Jump to content

Photo

Relic Poll - Let's put it to the vote :)


  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

Poll: Should any/all of these changes be implemented to relics ? - tick for AGREEMENT (118 member(s) have cast votes)

Should any/all of these changes be implemented to relics ? - tick for AGREEMENT

  1. Voted Bonuses from relics ONLY apply to hunting, nothing more (14 votes [11.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.57%

  2. Voted Maximum of 2 stats per relic (22 votes [18.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.18%

  3. Voted Stamina/XP/Gold gain bonuses distinct from hunting bonuses (13 votes [10.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.74%

  4. Voted Upkeep fee depending on level and number of defenders (34 votes [28.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.10%

  5. Voted Lower each relic to a MAX of 5% empowerment (13 votes [10.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.74%

  6. Voted Maximum TOTAL relic bonus of 10% instead of current 20% (15 votes [12.40%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.40%

  7. Voted Reduce the overall number of relics in the game (10 votes [8.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.26%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 20:01

This is simply devolving into a flame infested version of Shardoom's thread. The poll is also woefully inadequate.


I see no flaming - but yes, the poll could have been done better - but no-one's perfect...

#42 fs_ithangor

fs_ithangor
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2010 - 20:42

I agree mostly with what khan is saying. I think making the Relics more expensive, or having less of them, will only restrict the whole Relic business.

Yes, it may be rather restricted now with most guilds not empowering because they cannot afford it. I fail to see how it is a good thing to simply make them more expensive.

We should be looking at way of making them more accesible to all guilds, increasing competition for every relic and making people fight for them. The way that new relics have been introduced at EOC is a complete joke, and I think you will find that there lies the main root of the problem. Then again, if there were less EOC relics with less bonuses, then maybe the top guilds would take more of the lower relics, and we would just have players complaining that they dont have a chance of getting a relic at all. Ok, i'm rambling, but you see my point I hope.

#43 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 20:48

My problem is that I don't see anything to encourage more guilds to actually participate in relics! At best they're paying the same for not as good bonus. Errrh?

Right now the system is : High supply + limited demand = cheap bonuses for those who can with no competition whatsoever.
What the suggestions in the OP would achieve Limited supply + limited demand demand = expensive bonuses for those who can with no competition whatsoever
What I'd like: Limited supply + high demand = competition

What I don't like about the suggestions is not what they achieve, it's what they fail to achieve.

#44 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 20:58

Then again, if there were less EOC relics with less bonuses, then maybe the top guilds would take more of the lower relics, and we would just have players complaining that they dont have a chance of getting a relic at all. Ok, i'm rambling, but you see my point I hope.


You mean like :-

Blue Chasm (Relentless - 24th top guild)
Krul Pyramid (Panic - 3rd top guild)
Unholy Shrine (The Evil Dead - 8th top guild)
Despair Crystal (FFS - top guild)
Ethereal Pillars (TEW - 2nd top guild)
Temple of Lightning (WAL - 12th top guild)
Searing Orb (Angellife - 4th top guild)

.. oh wait, they're all held by the top guilds LOL.

#45 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 21:08

Then again, if there were less EOC relics with less bonuses, then maybe the top guilds would take more of the lower relics, and we would just have players complaining that they dont have a chance of getting a relic at all. Ok, i'm rambling, but you see my point I hope.


You mean like :-

Blue Chasm (Relentless - 24th top guild)
Krul Pyramid (Panic - 3rd top guild)
Unholy Shrine (The Evil Dead - 8th top guild)
Despair Crystal (FFS - top guild)
Ethereal Pillars (TEW - 2nd top guild)
Temple of Lightning (WAL - 12th top guild)
Searing Orb (Angellife - 4th top guild)

.. oh wait, they're all held by the top guilds LOL.


Are those the only lower/middle level relics?

#46 fs_bigdawg112

fs_bigdawg112
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2010 - 21:12

the 20% max bonus is fine, we have DD that gives up to an additional 20%, do you want that nerfed too?

ill agree that relics with all stat categories are a bit outrageous.

and i am all for an upkeep cost on relics.

#47 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 21:12

Then again, if there were less EOC relics with less bonuses, then maybe the top guilds would take more of the lower relics, and we would just have players complaining that they dont have a chance of getting a relic at all. Ok, i'm rambling, but you see my point I hope.


