Discourse on relics
#41
fs_evfisher
Posted 04 June 2010 - 05:24
#42
Posted 04 June 2010 - 05:25
aww no need to be all like that 57sandrab!so i keep changing guilds its none of your business
#43
Posted 04 June 2010 - 05:35
#44
Posted 04 June 2010 - 06:57
I agree with you to a point. Yes any relic can be taken, fact. I've also taken relics that were 'in my path' and continued taking them especially after I get msgs from players in the opposing guild likening me to anything bad you can name in the book. This sense of entitlement is what bothers me. I asked, "what is in it for my guild?" We were not allies, had no agreement and I told this specific guild that they either needed to defend it(which wasn't that difficult against my guild at the time, only 7 active players) or hold and empower relics that I couldn't reach. So they did move the relics they empowered to higher levels, finally.Anyone who goes to war over a relic is overreacting - at best - in my view. As I have said many times, I will take any useful relic in my path and sometimes I will go back and take 1-2 to help my guild while we are enjoying a leveling buff pack. I am not biased though; I will take any relic.
Now, when players go out of their way to take a relic I highly respect guilds that respond by hitting back in PvP, when available. They are attacking you, why not attack back for relics, gold, and xp? Call it a war, conflict, or whatever you want. This is a role playing game. Play it as such but some players take their roles too seriously, especially with the trash talking...
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
#45
fs_tangtop
Posted 04 June 2010 - 06:59
The problem is that with all the other stuff, it is all built into the game (structures, gear, etc). But with the relics, things don't work out without the big guilds having an out of game agreement, and that agreement effectively removes the gold sink and discourages relic taking.I like the idea of empowering cost being linked to how many members are in a guild.
Besides that, I don't see the problem with them. I agree with leos on several points.
Unless Fallen Sword is going to morph into some sort of socialist entity, there will always be haves and have nots for any number of things. Relics, gear, structures, whatever. What fun would it be if there was nothing to work toward, or protect? Everybody got doled out the same stuff. :?
#46
Posted 04 June 2010 - 09:03
I remember playing SimCity on the Amiga years ago, and you'd have your city ticking along just great when suddenly Godzilla would appear and trash a part of it.
Maybe we need Godzilla to randomly attack relics, just a random event that would put your defense of the relic to the test and, if not take it from your control, at least disempower it if you lost. Oh, you'd get soemthing from a succesful defense, like a medal maybe.
Random natural disasters: the next phase of Fallen Sword.
The creatures of that zone randomly form a group and attempt to take back the relic that is in their home land.
#47
fs_regnier7
Posted 04 June 2010 - 09:21
I remember playing SimCity on the Amiga years ago, and you'd have your city ticking along just great when suddenly Godzilla would appear and trash a part of it.
Maybe we need Godzilla to randomly attack relics, just a random event that would put your defense of the relic to the test and, if not take it from your control, at least disempower it if you lost. Oh, you'd get soemthing from a succesful defense, like a medal maybe.
Random natural disasters: the next phase of Fallen Sword.
The creatures of that zone randomly form a group and attempt to take back the relic that is in their home land.
hmmm.... starts of with a normal critter as group leader and a small group? Then the group gradually gets bigger. Leader eventually upgrading to one of the champions, then to a nearby Elite?
Maybe have to scout tower warn a 24 or so hours ahead so people can bolster defenses, etc.... blah blah.... *rant*
#48
fs_knc
Posted 04 June 2010 - 11:53
i am planning something big and that starts by taking the frackers relic it can be done i know that
does it involve going around and taking empowered relics away from the big boys? And basically anybody else with an empowered relic? cause somebody is kinda on that one already
#49
Posted 04 June 2010 - 11:56
i am planning something big and that starts by taking the frackers relic it can be done i know that
does it involve going around and taking empowered relics away from the big boys? And basically anybody else with an empowered relic? cause somebody is kinda on that one already
#50
Posted 04 June 2010 - 13:49
I personally dont have a problem with people defending their relics with PvP if they are constantly targeted. Guilds have different resources for retaliation and some guilds have little other option. PvP is part of the game, and defending relics this way is only encouraging more PvP. Which can only be a good thing.
Relic agreements, however, is not a part of the game. It actually makes sure relics are not in play and nothing happens. If you ask me, completely against the nature of the game itself. As most of the EOC relics are unavailable to most of the FS community. And as most of EOC players are resident in the top leveling guilds, it is too easy for them to get and keep the advantage for weeks and months without doing nothing and without sinking any gold. Relics are not earned by defending them, they are simply not in play at all. It is no different than trading points to get a dominance medal or arranging who will be the next top leveling player by agreements. Agreements like these should be banned from the game.
As has been suggested by many before, for relics to more actively change hands, for them to work as gold sinks and for them to be equally available to anyone I would like to see;
- Less relics in the game. Make the guilds fight over them.
- An increasing hourly fee depending on number/level of members, empower level and number of relics. Affordable to hold one empowered relic, expensive to hold four.
- Instead of nerfing the relics to only give 2-3% each, I would like to see them only give bonuses to max 2 different stats each. This way it will be fairly possible for smaller/lower level guilds to get a significant bonus, not just those few on top who have access to more relics. And it will require the bigger guilds to make choices or hold many relics to gain a full 20%. With fewer relics in the game this will be hard to achieve as other guilds wants some of that too.
#51
Posted 04 June 2010 - 14:06
Something needs changing and I dont see any problem with these suggestions. If anything happens it is a different, surprising story- Less relics in the game. Make the guilds fight over them.
- An increasing hourly fee depending on number/level of members, empower level and number of relics. Affordable to hold one empowered relic, expensive to hold four.
- Instead of nerfing the relics to only give 2-3% each, I would like to see them only give bonuses to max 2 different stats each. This way it will be fairly possible for smaller/lower level guilds to get a significant bonus, not just those few on top who have access to more relics. And it will require the bigger guilds to make choices or hold many relics to gain a full 20%. With fewer relics in the game this will be hard to achieve as other guilds wants some of that too.
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
#52
Posted 04 June 2010 - 14:26
Something needs changing and I dont see any problem with these suggestions. If anything happens it is a different, surprising story- Less relics in the game. Make the guilds fight over them.
- An increasing hourly fee depending on number/level of members, empower level and number of relics. Affordable to hold one empowered relic, expensive to hold four.
- Instead of nerfing the relics to only give 2-3% each, I would like to see them only give bonuses to max 2 different stats each. This way it will be fairly possible for smaller/lower level guilds to get a significant bonus, not just those few on top who have access to more relics. And it will require the bigger guilds to make choices or hold many relics to gain a full 20%. With fewer relics in the game this will be hard to achieve as other guilds wants some of that too.
+1 - personally I'd like the relics to only give non-stat bonuses but I think I'm pretty much on my own on that one.
#53
fs_regnier7
Posted 04 June 2010 - 14:54
#54
fs_coyotik
Posted 04 June 2010 - 14:59
As most of the EOC relics are unavailable to most of the FS community. And as most of EOC players are resident in the top leveling guilds, it is too easy for them to get and keep the advantage for weeks and months without doing nothing and without sinking any gold. Relics are not earned by defending them, they are simply not in play at all. It is no different than trading points to get a dominance medal or arranging who will be the next top leveling player by agreements.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. A big part of the problem is indeed that the top x relics are subject to very little travel. With people levelling once a week or even less, usually in a hurry to burn stam while their pots are running, and with most of the travellers belonging to one of the big guilds that doesn't want to rock the boat with others, almost nobody ever thinks about taking those relics.
Relic agreements, however, is not a part of the game. It actually makes sure relics are not in play and nothing happens. If you ask me, completely against the nature of the game itself.
Agreements like these should be banned from the game.
I don't believe in repression, I believe in removing the root causes of such agreements. I think you're getting it wrong - ALL such agreements are part of the game, because they are part of the natural thinking. People will always form agreements of sorts whenever applicable. Gaming theory in practice.
It is of course significantly helped by the stupid PvP combat system that makes it next to impossible to defend high relics anyway. It's a problem similar to PvP rating - it cannot be held by force, so it's held by deterrence. It's only a logical conclusion that if X top guilds (top = levelling) have the same goal of efficient levelling, they all want their x% bonus and none of them wants to lose it smack in the middle of their PLB activation.
It's the same with traded GvG conflicts, and it's the same with PvP prestige - they're all examples of lack of foresight on the developers' part, natural behavior of involved users going against the "intended" nature of the game and the developers then, instead of removing the REASON for the agreement, start inventing silly limitations to reduce the impact.
Back onto relics:
If I recall correctly, before the change, the situation was quite similar, but it just involved fewer relics. When most of the relics were crap and the best you could hope for was 50-80 dmg, the only seriously defended relics were the gain ones - and I think that even then, they didn't change hands any too often.
Unfortunately, 10 or 20% extra damage is awfully too much. Sure, +10 absolute points would be awfully too little for high level players - but there's a lot of middle ground. If it would be possible to raise your stats by only 3-5% by relics, they wouldn't be nearly as much sought out by the big guilds and there would be a lot more fighting for them. (EOC relics could be handled separately by making them "grow" over time into full strength).
- Less relics in the game. Make the guilds fight over them.
That depends on where would the "less" stop. If there'd be just one relic per big guild (big as in "can put together relic defense that is nontrivial to beat"), nothing would change - they would sooner or later arrive at the same agreements as today - share out and not rock the boat too much.
- An increasing hourly fee depending on number/level of members, empower level and number of relics. Affordable to hold one empowered relic, expensive to hold four.
This is a very good idea.
- Instead of nerfing the relics to only give 2-3% each, I would like to see them only give bonuses to max 2 different stats each. This way it will be fairly possible for smaller/lower level guilds to get a significant bonus, not just those few on top who have access to more relics. And it will require the bigger guilds to make choices or hold many relics to gain a full 20%. With fewer relics in the game this will be hard to achieve as other guilds wants some of that too.
I don't see how would this change anything. The top guilds would again divide damage relics, getting a secondary to help with defending the primary one (so to match what defense they prefer).
If we return back in time to before the percentage relics, I think that back then, there was a lot of fighting for the relics - BECAUSE they weren't so bloody important (=unbalancing) and nobody made any big deal about losing them (apart from the gain ones that were camped heavily). So I think that a lot could be achieved by nerfing the relics to become a marginal factor (with maximum impact in the region of one level of CA or smaller)
#55
Posted 04 June 2010 - 15:01
I remember playing SimCity on the Amiga years ago, and you'd have your city ticking along just great when suddenly Godzilla would appear and trash a part of it.
Maybe we need Godzilla to randomly attack relics, just a random event that would put your defense of the relic to the test and, if not take it from your control, at least disempower it if you lost. Oh, you'd get soemthing from a succesful defense, like a medal maybe.
Random natural disasters: the next phase of Fallen Sword.
The creatures of that zone randomly form a group and attempt to take back the relic that is in their home land.
Somehow, I don't think that'll be very effective in the case of the Blue Chasm.
On second, thought, if I saw a horde of a million rats coming at me, I might get off that relic, bonuses be damned.
#56
Posted 04 June 2010 - 16:59
Not quite sure I understand how an agreement is an affront to game mechanics. What is a guild alliance then? All kinds of interconnected agreements there, it exists outside of game mechanics. It's a human thing. There are a lot of humans here. That's just how we interact with our environments.
#57
Posted 04 June 2010 - 18:09
Nah, I'm not getting it wrong, I just worded it wrong. Such agreements are not part of the intended nature of the game, because their sole purpose is getting the bonuses, medals or whatever without paying the cost, making the efforts and earning it. In other words, not playing the game. And removing the root causes of such agreements or preventing them from happening is exactly what my suggestion was meant to be doing.I don't believe in repression, I believe in removing the root causes of such agreements. I think you're getting it wrong - ALL such agreements are part of the game, because they are part of the natural thinking. People will always form agreements of sorts whenever applicable. Gaming theory in practice.
Good point, and I pretty much agree with you. But as I notice a lot of players dont see 10-20% as overpowering at all, just a nice bonus, I thought it might be more chance of getting consensus for a change to make the 20% harder to get/keep than making it more or less impossible.Unfortunately, 10 or 20% extra damage is awfully too much. Sure, +10 absolute points would be awfully too little for high level players - but there's a lot of middle ground. If it would be possible to raise your stats by only 3-5% by relics, they wouldn't be nearly as much sought out by the big guilds and there would be a lot more fighting for them. (EOC relics could be handled separately by making them "grow" over time into full strength).
I see your point. The thought was that if relics only give bonuses to 1-2 stats, and they are fewer (I dont know where "less" would stop, I kept numbers out cause they're not my big strength- Less relics in the game. Make the guilds fight over them.
