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.
|Smitty 09.15.2018 14:08|
my wizard is very necromancer..
would get mage for armor feature.. gives some physical armor.. and base defense.
get necromancer feature .. concentrate on spellbook spells that use those words.
diminishing wand.. primary attacks.. chill touch.. carrion strike.. and midnight ray( can get this one after you level wizard a bit)
secondary attacks.. weakening ray.. devour caress…. weakening ray adds drain.. devour caress hits hard and heals..( at melee range).. last cantrip is noxious flume.. its acid damage I think.. but you need something that is not negative energy for when you fight undead.
for staff attacks ..
not 100% sure on pure necromancer.. I prefer physic staff.. has good crowd control.. which is why I like it for fighting at range.. but am sure there is decent necro line up you can come up with.. diminishing staff is the type of staff you are going to want for those cantrips.
can see all the cantrip attacks at goblinary.com .. you are wanting to match the keywords on those cantrips.. to the keywords found on the diminishing staff..
holler in general if you have any questions or get stuck
|Smitty 09.14.2018 19:53|
Perhaps I don’t math as well as I should..
Lesser regeneration - Regeneration +[10 + (ItemPlus * 5)]%
Greater Regeneration - Regeneration +[20 + (ItemPlus * 10)]%
Superior Regeneration - Regeneration +[40 + (ItemPlus * 20)]%
Is there really a % at the end of these ?? so every tick with superior regeneration for a +1 would grant 60% - shouldn’t that just be like 60 HP ? ( like the wright armor feat adds HP each tick - where healer armor give a % of Hit points ??)
That percent on the end just looks off - if I get a +5 superior regeneration item - with the % above would be 140% HP increase each tick ?? that is the thou shall not ever die item ??
|Smitty 09.12.2018 11:19|
Thats why I went to ammo and potions as a good coin sink - it is something most everyone uses -
So even though the batches are doubled - the coin should eventually be removed from the game.
I guess you could argue killing stuff with ammo and using potions just creates more coin but I know I can shoot through 500 charges easily in an half an hour .. and those arrow folks i see can shoot through 200 arrows in a couple encounters.
|Smitty 09.12.2018 10:50|
What I recall most about the forever war was there was risk in the game - wearing a settlement tag and being in some areas of the map was dangerous. Obtaining resources from some areas was not a trivial task . I remember being at risk of being attacked as much as I recall putting others at risk.
So you may just remember the tower pvp being the bane of your existence but the overall game play ( in my opinion ) was 100 times better than what we have today. The threat of having to turn and run or defend yourself makes this game better. Without that risk – it’s a gathering and crafting simulator ( or just running..).
Also The tower guard duty thing has been addressed - holdings now can be protected by neighbor hexes so we can easily monitor hexes that are vulnerable to attack - the map notifies us when they are attacked - PvP windows are only 3 days long - and we pick the days and amount of time we have to defend. Not to mention folks get a 2 day notice if conquest is the attackers goal. -
If anything the pendulum swung firmly against having you stand around during a PvP window to guard things ..
|Smitty 09.12.2018 10:26|
Coin sink idea – since we are just throwing out ideas..
Ammo sucks ( in a good way) ..
How about a coin sink in the crafting process to double the output of ammo or potions - for t1 add 50c and get double ammo/potions - for T2 add 10s for double the output - for T3 1g gives double the output..
|Smitty 09.10.2018 18:05|
In regards to part of you response -
“Basically, we wanted to make settlement growth a slow/steady process where it takes lots of time and work to build a really advanced settlement. Our expectation was that settlement turnover would be more common in the less settled, wilder areas of the map, while the advanced settlements at the center of large nations would remain more stable, though occasionally a nation would fall completely. As such, a basic settlement is pretty cheap to set up, and thus not as big of a loss if it falls. Advanced settlements represent a great deal of effort, and therefore require a great deal of effort to tear down.”
I think you guys need to put that dusty design document away and look at what we have left in the game as of today- and make a few design decisions that might actually lead toward some growth in the future. While the original design may have had some merit - a few years later it has lost its luster-
It needs to be tweaked and you guys need to decide what you want the game to be in the short term and what it should be in the long term. I cant express how frustrating it is to listen to an explanation about what was intended 5 years ago when there was funding- and entire dev team working on the project.
My entire point is that premise is wrong - I understand what the original intent was - but things are far from where those visions started - I feel you would get a better response in marketing this a settlement warfare game - if you made it easier to build a settlement - and not a 8 month + ordeal to fight over one.
Brings just said it above “I'll say this: I am not sure what I would do(as far as playing on) if The Commonwealth lost a lvl 20 sett or two. It was/is a hell of a lot of work…”
So he put a ton into what it is - and if there is ever a fight over it - and it doesn’t turn out his way - he may just walk away … That should resonate on some level- You don’t want the loser of any battle to feel like they don’t want to go through building it all up again or have no shot at building it back up-
|Smitty 09.10.2018 13:58|
Not all this goes in this thread but is related to what some of yall are talking about so im putting it here.