You mean like :-

Blue Chasm (Relentless - 24th top guild)
Krul Pyramid (Panic - 3rd top guild)
Unholy Shrine (The Evil Dead - 8th top guild)
Despair Crystal (FFS - top guild)
Ethereal Pillars (TEW - 2nd top guild)
Temple of Lightning (WAL - 12th top guild)
Searing Orb (Angellife - 4th top guild)

.. oh wait, they're all held by the top guilds LOL.


Are those the only lower/middle level relics?


Of course they're not, but they're the BEST lower level ones - stamina gain, xp gain etc...

#48 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 21:16

the 20% max bonus is fine, we have DD that gives up to an additional 20%, do you want that nerfed too?

ill agree that relics with all stat categories are a bit outrageous.

and i am all for an upkeep cost on relics.


Just how many lots of 20% bonus do folk want ? - where is the challenge when the monsters were designed for a player with, for instance, att / dam of 2k/10K and now we have players of the same level with att / dam of 2k/10k +40% ?

Buffs are accessible to all players for a pittance - access to fully empowered relics with all the bonuses are somewhat more selective so, in essence, you're comparing chalk with cheese.

#49 RJEM

RJEM

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 21:19

Does nobody have a comment on my long post? :cry: :oops:

#50 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 21:23

Does nobody have a comment on my long post? :cry: :oops:


I like all your points raised - and yes, the poll is somewhat restrictive, i admit :(

#51 fs_bigdawg112

fs_bigdawg112
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2010 - 21:26

the 20% max bonus is fine, we have DD that gives up to an additional 20%, do you want that nerfed too?

ill agree that relics with all stat categories are a bit outrageous.

and i am all for an upkeep cost on relics.


Just how many lots of 20% bonus do folk want ? - where is the challenge when the monsters were designed for a player with, for instance, att / dam of 2k/10K and now we have players of the same level with att / dam of 2k/10k +40% ?

Buffs are accessible to all players for a pittance - access to fully empowered relics with all the bonuses are somewhat more selective so, in essence, you're comparing chalk with cheese.


so you want to punish hard work and team work by reducing what we worked to obtain and defend... hmm sounds a bit like communism.

#52 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 21:29

the 20% max bonus is fine, we have DD that gives up to an additional 20%, do you want that nerfed too?

ill agree that relics with all stat categories are a bit outrageous.

and i am all for an upkeep cost on relics.


Just how many lots of 20% bonus do folk want ? - where is the challenge when the monsters were designed for a player with, for instance, att / dam of 2k/10K and now we have players of the same level with att / dam of 2k/10k +40% ?

Buffs are accessible to all players for a pittance - access to fully empowered relics with all the bonuses are somewhat more selective so, in essence, you're comparing chalk with cheese.


so you want to punish hard work and team work by reducing what we worked to obtain and defend... hmm sounds a bit like communism.


and doesn't that sound exactly like the argument you guys used on trying your utmost to block the titan changes ? :)

Where is the hardwork and teamwork in having a relic that no-one is going to take from you - either because they can't, or they won't - 'cos that would break agreements (spoken or unspoken) not to take each others relics.

#53 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 08 May 2010 - 21:33

Anyway, i've made my points and am now (hopefully) going to just let the debate run with other interested parties.

What i suspect will happen tho is :-

The "HAVES" will fight tooth and nail to protect their bonuses

SOME "HAVE NOTS" will continue the fight to make relics more equitable

and

MOST "HAVE NOTS" will carry on saying nothing about anything

Bottom line is, only the cows can make any changes so all the preamble is just that, preamble - could well be (and probably WILL be) just a waste of everyones typing :).

#54 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 05:35

And the "HAVE NOTS" will carry on being "HAVE NOTS" as per your proposed plan :wink:

#55 MaximusGR

MaximusGR

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,177 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 06:48

It actually depends on what the aim of any update should be..We could focus on making relics more available to everyone at a cost, or less available with less stats to promote competition, or keep them as they are but add back-breaking costs or scale their costs according to guild size and a form of upkeep or decay of empower level..

Any of the above would require a whole different direction of discussion and its obvious opinions on this and other topics are rather apart..It would be great if cows had a word on this and gave us an idea of changes they might see as necessary if they see the need for that at all. Then we could better discuss ourselves and hopefully come up with a common ground, as was the case with the changes in Titans.

#56 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 13:13

It actually depends on what the aim of any update should be..We could focus on making relics more available to everyone at a cost, or less available with less stats to promote competition, or keep them as they are but add back-breaking costs or scale their costs according to guild size and a form of upkeep or decay of empower level..

