuming.
If that's the case, then the participation reward is the main incentive for both sides to try regardless of whether or not they think they can win or lose. But yeah it still might lead to suicides into zerg balls so it isn't the greatest solution. We are dealing with open world PVP here so we really shouldn't expect even teams to occur naturally at all.
However, one thing I wasn't thinking about last night is that maybe the attackers don't lose anything if they lose the Node War. Like maybe it is only the defenders that can lose land and resources and stuff. If that's the case then the risk for the attackers is just the resources to declare war. They could still lose most of their wars and be worth the attempt. I would assume a defender's advantage in this setup.
Well at any rate, however the game is designed it will either end up being in the attacker's favour or the defender's favour. There is no way to guarantee even teams without instanced lobbies, or pvp flags or some game system that is forcing it. Even the system I am proposing doesn't force even fights, it just nudges some reward system in that direction.
So if one side is more likely to lose by game design, then they shouldn't punish players from that node too harshly.
If your idea is that this system will naturally produce 100% fair and balanced pvp with even numbers on both sides and an unknown outcome I'd love to see the explanation for how that will occur when one Node has 400 people online that evening and the other Node has 120 people online.
If not, then what exactly has pointed you to thinking that AoC's crafting system will be the same?
I think we should see multiple event zones like Highwayman Hills from the stream happen simultaneously during a single nodewar. The level of NPCs in those event areas are already determined by the node level and the world manager system before the war starts. Ideally those different event areas will have different level NPCs, so several level brackets have level-relevant content in them.
Highwayman Hills might forever stay as a lvl 15-20 area, also during nodewars. Another event area in the same nodewar might be for lvl 30-40 content. For nodewars between villages and towns, we might rarely or never see a lvl 50 event area.
Having multiple different levels of event areas solves the whole issue of having content for lower level players.
Each event area gives area-level personal rewards for participation. A level 20 could try their hand in a lvl 50 event area, but their personal contribution might not be high enough to really make it worth it. Inversely, a level 50 going to the lvl 15 highwayman hills event might do well for the war effort, but their personal reward would be really low. And even if a lot of lvl 50s come to the highwayman hills event areas, the lvl 20s there can still kill the mobs and participate well in the PvE, even if at a disadvantage in the PvP aspect. At least the NPCs won't be one-shotting them. It's not going to be very balanced, but that's ok.
Since the events should be simultaneous, it's up to the players to organise and decide where to go. If too many lvl 50s go to the low level event areas, the enemy node might win the higher level events. The incentives from a personal reward standpoint should always be to go to the closest level-relevant area.
Definitely overthinking the issue lol. And yes, taking away some player agency, but for a good cause!
At the core of what I am trying to do is use incentives to direct the player base to some kind of balanced PVP scenarios, while still allowing the Node Wars to be as imbalanced as the other side wants.
Part of this design is to use the "Finite Reward" style argument that Steven recently used when answering "Why don't players just zerg the bosses and render the boss mechanics trivial?"
The answer was that they absolutely CAN just zerg the boss and render the boss mechanics trivial.
However, there will only be a few items dropping from the boss, so you bring more players but the loot stays finite. At some point players are suffering an opportunity cost for zerging. Instead of being on that boss run, they could be running a caravan, or doing a node war, or gathering mats etc. They ain't getting any reward from this boss run.
Same goes for this system. You can zerg the node war, but only Objective Parties get individual player rewards for being in the node war. So at some point the extra players might just decide to do something else unless they just want to ensure the win.
The whole level bracket thing is kind of arbitrary, but people have been talking about how Ashes' "End game shouldn't be the real game" and so I combined it in with the overall Objective Party System.
No, the low level item was already a component for a high level item.
In order to make a level 50 long sword, the first component in the recipe was a level 40 long sword, as well as a few other items. In order to make a level 40 long sword, the first component was a level 30 long sword, as well as a few other items.
You also could deconstruct items in order to vet some of the material components back. However, it isn't the deconstruction of items for components that I think is the reason my above statement will be true - it is the comment that low level materials will be of use to high level crafters. Requiring lower level items (going all the way back to level 1 crafted items, if desired) is an obvious way of doing this that will be at the front of Steven's mind.
Making this the case also makes it worth enchanting items at low levels, where as if you are just leveling up normally and dont have the above aystem, replacing the item is going to net better results every time.
I know you will want to say "but in L2..." but try and remember that L2 is a pretty bad game for everything other than PvP.