The work required to take over a vacant settlement that is shut down is way out of portion from what it should take - If there is no keep and the settlement is in shutdown mode- why require a siege to take over the settlement?
Currently what is needed is for a group to make a supply train - clear the core 6- have the founding settlement company feud the target founding company and all companies that are going to be involved in taking over the settlement do the same.. and keep those feuds going until the bulk in the settlement is reduced to 0 and then the buildings destroyed ..
All of that to “attack ???“ a ghost town ???
You want to talk about zero fun and things that are a chore - at least with a mule you get to stock holdings that produce more resources or allow you settlement to run higher. Taking a ghost town with the current rules reminds me of my service days where things were done just to demonstrate my ignorance through the chain of command..
Taking over a ghost town should to be like our old system - if you surround the settlement for ? 4 weeks ?? and nobody puts up a keep / reactivates the settlement or tries to kick you out - that surrounding group should be awarded the settlement.
Question to you guys and bob and company in regards to settlements in general..
Why not ease up on building settlements - if you make them easier to build the threat of losing them is not as severe - instead of building each building 0,1,2,3,4, and 5 - - why not just make them like holdings - where you build it and place it - and can upgrade it to its maximum number? ( Still would need DI to bank- so you still have to have holdings ).
That just makes more sense to me -
The need to put so much time an energy into a settlement led folks to justifying enormous cost of what it takes to siege one. One of the core pillars of the game is settlement warfare and the current rules make it too expensive to even consider settlement warfare, just food for thought - ease up on siege rules - make settlement warfare not so much a very rare and expensive thing – it is suppose to be one of the selling points of the game.
Not 100% related But Can we have a discussion about influence cost ?
Tearing down and rebuilding hexes - If my company owns a hex and wants to restructure it - why do I need to tear down outpost- wait a day - tear down the holding the next day- and then on the final day- I have to make sure I am on right after downtime to place the new holding ( in case someone notices and snakes the hex ..). This is always felt clumsy to me.. If my company owns the hex I should be able to change holdings and outpost when I want.
Why cant we just upgrade the hex with holdings and outpost in our inventories and overwrite ones already in the hex ?
While I’m complaining about outpost and holdings - One more thing that needs to be looked at / talked about –
The reason for the 25% loss when downgrading an outpost/holding .. If I recall this was put in because right after holdings came in, during the time when you could run a +0 holding with +3 outpost and get full bulk . Groups would set the holding to +0 - and then when feuded they would bump the holdings up to +3 for the added guards - and once the threat had passed move them back down to +0 so they wouldn’t use additional resources.
That all has been taken care of with outpost only producing bulk at the same rate the holding is set - So Can we get rid of the self-imposed 25% penalty on influence for reducing a hex? We aren’t allowed to change holding/outpost pluses during a feud so why do we still need the 25% tax in breaking them down or reducing them?-
|Smitty 09.07.2018 13:28|
also good note about gathering… you always get an even number of things out of a node. minimum 2 and max I think is 12 (could be 10)…
so even if you have high skill in something.. you still pull 2 or 4 things out of the node.. it just happens less than the guy with low skill..
|Smitty 09.07.2018 13:21|
Those feats , in my opinion , are more important for the refining and crafting bonuses they provide to those skills –
All though in regards to gathering skills themselves from listening to folks in voice chat –
the upper levels of skill and skill numbers make a pretty big difference in the amount of resources you get from gushers ..
My T3 gather guys go out and in combat gear and don’t move features and armor around when doing gushers - so my skill is around 140 ( rank 14) on whatever im gushering (if that is a word).
At the same time I listen to folks that train higher levels - and wear the right armors - doing the same type of gusher ..
I normally get around 350-380 things out of a gusher - the folks that use the feats and armors and train up the skill to rank 15-17 are getting 400- 450 each gusher ..
So I would say the feats- and skills do have an effect - but you probably aren’t going to notice it in Tier 1 - it will certainly play a role in T3 gathering -
Personally I would lean toward getting a combat character up to T2 - as you say the results are more apparent and while gathering might be slower - and take a bit longer - being able to fight off harder monsters will mean you can journey easily into more areas ..
|Smitty 09.07.2018 06:11|
Hopeful you can shed some light on this question – I understand you are not close to adding additional roles now or in the immediate future - yet for planning purposes..
Can you share the tentative plans how training for the new roles will be implemented. ? Specifically is there anything written to address what buildings will train what roles?
Some folks seem I chat with seem to think - trainers will just be added to the large buildings we already have - so druid gets added to cathedral - Barbarian is added to fighter - Sorcerer added to University. I on the other hand been under the impression with new roles we would have new large building types added - So new Large building would be introduced that contained Ranger/Druid etc..
Medium buildings are pretty easy - each role will have a medium building or 2
- but Large buildings have me scratching my head- and am hoping you have some tentative information to share - or at the very least you can confirm if training will be added to existing Large structures or if new roles will all get new Large structures - or some combination of the 2.
So Druids / Rangers get their own building - barbarians get added to fighter - monk gets added to Cathedral etc..