How to make relics less over powered - ideas needed
#21
Posted 10 February 2011 - 17:56
Oh, and no relics with stam gain. None. Gain for individuals with gear is one thing, but stam gain for an entire guild is too much of an advantage. That turns into thousands of additional stamina per guild for things like titan hunting and PvP/GvG. We're trying to level the field a BIT. If it stays, no more than +1 gain per guild. :wink:
#22
fs_sollimaw
Posted 10 February 2011 - 18:49
Since you avoided answering my first question I'll ask another. Why does the game need larger guilds? I believe guilds have always been too large, way too large. If your logic is that it encourages players to spend more, then by all means let's see some value added back into certain upgrades like gold gain.Would you disagree because you have more than 100 active(less than 7 days) players in your guild? Sure... Must be fun and expensive hiring mercenaries for you guys.
Dont need mercenaries when you have enough people to join your group.
The point is that the game needs to encourage guilds to become large to spend more on upgrades.
Theres many reasons the game needs to encourage large guilds. They spend more on upgrades like store space, member slots, group join slots, and others. Larger guilds and guilds focused on recruiting new players means better places for new players to gravitate to and get hooked on the game for its companionship. All of the elitism and discrimination against new players by the new development of small, high level only guilds is bad for the game. New players need to be nurtured to grow and learn to love the game as we do.
On the contrary the devs have been devaluing upgrades like deposits per day and refill bank deposits with gold being protected in the new PvP Protection upgrade which only a very few use. Only one out of 128 needs to act as a guild's de facto bank, by depositing or exchanging gold to safe FSP for others. So now there's much less incentive for all players in those guilds to use those two upgrades when you have a protected banker in your guild.
I dont think this happens as often as you think. I am on your side when you call for exp and gold loss on all hits, but I dont see this banker issue as being very widespread.
I've always thought costs should be based on the amount of players that benefit, just like many structures and mercenaries work. But of course, you're in a huge guild so of course you want to keep costs low. It's self-serving. I want the costs to be fair and appropriate to players in large and small guilds. It's much more difficult to naturally fund the costs to empower the smaller the guild.
My response was about as self serving as yours was. You are in a smaller guild and would therefore benefit from the lower costs of empowering a relic.
Smaller guilds have a harder time holding a relic. That means that the relic gets taken more and needs to be empowered more often, thus sinking more gold. The costs are fine as they are and so are the bonuses for holding a single relic.
Notice Tangtop suggested that the cost be based on the number of players active shorter then 7 days? That's because players inactive longer are not benefiting and are ineligible from GvGs. The players active less then 7 days are still benefiting, and so is their whole guild. I agree with him.
I stated my opinion and backed it up with reasoning. I disagreed with the reasoning behind much of what Tangtop suggested. That being said, he is in a guild with only a small number of players and again it is directly self serving that relics be cheaper for a smaller guild.
What needs to be changed is the additional bonus for holding more than one relic. Getting the 20% bonus should be so difficult/ expensive that almost no one can afford it or accomplish it.
I do like the idea of hourly costs to holding a relic instead of the single empowering cost however, and feel this would be a good alternative solution.
#23
Posted 10 February 2011 - 20:45
All of the elitism and discrimination against new players by the new development of small, high level only guilds is bad for the game.
Are there any high level only guilds in particular you think are ruining the game? And if so then specifically what are they doing that causes problems for new players?
I'm trying to understand the comment so speak to me like a n00b please
#24
fs_sexyman08
Posted 10 February 2011 - 21:02
All of the elitism and discrimination against new players by the new development of small, high level only guilds is bad for the game.
Are there any high level only guilds in particular you think are ruining the game? And if so then specifically what are they doing that causes problems for new players?
I'm trying to understand the comment so speak to me like a n00b please
its not the guilds fault that they are taking advantage of what they are given, in this situation overpowered relics...its HCS fault for letting them be this overpowered. So no certain guild is ruining the game....the cows are
#25
fs_sollimaw
Posted 10 February 2011 - 22:34
All of the elitism and discrimination against new players by the new development of small, high level only guilds is bad for the game.
Are there any high level only guilds in particular you think are ruining the game? And if so then specifically what are they doing that causes problems for new players?
I'm trying to understand the comment so speak to me like a n00b please
its not the guilds fault that they are taking advantage of what they are given, in this situation overpowered relics...its HCS fault for letting them be this overpowered. So no certain guild is ruining the game....the cows are
When a new player joins and all he sees is min levels or min upgrades required it is a disincentive to play. People have been noticing that the number of players joining and getting hooked on the game is less and less. This is partially due to too many people thinking that just because someone is new they are worthless.
Yes it is the guilds fault for not being welcoming and hospitable to new players.
As for specific guilds, I am not gonna name names. Any guild with a min level or min upgrade requirement is part of the problem.
#26
Posted 10 February 2011 - 23:14
People have been noticing that the number of players joining and getting hooked on the game is less and less. This is partially due to too many people thinking that just because someone is new they are worthless.
Yes it is the guilds fault for not being welcoming and hospitable to new players.
Is this your own opinion or that of HCS? I thought HCS recently stated the number of players was stable? Is it in fact dropping because of the small high level only guilds??? Or you just spouting total crap to try and back up your flawed argument???
#27
fs_sollimaw
Posted 11 February 2011 - 00:07
I believe its partially due to many people not accommodating and helping new players. If you can find a way to back that up with data your statistics skills are better than mine. All I have is intuition and analysis of what I see.
I never said they were facts. I presented them as my opinion. When you're finished being judgmental and condescending, we can continue this conversation.
#28
Posted 11 February 2011 - 01:46
Agreed. The argument that larger guilds are better for the game and therefore should be exempt from paying higher empowerment costs is false. The costs should have always represented guild membership size. Now players in large member guilds that aren't as established financially come running to defend the status quo even though they have more members to help contribute to pay for the costs, since more benefit from the bonuses. I see it as being cheap. How can you have a problem paying slightly more for more members benefiting, basically, paying for what you receive? It should work identically like mercs and most structures.
The point is that the game needs to encourage guilds to become large to spend more on upgrades.
Actually not. If a fixed total number of players is split into more smaller guilds, the total spent on guild upgrades is likely to be higher than if they're in few big guilds. The only thing where big guild generates more upgrades is having the 8 "free" guild member slots for every 124 players, that's 160 FSP per guild. 3 extra structures are 225 FSP, so if there were 2x62 members instead, they'd only need to have 3 structures more than the default limit to make it more profitable for HCS.
[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
#29
fs_tangtop
Posted 11 February 2011 - 02:18
Personally I think it is too easy to get 20% bonus. I think a 5-6% bonus should be typical (e.g. two relics), and the max 20% should be almost impossible to attain or at least sustain.[/quote]
20% bonus should be nearly impossible to obtain,or be horridly overpriced, but 10% from 1 relic is fair. Everyone who says that the game is too easy needs to leave their guilds and fully empowered relics and try hunting without.[/quote]
This would make it even easier for more advanced guilds (top 10 guilds or small guilds with high levels) to hold the relics they need to achieve the 10% max and the less advanced guilds (the rest) would still be fighting to keep the better relics. Maybe a handful will be better off because they do not need to fight. But relics should not be a given, they should take work to get the bonuses they give.
[quote name="SolliMaw"][quote name="Tangtop"]
My idea:
1. Empowering should be just one step, a relic is either empowered or it is not, no need to have 10 steps for it. That is just unnecessary button clicking and page refreshing and I hate that.
[/quote]
The multiple steps sinks more gold than a single step would because you can fail on any of those steps.[/quote]
The cost to empower (single cost or hourly rate) could be scaled to make it relatively close to what it costs currently (including failures). The failure method favors advanced guilds who have gold to burn and don't mind if they fail once or twice. Again the less advanced guilds get screwed for failure. I think it would be better if the cost was known up front and was something that could be afforded (e.g. if the hourly rate is put in, a guild could know if it could afford the hourly rate similar to how they know if they can afford structures).
[quote name="SolliMaw"]Guilds can hold enough relics. There need to be more relics worth taking at lower levels and less at higher levels. There are far too many relics above level 700 and not enough players that high.[/quote]
And like EOC, they will still be there when you are high enough level to take them. Don't forget, we were all under level 700 once and faced the same issues you currently do, but back then, most of the players were under level 700 too.
[quote name="SolliMaw"][quote name="Tangtop"]
What I imagine would happen if this was implemented would be that things would stay about where they are right now. A greedy guild might go and try and hold 3-4 relics, but would probably suffer as a result. Smaller guilds and lower level guilds will not be hurt as much as they are by not having 20% bonus (instead they will not have 6%, but could likely hold one relic to get at least 1% like they do currently).[/quote]
I have a very different outlook of what would happen. I see lots of complaining by all but those in the highest level guilds. This doesn't benefit a growing guild. It only hampers their growth even more than the current system.[/quote]
Right now, a guild that is not strong enough to hold an empowered relic is missing out on 20% bonus that the more advanced guilds are getting. After a change like this, not only will it be easier to take relics off guilds that have taken more than their fair share, but they will only be missing out on 6-9% rather than 20%.
[quote name="SolliMaw"]The point is that the game needs to encourage guilds to become large to spend more on upgrades.[/quote]
Given all the upgrades to get a guild up and running, I am sure that two smaller guilds cost more FSP to set up, than one large one. Think of it, guild store slots, structures, shared guild gear to be forged, etc. Just read back through and saw that coyotik had already explained this better than I did, but it is still true regardless.
I agree with luiss, the game should favor neither small or large guild. Some parts of the game will be better for one or the other, but where possible it should treat each of them fairly. Thus a cost per member, similar to merc cost is the fairest to all. And it seems that most people posting in this thread agree with this idea.
[quote name="Scoops1972"]Why not have it so no group is needed to take a Relic? One player is allowed to defend it, so why shouldn't a single player be able to try to take it? I'm sure there may be guilds with only one player in who would love to take a relic and fully empower it for even just an hour to get the bonuses for their hunt, and that would be a gold sink as they would unlikely be able to defend the relic for long?[/quote]
Love this idea.
Maybe a 5% penalty to all stats if you have less attackers than defenders since you are missing out on any kind of flanking bonus? Just tossing out ideas here. So a single player attacking 2 or a group of 3 attacking 5 would find it harder to take the relic.
[quote name="lordthade"]Oh, and no relics with stam gain. None. Gain for individuals with gear is one thing, but stam gain for an entire guild is too much of an advantage. That turns into thousands of additional stamina per guild for things like titan hunting and PvP/GvG. We're trying to level the field a BIT. If it stays, no more than +1 gain per guild. :wink:[/quote]
These types of relics are the cause for most of the guild wars that have ever happened. Trust me, I know. I think they are worth keeping though, they are almost like a medal for the top guilds to have, bragging rights even that they can put together the defenses to hold them. And as we have seen through the many guild wars, ownership does change as guilds change in size and power.
[quote name="SolliMaw"]There [are] many reasons the game needs to encourage large guilds. They spend more on upgrades like store space, member slots, group join slots, and others. Larger guilds and guilds focused on recruiting new players means better places for new players to gravitate to and get hooked on the game for its companionship. All of the elitism and discrimination against new players by the new development of small, high level only guilds is bad for the game. New players need to be nurtured to grow and learn to love the game as we do. [/quote]
Again, while the higher level players were leveling up, none of the high level relics were there. There are enough low level relics out there for all the new players to fight over. In fact, it is easier now than it was when everyone was low level, now the levels are more spread out and those low level relics are easier to take.
And as for larger guilds, I think that over time, the preference for larger guilds has decreased and we are seeing more smaller guilds popping up. Take a look at A-team, Imaginary Friends and Legion for examples.
[quote name="SolliMaw"][quote name="luisspamer"]Notice Tangtop suggested that the cost be based on the number of players active shorter then 7 days? That's because players inactive longer are not benefiting and are ineligible from GvGs. The players active less then 7 days are still benefiting, and so is their whole guild. I agree with him.[/quote]
I stated my opinion and backed it up with reasoning. I disagreed with the reasoning behind much of what Tangtop suggested. That being said, he is in a guild with only a small number of players and again it is directly self serving that relics be cheaper for a smaller guild. [/quote]
Note that the guild I am in has virtually no innactive players. There are larger guilds out there with less active players. That is why I suggested limiting costs to players online within 7 days. That way costs are based on those players that will benefit directly from the relic empowerment and guilds with retired players hanging around will not be charged.
If I could convince hoof, I would like the merc mechanism to work the same way, costs based on active players only, even if the cost per active player went up slightly to compensate overall.
#30
fs_tangtop
Posted 11 February 2011 - 02:31
I hope that in the meantime while he and his crew are working on the map and interface upgrade, that he can sneak in a couple of fixes. I understand that he is already planning to talk to others there about relics. If we have solid ideas they will listen.
Anyway, since most people are for the hourly cost for empowerment idea, we should flesh out some ideas for costs. So get them out there. How much gold should it cost to maintain a fully empowered relic?
I think the grand total currently to empower a relic (sans failure) is 3,550,000 gold.
A cost of 100 gold per hour per active member would work out to a weekly cost of the following:
25 active members = 420k per week
50 active members = 840k per week
75 active members = 1,260k per week
A cost of 200 gold per hour per active member would work out to a weekly cost of the following:
25 active members = 840k per week
50 active members = 1,680k per week
75 active members = 2,520k per week
I prefer the 100g per person per hour myself.
So over time, the longer you hold your empowered relic, the more it will cost you. Guilds that tend to hold more relics for longer will end up costing more than the currently method of empowerment does.
#31
Posted 11 February 2011 - 02:39
[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
#32
fs_tangtop
Posted 11 February 2011 - 02:43
I think most people like the hourly rate rather than the single cost. I would see it replace the current cost.I don't mind the hourly cost idea. Would it replace or be added to relic empowerment costs? Also what about relics that are only partially empowered to say 3 or 4%? Shouldn't there be hourly cost determined not only by guild member size but also by percentage of empowerment?
I am still advocating for one level of empowerment. A relic is either empowered or it is not. Get rid of the 10 levels and just have one. Relic would be free when not empowered, and cost the hourly rate when it is. Keep it simple.
#33
Posted 11 February 2011 - 02:50
[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
#34
fs_tangtop
Posted 11 February 2011 - 02:55
Oh yeah, sorry - you are right. As soon as a relic is taken, it loses it's empowerment, like it does currently.I see where you're going with your idea but I'm not in favor of the empowered at all times idea. There wouldn't be enough conflict. I can envision guilds having players spread out all over the game sitting on relics waiting to take one as soon as one of theirs was taken. I also think it wouldn't sink nearly as much gold.
#35
Posted 11 February 2011 - 03:01
Oh yeah, sorry - you are right. As soon as a relic is taken, it loses it's empowerment, like it does currently.I see where you're going with your idea but I'm not in favor of the empowered at all times idea. There wouldn't be enough conflict. I can envision guilds having players spread out all over the game sitting on relics waiting to take one as soon as one of theirs was taken. I also think it wouldn't sink nearly as much gold.
But if I understand correctly, after someone new obtains it, they won't need to pay a cost to empower it, so there is no point in taking away the empowerment after capture?
#36
fs_tangtop
Posted 11 February 2011 - 05:13
It will remain un-empowered until the taker decides to re-empower it again.Oh yeah, sorry - you are right. As soon as a relic is taken, it loses it's empowerment, like it does currently.I see where you're going with your idea but I'm not in favor of the empowered at all times idea. There wouldn't be enough conflict. I can envision guilds having players spread out all over the game sitting on relics waiting to take one as soon as one of theirs was taken. I also think it wouldn't sink nearly as much gold.
But if I understand correctly, after someone new obtains it, they won't need to pay a cost to empower it, so there is no point in taking away the empowerment after capture?
#37
Posted 11 February 2011 - 05:58
I see where you're going with your idea but I'm not in favor of the empowered at all times idea. There wouldn't be enough conflict. I can envision guilds having players spread out all over the game sitting on relics waiting to take one as soon as one of theirs was taken. I also think it wouldn't sink nearly as much gold.
How about they put a 7 days period on the relics if it has been empowered by the guild(like GvG thing)? Ie.. If TEW were to empower Krul Pyramid, but then they lost it when it is captured they cannot recaptured it for until their timer hit 7 days, but if they hold it for equal to or more than 7 days then they can capture it again once the hour is up?
If it isnt empowered, Guild are free to recapture relic again.
...
A cost of 100 gold per hour per active member would work out to a weekly cost of the following:
25 active members = 420k per week
50 active members = 840k per week
75 active members = 1,260k per week
A cost of 200 gold per hour per active member would work out to a weekly cost of the following:
25 active members = 840k per week
50 active members = 1,680k per week
75 active members = 2,520k per week
...
I like this model, however I would like to point out that some guild might have alot of lower level players that dont earn as much gold as higher level guild (or smaller guild w/ high level player) and will have to shell out alot more % of their gold to keep the relic. Maybe a step graph of sort that increase the gold spend needed to hold the relic based on the average levels of people in a guild?
dragon1234 - Ranger - lv 45
NoExercise - Tank - lv 45
DragonStorage - Storage - lv 13
#38
Posted 11 February 2011 - 06:01
It will remain un-empowered until the taker decides to re-empower it again.But if I understand correctly, after someone new obtains it, they won't need to pay a cost to empower it, so there is no point in taking away the empowerment after capture?
Alright - but if there is no cost in empowering, just a cost for holding, whats the point in "empowering" in the first place, make them all permanently empowered.
That being said, I'm not really sure where I stand on this. I mean, I'm in a big guild with a heavily defended relic, and we would be charged .. but on the other hand, its a gold sink .. so I really don't know :|
#39
Posted 11 February 2011 - 07:46
#40
Posted 11 February 2011 - 07:55
[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
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

