Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

All posts created by Azure_Zero

Azure_Zero
Talonguard has a Ghostwood split recipe it can trade, 2 armoursmith codexes will be the price as I'm trying to upgrade the Talonguard armoursmith building.
Azure_Zero
Well that hex has been cleared of Nhur, now the Emeralds
Azure_Zero
Well I will say, I do agree that it is odd for lighter armors to naturally have energy resistance.
But we have to remember this is a Fantasy setting, so that law of realism could be bent or broken some for the game to keep things in order and balanced.
(I could see folks being fine up to a max of 50% cut in energy resistances, but it'll require some new defense feats that can stack with other feats, unlike now where there is no stacking)

I've played using many armours against a number of different mobs, and I can say that a shift of resistances from one armour class to another has a big impact in survivability.
Try using heavy armour against Razmirians and you'll be cut like swiss cheese, while the Medium and Light armours offer the best survivability against them and pretty much every T2 and higher mob.
Heck even wizards have high survivability because pretty much every attack from a T2 or higher mob is energy based.

But right now, there is an issue, I've heard of with enchanting, mainly the mats.
Mats for stuff that'll make it's way to enchanting breakable stuff is freaking rare,
while the mats to make stuff that'll hardly see combat are plentiful.
That doesn't make sense if we are going to use enchanting for breakable items like armour.
Which means if GW wants to follow there plan, it'll need to open the valves on the enchantment mats a bit or a lot more.

Now I will say that the current energy resistance formula from enchanting, sucks, if the formula was
(Armour +(X+1)) * Resistance(Static of value of +4) * (Armour Type Value)
Armour Type = (1 for Heavy, 1.5 for Medium, 2 for Light, 2.5 for Cloth)
Then it'd make enchanting the lighter armours better and worth putting the energy resistance at +0 on the armours.
This way even a +0 Heavy armour get +4 resistance, while the +0 Cloth gets +10 resistance.
While there +5 versions are +24 and +60 respectively.
Azure_Zero
Hey GoblinWorks

I know OE 2.1 is coming

But I think this point should of been discussed with the player base.

Bob (OE 2.1 thread)
….

Miscellaneous:
  • Energy Resistance on all non-heavy armors has been reduced by 25% and will be steadily removed over time to make room for the increased energy resistance proved to lighter armors by enchantments.
  • …..

Now this is a major change, and SHOULD OF BEEN discussed with the players, before going in….
Especially if the plan is to entirely remove all energy resistances and force enchanting to get those energy resistances.
If that is the plan, congrats, you killed off a number of classes and cheesed off paying players, which means players will leave the game, killing it.
Now the most I'd say could be done with out messing up the classes and cheesing players, is about 25% to 33% off of energy resistances to the cloth, light and medium armours, and NO more.
Furthermore NEVER FORCE the NEED for ENCHANTING on Armours to get resistances they had before ya Nerf it to zero, it just leaves one heck of a bad taste in a player's mouth and that Goblinworks would do a move that'd start to make EA look good.

The Energy Resistance of non-heavy armours should of been discussed/crowd-forged before this change was put in the OE 2.1,
But I can see a bit from GW's angle, if you SUM the resistances together, the lighter the armour, the higher the SUM total, and means your beefer against more things especially At T2 and above mobs, and it's WAY easier to get a Physical Resistance Buff with Defensive feats, or via an armour feat.
(kinda sucks defensive and armour feats don't stack, but it's somewhat understandable).

And if you Look at the armours characters tend to be wearing, NO ONE is wearing Heavy Armour at all.
The Fighters and Clerics are in Medium in some cases Light armour,
the Rogues are doing Light or Medium if cross trained with either Cleric or Fighter,
the Wizards are using Cloth armour or Light armour if crossed with Rogue since Light armour has the Least impact of Arcane spell failure to Arcane attacks.

So I can see the need to get players looking at the Heavy armour, but GW is doing it the WRONG way if you nerf to energy to 0 and force enchantments.
The Best way to get Heavy armours back in the game (without a bad taste) is to start having MOBS that do High purely Physical Damage And is Immune (or Highly Resistant) to all Energy Attacks with minor to moderate physical resistance in ALL tiers.
This means it is a bigger threat, the lighter the armour one wears, and would give Wizards and Clerics pause about using their usual energy based attacks in a fight with a mob or escalations with this new mob.
It would force a tilting for a party in that the purely Physical combat character would now be way more useful and a weapon against this new threat that is introduced or GW could update some mobs to do more physical attacks and be more energy resistant or immune.
Azure_Zero
Thanks for checking into this Bob,

I checked every holding last night and did a restock on any that were shut down or eating into other resources.
Azure_Zero
Thank you Bob and Cole, great Work.
Azure_Zero
Rhethwyn
Verifying I understand this correctly:

Azure_Zero
If a settlement can't bother to check their Maps and PVP window(s) during PVP time,
they deserve the results of not watching their hexes.

= "If you don't watch out for me screwing you over, you deserve to have my will imposed upon you, for my greater glory."

……

Not specifically me, but anyone who wants what you have and you aren't paying attention to keep it

Rhethwyn
….
Azure_Zero
If a owner of a castle posts no guards to watch it and a theif comes one night,
the owner of the castle has no right to complain of any thefts since he did nothing to prevent or stop it.

= "If I don't install an anti-theft device in my car, I have no right to complain when someone steals it."

Is that what you're trying to convey here?

Yep, if you aren't working to keep it, prepare to lose it and without right to complain at its loss.
Azure_Zero
If a settlement can't bother to check their Maps and PVP window(s) during PVP time,
they deserve the results of not watching their hexes.

If a owner of a castle posts no guards to watch it and a theif comes one night,
the owner of the castle has no right to complain of any thefts since he did nothing to prevent or stop it.
Azure_Zero
I have to agree with "You are a Troll,"
the notice should be when it's happening and you are actually checking your stuff.

I watch my PVP windows for Monster Raids, why should a infection causing a raid be any different.
Don't watch it, you risk losing it, that is fair.
Azure_Zero
I am hoping spreading gets rolled out in phases, to find out how much is just right.
As I wouldn't want the game to repeat the mistakes of many others.

I'd like the phases to be;
Phase 1: All raid escalations (T1-)
Phase 2: All T1 escalations(T1)
Phase 3: Lower T2
Phase 4: Higher T2
Phase 5: Low T3

There will not be a phase 6 as I know that would be horrible is Higher T3 escalations spread, and even Phase 5 will likely be pushing it.
The Time between phases should be about 3 weeks given game population and the number of "real" active settlements to see the impact that each phase brings.
I do see Phases 1 and 2 being no problem, phase 3 will likely start to show the limit, and Phase 4 will show if the player base is at the limit or could handle a little bit more or a need to dial it down a notch.