That depends on where would the "less" stop. If there'd be just one relic per big guild (big as in "can put together relic defense that is nontrivial to beat"), nothing would change - they would sooner or later arrive at the same agreements as today - share out and not rock the boat too much.
Yep, all relics were in play actually, because the few who were worth holding were actually defended. Don't know about other top guilds but we had some really fun and long lasting relic wars at the Pillars. And in times of peace we used to go visit the Blue Chasm, Krul or the Despair Crystals and poke them a little. I miss those days. Maybe best just to scrap the bonuses all together and go back to how it was..If we return back in time to before the percentage relics, I think that back then, there was a lot of fighting for the relics - BECAUSE they weren't so bloody important (=unbalancing) and nobody made any big deal about losing them (apart from the gain ones that were camped heavily). So I think that a lot could be achieved by nerfing the relics to become a marginal factor (with maximum impact in the region of one level of CA or smaller)
@bunnybee: Alliances are indeed a part of the game, and an important one. There's a difference in forming an alliance to appear stronger and buying your way to gain game bonuses without having to play the game like everyone else though. If not, maybe point trading agreements and buying/selling of 1 kill bounties should be considered alliances too, and not manipulation or taking advantage of a flawed game system.
#58
fs_nthnclls
Posted 04 June 2010 - 20:05
Sorry, this idea makes no business sense. No one has broken any ToS rules.
Bragging rights are one thing, but this has gotten out of hand. Hoof, you need to do something about your toys. The children are not playing nice with your toys, and are not sharing your toys in a nice manner, and are beating each other up over YOUR toys. But then again, isn't this game about PvP?
Banning everyone involved would solve the problem, and get rid of the problem of people piling up at EOC :wink:
I was joking.
#59
Posted 04 June 2010 - 20:23
You can make all the agreements and alliances you care to, humans are fickle creatures and nothing ever remains static. People change, groups of people change, one thing disintegrates and another is built. As long as your core beliefs and ethics remain solid, (and other people being able to easily recognize that fact is not necessary for it to be so), all is right in the world. Or Fallen Sword.
I apologize for deviating from the main issue of changes being made possibly to relics. I will only say again what I said before: I want Godzilla.
#60
Posted 04 June 2010 - 20:58
May I remind people this is not the war forum, it is a suggestion put forth to fix issues with relics.
I personally dont have a problem with people defending their relics with PvP if they are constantly targeted. Guilds have different resources for retaliation and some guilds have little other option. PvP is part of the game, and defending relics this way is only encouraging more PvP. Which can only be a good thing.
Relic agreements, however, is not a part of the game. It actually makes sure relics are not in play and nothing happens. If you ask me, completely against the nature of the game itself. As most of the EOC relics are unavailable to most of the FS community. And as most of EOC players are resident in the top leveling guilds, it is too easy for them to get and keep the advantage for weeks and months without doing nothing and without sinking any gold. Relics are not earned by defending them, they are simply not in play at all. It is no different than trading points to get a dominance medal or arranging who will be the next top leveling player by agreements. Agreements like these should be banned from the game.
.
There is a distinct difference between saying "relic agreements are not a part of the game," and "agreements like (top leveler or dominance medals) should be banned from the game."
Any agreement is indeed part of the game unless the game designers specifically outlaw it. You are entitled to your opinion as to what should be banned and you can even ask on the forums and via ticket over and over again that HCS ban whatever.
However if you say it isn't part of the game before it is banned, you are mistaken. Such agreements ARE a part of the game.
Frankly, I don't think the conspiracy is as bad as some people think it is. I suspect there are some agreements between some high guilds not to take the other's relic but they certainly don't involve all the high level players who can reach those relics. There are not enough relics for there to be even 1 (much less 2) agreed to go to each player who can take one.
Likewise, the problem is NOT the number of relics; there are not that many of them actually.
However the power of the relics after charging does have more of an impact on the game than I would like to see. If people could only charge it up once or twice, that would still be a sink but it wouldn't override PvP etc as some think it does now. And there would be less angst about losing one as well.
As for the statement that you need powered relics to one hit up here - sorry but that just isn't so. I have essentially one hit all the way here with just CA and sometimes wither 350/SS/DW. In fact the last 5-6 levels have all been one hittable without CA
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

