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 Flari-Merchant

Paddy Fitzpatrick
I can see that getting horrendously unbalanced really fast depending on the combinations.

Apparently I am missing something, could you elaborate and/or provide an example?

Right. I might get two or three shots off with the bow before the enemy closes. I'm not sure that's really unbalanced. That's just being smart with my available attacks. And in truth (and I don't know if this exists now or not because I've never checked my stats), there should actually be a penalty for using a bow in melee.

Indeed. If you have quick attacks available, it should not be too hard to interrupt a character using ranged attacks but standing within your melee range…. perhaps scaled up or down by comparing each toon's particular weapon skill and specific attacks used.

That is probably beyond the scope of possible on the tight schedule GW has set for itself.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Do we have any idea how much a quiver is able to hold?

A possible concern is that due to how PvP deaths work you can't realistically carry spare ammo in your inventory as you will inevitably lose it on some death, thus any ammo based character needs secure accessible stockpiles if the amount a quiver can hold isn't 'high' enough. Which significantly weakens dedicated ranged characters compared to melee under a bunch of different conditions. Was the intention to make primarily ranged characters weaker outside of carefully planned (mainly defensive) PvP? Or was the assumption that characters wouldn't stick to a particular combat style?

On the one hand ammo could do interesting things like curb everyone running a cleric focus, or at least reduce how much we do now. On the other hand it seems to cause all sorts of concerns with just playing a ranged character logistically that just doesn't exist for a melee character. I'm not hating on the idea of ammo but I am concerned we're missing some things to make it fun and playable. My thought is that with the coming settlement/holding access changes and the required ammo any attack on territory you don't control requires some sort of staging area, which today means Smallholdings or Base Camps. However that has some restrictions that makes it awkward to use like that. I feel like ultimately their needs to be some class of deployable structure to fill this gap that can have 'alliance' level permissions.
I can see that as valuable(probably needed) for attackers when attackers are assaulting a hex that is not bordered on a hex they own or is allied to them. How about a "supply camp"? A "camp" level, relatively cheap temporary structure that already gives back power but also has storage? Weren't some placeable camps supposed to have storage anyway?
Eventually perhaps a skill line [i.e. "Grenadier"] or two that allow use of certain types of items that are a real hassle to get access to?

For one thing, keep in mind that there are only two slots on a paper doll for such items anyway…. That is a significant limit all by itself…
Bob and Cole are really going to have to take a look at how ammo reqs affect everyday play. I believe that yes, the original ammo plan would require munitions(charges) for wands, staves, and foci as well as arrows for LB and SBs.

Not sure about how ammo is supposed to match up with various quality/level of instrument.

Various speed buffs(cantrips, orisons) have kept me sane on long runs across the map. Will most characters be able to afford ammunition usage on that scale? How much overkill is generated in PVE by attacks that will use ammo in the future?

Ammunition is going to make lots of things interesting.
Thanks. No one else asked so I guess that makes me the slow student, hehe! smile

I think that this will make for some pretty interesting strategic placement and play.
@ Bob
So…. Looks like I am not done with Phase 1 like I thought.

I may be an idiot but I am not sure I understand what is meant by "•Protect hexes that have at least 4 allied neighbors from attack."

First, using the term "hexes" and "allies" makes me think that 4 different Allies will need to have at least one of a hex's surrounding hexes as a border. I can't see that working very well even if you mean "allies" as in different companies from the same settlement. Like that it would seem difficult and a bit maddening when it is time to "bring home the bacon" or the bulk. Each company would have holdings all over the map/territory.

Alternatively, it would be even more messy if "Allies" means different allied settlement's Holdings that must touch the hex's borders.

Am I badly missing the meaning here?
I've been advocating for this also. For a long time. I figure it is going to have to happen eventually and would prefer that it happen to get it over with before the player base grows much. It would free up a good deal of space for new people rolling into the game.

One of the major attractions to the game is that you can build YOUR OWN PLACE and do things the way that you want, or at least you could if you started on Jan. 1st, 2015. Right now pretty much all of the spots are taken except for those planned for the future.

On the other hand, it is going to seriously Rock the Game State when it happens. Lots of conveniences like places to store gathered materials, force projection, apparent territory SIZE, etc. Also inconvenience of those that have been taking a break losing LOTS of work that they have put into the game and would probably like to come back without having to start building all of that over again.

A pretty tough call to make.
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Bob
Sorry but I have exhausted my questions/concerns (as far as the info I have anyway) about the first update. Are you ready for talking about Phase Two? Can you tell us anything about Azoth? Will it be tradable ingame?

I can give some quick answers for things from the later phases, but we'll usually want to hold off on too detailed of conversations until we're closer to implementing things so that we can focus more on the things we're either implementing now or getting ready to implement.

We're still working out the details on Azoth, but the basic idea is that it's a material available for purchase in relatively large quantities in the store. The most straight-forward use of it is to convert it into game time at a preset exchange rate, but it's also intended to have various in-game uses. The first one we plan to implement is to allow you to use it in crafting projects to boost the plus value of your crafting project. It will never boost the end result by more than a single plus (or to above +5), and you'll have to get at least part-way up to that next plus without it, but it will let you close the gap if you're just a little short on upgraded refined materials.

It will be trade-able in-game, and you could also buy or sell it at an auction house. It will not be lootable.

Ah see I had thought that it might be used to shorten crafting times. bumping up "plusses" sounds good too. I have a hard time imagining a month's sub being worth bumping up a "plus" on an item. Can't wait to here more details.
I really, really like that it will be tradable! That is forward and modern thinking. smile

Edit: I have a hard time imagining a month's sub being worth bumping up a "plus" on an item. Except maybe for Settlement Buildings! Derp!
@ Bob
Sorry but I have exhausted my questions/concerns (as far as the info I have anyway) about the first update. Are you ready for talking about Phase Two? Can you tell us anything about Azoth? Will it be tradable ingame?
Those are all fair points about the downsides of support. We'll continue to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of support as we move forward, just as we do for other systems. For the moment, support is heavily weaved into a lot of the game's balance, and we've already seen a lot of the problems that came from switching to universal support. Adding support back in, but in a much less punitive way than it was originally implemented, should at least improve on the current overall game balance, and we can re-evaluate as more systems come in over the next year.
Can't really expect anything more fair than that. Thanks, Bob. smile