Any of the above would require a whole different direction of discussion and its obvious opinions on this and other topics are rather apart..It would be great if cows had a word on this and gave us an idea of changes they might see as necessary if they see the need for that at all. Then we could better discuss ourselves and hopefully come up with a common ground, as was the case with the changes in Titans.


Well said. Though I''m not sure cows have an opinion on this?

#57 RJEM

RJEM

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 14:07

It actually depends on what the aim of any update should be..We could focus on making relics more available to everyone at a cost, or less available with less stats to promote competition, or keep them as they are but add back-breaking costs or scale their costs according to guild size and a form of upkeep or decay of empower level..

Any of the above would require a whole different direction of discussion and its obvious opinions on this and other topics are rather apart..It would be great if cows had a word on this and gave us an idea of changes they might see as necessary if they see the need for that at all. Then we could better discuss ourselves and hopefully come up with a common ground, as was the case with the changes in Titans.


Well said. Though I''m not sure cows have an opinion on this?


In many respects I also see the reasoning behind Max's post. The ideas presented in my original post in this thread are designed primarily to make it more of a cost to hold relics which make the game much easier, and potentially force a choice between holding stat bonus relics and stamina/xp bonus ones.

On the other hand, I tried to avoid penalising small guilds by having the reduced (and potentially zero) upkeep on the first empowered relic. Those costs for holding more relics should definitely be proportional to the number of people benefiting from the relics themselves.

Ideas to promote empowerment and competition (outside of my belief that there are too many relics in the game) are not really tackled in that post. I essentially see 2 main difficulties with promoting empowerment and competition:

1. Small guilds like mine have little chance of capturing one of the worthwhile relics, and even less chance of holding onto it. A full group from any large guild would easily be able to outfight even my entire guild sitting on a relic to defend it. This forces a choice - do I empower a less valuable relic in the hopes noone bothers to take it, or do I just accept that as a small guild we won't benefit from the huge stat boosters?

2. Large guilds have little to no incentive to fight for relics, as there are enough to go around and the primary cost of taking the relic is the initial empowerment. *If* an upkeep cost was introduced that would be greater than the initial empowerment fee, and *if* it were possible to capture a relic while retaining some or all of the empowerment (see end of my post) then you might see a little more competition. However, there is still really no incentive because we are currently in an 'everyone can have what they want' world.

Unless and until someone can find a reason for large guilds to fight and not just sit and hold, and a way for a small guild to bother empowering at all, there is no chance of competition being increased (or of more people getting involved!)

Simply reducing the number of relics sounds like a good idea initially, but I fear instead of a middling number of guilds having empowered relics we would end up with only 4 or 5 being able to do so. The few would become even fewer!

This is the reason I think relics should act as more of a gold sink than be expected to benefit players across the spectrum: Holding a relic provides bonuses akin to structures, so there should be an upkeep fee. However, just as small guilds cannot afford the highest structure levels they should not expect to be able to afford the upkeep of multiple empowered relics.

#58 Removed22342

Removed22342

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 15:29

I have voted, but I was only able to select one option because the other choices are somewhat restrictive - so I am going to outline what I would suggest in this post.

Game Impact
Firstly - relic bonuses are a part of the game like everything else, so I fully believe they should be useful in every part of the game (from PvP through to levelling, with the possible exception of a new, tougher content set - though that's a different discussion)

Upkeep Costs
Second - I support the idea of upkeep costs based on guild size and empowerment level. Having it based on the number of defenders has issues with penalising teamwork and the relics that have few possible defenders at end of content, so I wouldn't include that.

The first relic should not be 'free' to upkeep, because it is still a luxury item. However, to encourage guilds like mine (pretty small, but reasonable level) to participate in holding a relic I would propose the cost is reduced by a factor of 10 for the first relic:

First Relic Empowerment Cost = Current Empowerment Fee + Hourly Fee of 10 * (Empowerment Level * Number of Guild Members)

For a maxxed out guild that would be 12,400 gold per hour for the first set of bonuses. Every subsequent empowered relic has the higher cost attached to it:

Relics 2-6 Empowerment Cost = Empowerment Fee + Hourly Fee of 100 * (Empowerment Level * Number of Guild Members

As Doom has said, this 124,000 gold is very high, but affordable for the big guilds. As a luxury which makes every aspect of the game much easier I like the idea of a big price tag beyond the first relic. It doesn't heavily penalise guilds starting out on holding a relic, but makes acquiring the godlike stats from multiple relics much more difficult.


