So, what do you think about sieges forced friend-mode and capped to adlvl 80 in r63?

No, its a sandbox. Soft and hard caps already exist. Putting a handicap (handy-cap..., not so handy) in a zone is not a solution to balancing the encounters, because you dont have to balance encounters.

Then what is the point of playing a sanbox game that has character developpement if the idea is to curtail their power everywhere they go? If "scaling the loot along with difficulty" would lead to such a horrible scenario where the most powerful are benefiting... than the issue isnt the powerful.... its the difficulty scaling that is wrong.

And what is wrong with competing for kills? You are aware that even if you did nothing, you can still loot... so even a lvl 1 can walk in and loot the cabalist. This solves nothing but brings the price down for hoods. Now you will be able to stay in a dolus siege forever all by yourself (because of private/friends mode) and just refresh the scene by logging out of 10minutes. This fix will only open an exploit. This is already an issue with unicorns...

But its a sandbox... How is a stronger player who can amass more gold a problem? Isnt that the whole point of lvling up? If sieges are a problem "economicaly" than that is the problem... not "extreme lvl players", makes no sense in a sandbox based on character developpement................................... smh

Nobody is forced to go to a siege. There is the bypass button, and there are plenty of sieges to farm wood at.
Are we playing the same game here.....? Its a role playing game.... , the conflicts I believe seem to happen where hoods can drop. Someone somewhere probably whined about how they are so expensive and exclusive to multi even though they arent, there is Lost Vale now also which can be done in private/friends but doesnt have as good a drop rate, guess why... because hoods are supposed to be rare. They should stop poking the economy. It doesnt need more socialism, it needs more capitalism.

 

......

 

@Chris thx for give us ALWAYS the good part of a question.nodody knows about the dodged questionario, don't worry about It,you guys are too smart for us.

 

Thank you to the developers for righting the ship on this.

I don't see any call for disrespect or condescension.

Hopefully they can implement a proper solution to the siege issue in future releases.

 

If the zones were just multiplayer and there was competition for resources more population should have raised just the demand but not the supply.

 

A small minority of players on the forums sway the team to make weird decisions. It's time more players of different playstyles that usually dont' post speak up and defend things.

I've been watching this happen more and more as the forums have become less used over 2018.

Maybe this was a mistake to leave in but the fact nobody caught it and the fact it was even worked on is concerning.

 

This is literally not what happened in this case. Go read what Chris wrote. A developer tried to fix a problem the wrong way, and Chris didn't catch it until the last minute and made it very clear that none of what was noted was ever supposed to have been done. The players protesting had ZERO to do with this change being undone.

 

I stand by what I said. Why was it even developed ? When you do software devlopment, a ticket is created it's discussed by the team, it's worked, reviewed by peers and QA and merged into a master branch.

Unless the Sota team works completely incompetently (which it obviously is not) I really don't buy this wasn't a potential solution and "never ever supposed to have been done". That's not how Agile works. You don't have rogue developers on your team coding up random things without others knowing about it first.

 

And you're incorrect. Here's what Chris said:

Again, it was never supposed to have been released and it was never supposed to have been in the draft release notes.

 

Supposed to be released is not the same thing as not supposed to be developed.

Good thing that it was decided not to release it, as it is a mind bogglingly bad idea and it might have even been a reason why one of the best PvP players just quit !

But the fact resources and time were even devoted to it at all - that's my concern. And the draft notes - they have never always contained every little thing, you and i know that.

Because you seem to be having difficulty in understanding my first post, I will try to make it very clear :

There ARE a very vocal minority on here that complain about things like this.... suddenly a "fix" makes it in by accident.... my concern is why was that fix even developed in the first place ... I suspect it's to address the feedback on the forums.

I could be wrong, but that's what I think.

 

Agreed on the resources bit, and I know about the draft notes. My point was that the only reason this entire discussion ever even happened is because the change that never was supposed to be released (or even developed as a solution, because it was the wrong solution (Chris said that in a follow-up post)) ended up being listed (incorrectly) in the draft release notes.

It looks like the solution (for the moment) was to entirely remove wood from dropping from Siege engineers. Don't know if that's permanent or not, because it was only marked as "Working as designed". https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...y-design-siege-engineers-missing-wood.151999/

 

Im not sure I follow your logic - why would targeting one type of encounter for a specific adventurer level bracket, lets say "high mid level / low high level" range - why would that imply curtailing power everywhere a player goes?

How is this suggestion any different from having "tier 1", "tier 2", etc, scenes?

Sieges are suggested tier 4. The answer is not to allow this encounter to cater to tier 12. The answer is to create new content appropriate for players at that level (which, unfortunately for the exp-driven, is likely lower in the queue than more encounters for lower level players).

I agree that the players or their experience levels are not the cause of the issue.

I also do not know exactly what the underlying motives for Port's changes are. I suspect it has to do with disproportionate economic gains for higher level players.

If higher level players are gaining an unfair economic or experience advantage in a way that unbalances the game, then I agree they need to cap it somehow. I think there is a greater issue of lack of content for the highest level players, and that it isnt solveable by focusing on these encounters. While we will eventually need this content, I dont think it is healthy for SoTA to focus on that at all right now. I believe it is healthiest to continue focusing on creating new / iterating on existing lower-to-upper mid level content. Let em cap sieges, and let us be patient for better high level encounters.

I also would recommend high level players try making a new alt, and experiencing the lowest level content again. Its really rewarding and fun, and also makes it very easy to experiment with different playstyles.

 

Whew! The cap was awful. Level 80 was about where I was finally barely able to beat a Cabalist, if I got the right one., and didn't get more than one.

 

It was a mistake and never intended to get documented or released. Chris already answered that.

 

Chris said (in the other thread) it was because they were trying to address a player exploit. So. End of nerd rage.

 

Yep! Looks like they nerfed wood drops as the solution instead.

 

Wait.. Seriously? Guess I'll re-read the patch notes.

Arg!@

Chopping wood is dog slow. far more than mining ore. Sieges were the only viable means of obtaining it. Prices for wood already surpass that of ore.

 

They didn't document the change. But they marked a bug report on it "as designed": https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...y-design-siege-engineers-missing-wood.151999/