I'm a bit biased maybe but some kind of upkeep would be nice, just worried that it'll make people more prone to make deals.

Number of Stats per Relic
I'm in favour of reducing the number of stats per relic so that they all conform to a fairly basic structure which I will set out below:

1). No more than 3 stats per relic, including stamina, stamina gain and xp gain.
2). A maximum of 2 of any non combat bonuses (for example you can have stamina and stamina gain, but not xp gain as well.) Relics with three combat bonuses are allowed, so attack, damage and defence is still a viable relic.

What would this achieve?
Well, firstly it would make achieving +10% bonuses across the board much more expensive, and in some cases force a choice between having that additional armour bonus or holding your relic which has stamina gain on it.

For example, to achieve the +20% mark on all 4 important combat stats would require holding 4 well chosen relics at a cost of 372,000 gold per hour. This is a significant change. There would still be a small chance for having a 'bonus' stat like stamina gain, but those relics will presumably be very fought over.

Secondly, because so many relics would need to be held and empowered the idea is that defenders would need to be spread more thinly (encouraging smaller guilds to try and attack) or some of the bonuses would be sacrificed to ensure that your 2 secure relics remained secure.


Indeed, but isn't the biggest problem accessibility to some of the relics? Cows restrict relics by levels, and some are only reachable by very few.

Number of Relics in the Game, and how many of each type?
I think there are too many relics in the game currently, given the way the relic system works. I would like the number reduced so that there is one every 3 or 4 content releases. This would make those at end of content a little rarer, and limit the impact they have on topping up stats not covered by already established relics.


Too many to make clans fight over them, if the supply was less than demand maybe we would see more relic swapping?

As for type, well, I think relics with 2 'bonus' stats on them like stamina gain should occur about 1% of the time, and those with only 1 'bonus' stat maybe 5% of the time. All of the rest (of the reduced number) would be 3 stat relics randomly rolled from the choice of attack, defence, armour, damage and HP (just in case HP ever becomes important in the game).

Relic Capture
With the new upkeep system it would be nice if the empowerment level of a relic didn't automatically drop to zero. Maybe a random roll between 1 and 'Current Empowerment', such that there is a 10% chance of capturing a fully empowered relic with its bonuses intact.

This could even be enhanced with a skill 'Relic Thief' which increased the chances of not losing levels!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, there we go - it's another monster post from me but I think it sums up all of my thoughts on relics pretty well. There should be a cost, and there should be fewer relics!


I like most of your ideas but I have a different view on the subject.

Personally I'd rather see relics go back to what they used to be, I don't care about XP or stamina gain but when it comes to stats it separates big guilds from smaller ones in most aspects of the game. I think character stats should come from items and magics rather than what place you're in. Would encourage more diversity in FS I think, hopefully leveling the playing field for smaller to medium sized guilds.

Remove stat bonuses, make them fever and let the XP/stam gain be "empowerable" to keep them attractive enough for people to be fighting over.

#59 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 16:12

It actually depends on what the aim of any update should be..We could focus on making relics more available to everyone at a cost, or less available with less stats to promote competition, or keep them as they are but add back-breaking costs or scale their costs according to guild size and a form of upkeep or decay of empower level..

Any of the above would require a whole different direction of discussion and its obvious opinions on this and other topics are rather apart..It would be great if cows had a word on this and gave us an idea of changes they might see as necessary if they see the need for that at all. Then we could better discuss ourselves and hopefully come up with a common ground, as was the case with the changes in Titans.


Well said. Though I''m not sure cows have an opinion on this?


In many respects I also see the reasoning behind Max's post. The ideas presented in my original post in this thread are designed primarily to make it more of a cost to hold relics which make the game much easier, and potentially force a choice between holding stat bonus relics and stamina/xp bonus ones.

On the other hand, I tried to avoid penalising small guilds by having the reduced (and potentially zero) upkeep on the first empowered relic. Those costs for holding more relics should definitely be proportional to the number of people benefiting from the relics themselves.

Ideas to promote empowerment and competition (outside of my belief that there are too many relics in the game) are not really tackled in that post. I essentially see 2 main difficulties with promoting empowerment and competition:

1. Small guilds like mine have little chance of capturing one of the worthwhile relics, and even less chance of holding onto it. A full group from any large guild would easily be able to outfight even my entire guild sitting on a relic to defend it. This forces a choice - do I empower a less valuable relic in the hopes noone bothers to take it, or do I just accept that as a small guild we won't benefit from the huge stat boosters?

2. Large guilds have little to no incentive to fight for relics, as there are enough to go around and the primary cost of taking the relic is the initial empowerment. *If* an upkeep cost was introduced that would be greater than the initial empowerment fee, and *if* it were possible to capture a relic while retaining some or all of the empowerment (see end of my post) then you might see a little more competition. However, there is still really no incentive because we are currently in an 'everyone can have what they want' world.

Unless and until someone can find a reason for large guilds to fight and not just sit and hold, and a way for a small guild to bother empowering at all, there is no chance of competition being increased (or of more people getting involved!)

Simply reducing the number of relics sounds like a good idea initially, but I fear instead of a middling number of guilds having empowered relics we would end up with only 4 or 5 being able to do so. The few would become even fewer!

This is the reason I think relics should act as more of a gold sink than be expected to benefit players across the spectrum: Holding a relic provides bonuses akin to structures, so there should be an upkeep fee. However, just as small guilds cannot afford the highest structure levels they should not expect to be able to afford the upkeep of multiple empowered relics.


If relics are to be a gold sink then there is no reason to be any competition, just let big guilds sink gold and let them move on with their lives without making things overly complicated like holding 4-5 relics. The sinking will happen passively anyways.

But is that all that a relic overhaul should entail? How boring.

1. Small guilds like mine have little chance of capturing one of the worthwhile relics, and even less chance of holding onto it. A full group from any large guild would easily be able to outfight even my entire guild sitting on a relic to defend it. This forces a choice - do I empower a less valuable relic in the hopes noone bothers to take it, or do I just accept that as a small guild we won't benefit from the huge stat boosters?


What if this what was looked at? How do we make smaller guilds partake in relics? If relics could be held for longer than an hour by default would it encourage empowerment even for short amounts of time? I know that when I was in a smaller (it was actually the size of PANIC) guild my main issue was that if I captured it and spent 70 FSP on it I wouldn't even have it for a whole hunt. Much less everyone timing themselves to hunt during it. If it was increased to 6 hours there might be more chances for temporary empowerments.

I also like the idea of a random empowerment between 0 and the empowerment the guild had before losing the relic. Say you empower to 7, then lose it for 6 hours, then regain it you could get between 0 and 7. This would make it so that empowerment isn't fully lost. Such that a certain amount of bonus could be kept for 12-24 hours total.

#60 RJEM

RJEM

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 16:36

1. Small guilds like mine have little chance of capturing one of the worthwhile relics, and even less chance of holding onto it. A full group from any large guild would easily be able to outfight even my entire guild sitting on a relic to defend it. This forces a choice - do I empower a less valuable relic in the hopes noone bothers to take it, or do I just accept that as a small guild we won't benefit from the huge stat boosters?


What if this what was looked at? How do we make smaller guilds partake in relics? If relics could be held for longer than an hour by default would it encourage empowerment even for short amounts of time? I know that when I was in a smaller (it was actually the size of PANIC) guild my main issue was that if I captured it and spent 70 FSP on it I wouldn't even have it for a whole hunt. Much less everyone timing themselves to hunt during it. If it was increased to 6 hours there might be more chances for temporary empowerments.

I also like the idea of a random empowerment between 0 and the empowerment the guild had before losing the relic. Say you empower to 7, then lose it for 6 hours, then regain it you could get between 0 and 7. This would make it so that empowerment isn't fully lost. Such that a certain amount of bonus could be kept for 12-24 hours total.


The point I was trying to make is that there is little to no chance of my guild ever obtaining a stamina gain relic, and the ones I can capture (there are several we have held for up to 5 days undefended) are not worth empowering. That was the reason behind my standardisation of the relic formats, so that most of them would be worth keeping. At worst a relic would have HP, Armour, and Defence - not awesome for levelling but potentially valuable for PvP!

Currently the cost of empowering a relic with Attack/Defence and nothing else is way above the use we would get from it. A longer time frame might allow more benefit from the relics but I would love to see the gold cost added in as well - this is potentially a huge gold sink.

One thing I will say is that you will never get the big guilds to take each other's relics if there is any cost associated with it at all. It just doesn't make sense.


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: