Nexus Clash

Login

Nickname

Password

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. Registered players can create up to three free characters to battle, team up with your friends and explore the worlds of the Nexus! To create a character once you have registered, click on Game Map at the top of the page.
Nexus Clash :: View topic - [GAMEPLAY]: Fortifications (CHANGE)
 Forum FAQForum FAQ   SearchSearch   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

[GAMEPLAY]: Fortifications (CHANGE)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Nexus Clash Forum Index -> Promoted Suggestions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Thie
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Nov 26, 2012
Posts: 103

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ongewitter wrote:
Rocks


I'm not sure what their overall find rate it, but i bet it's too high. Steel is better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Teksura
Nexus Fixture
Nexus Fixture


Joined: Dec 17, 2009
Posts: 5580

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thie wrote:
Ongewitter wrote:
Rocks


I'm not sure what their overall find rate it, but i bet it's too high. Steel is better.


That link takes you to their overall find rate.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Thie
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Nov 26, 2012
Posts: 103

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Teksura wrote:

That link takes you to their overall find rate.


I see specific locations, but no total/average. Where should I be looking?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shadok
Nexus Fixture
Nexus Fixture


Joined: Aug 15, 2010
Posts: 3955
Location: Gehenna (Earth Branch)

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thie wrote:
Teksura wrote:

That link takes you to their overall find rate.


I see specific locations, but no total/average. Where should I be looking?

You take the %-chance info and figure it out yourself. We're not going to spoonfeed you information.

As it is, the info tells you the % chance of finding rocks at that location and how likely you are to get a rock per AP you spend. That's already quite a lot of detail. You're smart enough to format that information to obtain the bits which you specifically want.
_________________

"Oh, sorry, thought I was in a Vault of Enlightenment, not someone's booze cabinet." -Kharn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kandarin
Dreamweaver
Dreamweaver


Joined: Jan 19, 2010
Posts: 1904
Location: Charlotte's Bakery University

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thie wrote:
Teksura wrote:

That link takes you to their overall find rate.


I see specific locations, but no total/average. Where should I be looking?


If there were a total/average find rate stat, Rocks would have one of the highest in the entire game. If there's a succession of materials to build better barricades, rocks should be one of the most basic. It would even be realistic. The history of structural engineering is that of a sequence of materials - stonework, wood*, iron and steel in about that order.** I could see a system where you could use any material to get barricades up to a certain point, with some being eliminated at higher cutoffs until you needed steel (or whatever) to get barricades to their highest point.

*I know that humans have been using wood since Time Immemorial - I'm including things like joinery and scaffolding when putting materials in that order, which may or may not be the order that's best for the game depending on how alchemy find rates work out.

**Concrete is hard to place in a timeline since it was discovered, then became Ancient Legendary Lost Technology, then was discovered again. Not that that matters for us since it's not in the game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thie
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Nov 26, 2012
Posts: 103

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ongewitter wrote:

Wood, Steel and Plastic can be found at 8%, 6% and 4% respectively.

I thought this information might be available for rocks. I didn't realize that these numbers were just an average %chancetofind at all locations. I thought that there might be values for each item that took into consideration the number of available locations. (IE: a 100% item that can only be found on a single stygian tile might be rarer than a 50% item found in various tiles on all three planes). All I could find was the wiki page for rocks (later provided by Ongewitter). I assumed that somebody in dev might have calculations for the rarity of items.

Shadok wrote:

You take the %-chance info and figure it out yourself. We're not going to spoonfeed you information.

Apparently nobody has calculated this then? That's all you need to say.

Kandarin wrote:

If there were a total/average find rate stat, Rocks would have one of the highest in the entire game.

Yeah, they have long list of locations and relatively high find rates.

Kandarin wrote:
I could see a system where you could use any material to get barricades up to a certain point, with some being eliminated at higher cutoffs until you needed steel (or whatever) to get barricades to their highest point.

This might make the suggestion too complex. I already made some changes to make it more palatable for the simplicity crowd.

Thie wrote:

Permanent - constructed using steel (does not decay)
Durable - constructed using wood (decays 100 HP per 24 hours)
Temporary - no materials used (decays 100HP per 2.5 hours - similar to glyphs)
...
- Fortifications are built in increments of 100 HP.
- Regular characters in a stronghold spend 20 AP for 100 HP
- Structural engineers spend 10 AP for 100 HP
- Strong structural engineers spend 5 AP for 100 HP (maxed)
- Characters can add a component during construction to change the decay type. Each subsequent fortification will require the same component to continue construction. Ie: a permanent strong wall cannot be strengthened without another piece of steel.

Does this satisfy the 'ammo/decay' requirements for fortifications to everybody's satisfaction?

What about tier-based soak? Do we need it with these changes?
Thie wrote:

Fortifications have 5 levels:

Very Strong - 401-500 HP, Impassable, +10 soak (strongholds), +5 soak other inside locations, 0 soak outside
Strong - 301-400 HP, +10 AP to cross, +8 soak (strongholds), +4 soak other inside locations, 0 soak outside
Normal - 201-300 HP, +5 AP to cross, +6 soak (strongholds), +3 soak other inside locations, 0 soak outside
Weak - 101-200 HP, +2 AP to cross, +4 soak (strongholds), +2 soak other inside locations, 0 soak outside
Very Weak - 1-100 HP, +1 AP to cross, +2 soak (strongholds), +1 soak other inside locations, 0 soak outside

Would it be better if the soak was 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 instead of +5, +4, +3, +2, +1. (Soak doesn't stack?)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ongewitter
Wikinator
Wikinator


Joined: Jan 19, 2010
Posts: 2638

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thie wrote:
Ongewitter wrote:

Wood, Steel and Plastic can be found at 8%, 6% and 4% respectively.

I thought this information might be available for rocks. I didn't realize that these numbers were just an average %chancetofind at all locations. I thought that there might be values for each item that took into consideration the number of available locations. (IE: a 100% item that can only be found on a single stygian tile might be rarer than a 50% item found in various tiles on all three planes). All I could find was the wiki page for rocks (later provided by Ongewitter). I assumed that somebody in dev might have calculations for the rarity of items.

I just took about the highest findrates.
Let me Fix That For Myself:
Wood, Steel and Plastic can be found at 4%, 6% and 4% respectively. (The 8% one is still a tile in the game it just isn't on the map)
That's in a Forest, Factory and Junkyard tile.

There's also absolutely no point in taking an average. I could have Soul Ice appear 100% on a single tile and then add it with 0.01% on every other tile and it would have a 0.38% average chance of being found ([266*.01+100]/267). The problem with that is that everyone would flock to that tile to find Soul Ice.

Also, we're kinda working on that rarity thing, like in that alchemy thread.

As to your other two questions, I feel they can be answered by just quoting what Teksura said in that other thread
Teksura wrote:
If we're concerned about the fortifications getting too big out in the wild, lets take a look at where problems might come up:

With SE and Str, you're building 20 HP per AP. That's 5 AP per 2 soak, 25 AP for a full 10. The average T3 class does 15 damage, so you're putting them up faster than they can be knocked down. (Takes 34 AP to knock them down).

Problem 1: A MORTAL who dumps 30 CP into this route is better at building defenses than most tier 3 characters are at removing them

Problem 2: Burning through large amounts of fortifications to kill someone will suck as a mortal.

...

So first off, 5AP for 100HP is pretty much the same as just building 20HP per AP, so I'll stop there.

Second, 5 Soak for a mortal is a lot. Better than Divine Armor a lot, which is a T2 skill reserved for Paladins. Most mortals only manage to deal 7-ish damage (Chainsaws and Guns do more but require ammo, heavy weapons are kind of inaccurate). Add in 5 soak for everyone and we end up at a T1 slogfest where you'd need 25 hits just to kill someone. Not attacks, actual hits, so assuming you start out with 60CP (remember how Struct Engineering costs less total?) and get a full Ranged Combat tree and wake up with two people on your tile and somehow only finding pristine Slings and you don't need to pick up rocks and your weapon doesn't decay, you're still spending 34AP killing them. At level 10 you would still not be able to do that twice.

So like I said, a sliding scale providing soak based on tier would probably be best. Anything but providing mortals with 5 soak.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thie
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Nov 26, 2012
Posts: 103

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ongewitter wrote:
As to your other two questions, I feel they can be answered by just quoting what Teksura said in that other thread
Teksura wrote:
If we're concerned about the fortifications getting too big out in the wild, lets take a look at where problems might come up:

With SE and Str, you're building 20 HP per AP. That's 5 AP per 2 soak, 25 AP for a full 10. The average T3 class does 15 damage, so you're putting them up faster than they can be knocked down. (Takes 34 AP to knock them down).

Problem 1: A MORTAL who dumps 30 CP into this route is better at building defenses than most tier 3 characters are at removing them

Problem 2: Burning through large amounts of fortifications to kill someone will suck as a mortal....

So first off, 5AP for 100HP is pretty much the same as just building 20HP per AP, so I'll stop there.


The reason for 20/100 is to make the wall-ammo/decay simple. You build the wall in 5 steps and need 5 pieces of ammo. IIUU, you (and tek) are saying that this is too much fort compared with damage rates.

Thie wrote:

- All weapons do double dmg vs. fortifications.


Did this change not affect that? Keep in mind that any character building walls is investing most of their time doing so. A struct eng will spend 50 ap building a very strong wall. A strong struct eng will spend 25 ap. They also invested 40 cp, not 30.

Ongewitter wrote:

Second, 5 Soak for a mortal is a lot. Better than Divine Armor a lot, which is a T2 skill reserved for Paladins. Most mortals only manage to deal 7-ish damage (Chainsaws and Guns do more but require ammo, heavy weapons are kind of inaccurate). Add in 5 soak for everyone and we end up at a T1 slogfest where you'd need 25 hits just to kill someone. Not attacks, actual hits


Good point. It might be smarter to hit the forts first. A mortal would only typically have 4 soak, unless they are actively building while being attacked. A very strong (500hp) fort is impassable. The hunter would have to knock it down to strong (400hp) to enter.

Ongewitter wrote:

So like I said, a sliding scale providing soak based on tier would probably be best. Anything but providing mortals with 5 soak.


How would you slide it? Im confused about what you want. Should t3s get more soak or less? Should mortals get more or less? Previous mentions of this idea suggested mortals get higher soak than t3s. I think you are now saying they should get less.

I went with 12345 to Keep It Simple Stupid, as per your request. I also haven't seen a reasonable suggestion for how tier-based soak would actually work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thie
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Nov 26, 2012
Posts: 103

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject: Re: [GAMEPLAY]: Fortifications (CHANGE) Reply with quote

Sorry Kandarin. I haven't really responded to your two good points:

Kandarin wrote:
I'd like to reiterate my suggestion of making this simpler by tying components to caps. Fortification above a certain level should start requiring material components, and reaching the higher levels of fortification should require rarer or more numerous components (except for stronghold fortifications, which would still be free). This would accomplish what your suggestion is trying to accomplish without a lot of special rules and loopholes.

Kandarin wrote:
If there's a succession of materials to build better barricades, rocks should be one of the most basic. It would even be realistic. The history of structural engineering is that of a sequence of materials - stonework, wood*, iron and steel in about that order.** I could see a system where you could use any material to get barricades up to a certain point, with some being eliminated at higher cutoffs until you needed steel (or whatever) to get barricades to their highest point.

*I know that humans have been using wood since Time Immemorial - I'm including things like joinery and scaffolding when putting materials in that order, which may or may not be the order that's best for the game depending on how alchemy find rates work out.

**Concrete is hard to place in a timeline since it was discovered, then became Ancient Legendary Lost Technology, then was discovered again. Not that that matters for us since it's not in the game.


So would you prefer something like this:
Kandarin's Fort Idea wrote:

Very Strong - 401-500 HP, Impassable, 10 soak (strongholds), 5 soak other inside locations and requires steel, 0 soak outside
Strong - 301-400 HP, +10 AP to cross, 8 soak (strongholds), 4 soak other inside locations and requires iron, 0 soak outside
Normal - 201-300 HP, +5 AP to cross, 6 soak (strongholds), 3 soak other inside locations and requires wood, 0 soak outside
Weak - 101-200 HP, +2 AP to cross, 4 soak (strongholds), 2 soak other inside locations and requires rock, 0 soak outside
Very Weak - 1-100 HP, +1 AP to cross, 2 soak (strongholds), 1 soak other inside locations and requires no components, 0 soak outside

All fortifications decay at a rate of 100 HP per 24 hours (one level per day)

Building Fortifications:
- Fortifications can be constructed inside any building (not just strongholds) and outside along one side of a tile.
- The difference between walls and barricades would be that Walls bar/slow movement from one tile to another tile (and diagonally) and do not provide soak for a character once they have crossed the wall.
- Only characters with Structural Engineering can build walls or non-stronghold fortifications.
- Fortifications are built in increments of 100 HP.
- Regular characters in a stronghold spend 20 AP for 100 HP
- Structural engineers spend 10 AP for 100 HP
- Strong structural engineers spend 5 AP for 100 HP (maxed)
- Fortifications can be removed at the same rate that they are created.
- Characters must add a component during construction for all walls beyond very weak. Each subsequent fortification will require additional components to continue construction. Ie: to build a very strong wall a strong structural engineer would need 5 ap, 5ap + rock, 5ap + wood, 5ap + iron, and 5ap + steel.

Removing Fortifications
- Attacks against fortifications have a 5% chance of a critical hit. A critical hit will immediately knock the fortifications down a level.
- All weapons do double dmg vs. fortifications.
Fortifications can also be destroyed using magic: Destroy fortifications. 20 cp 20 mp destroys 100 hp of fortifications.


Your change seriously affects the variable decay rates, so I scrapped it and went with one level per day.

I feel that with the component requirements it will be much less common to see strong or very strong walls. Should all weapons still do double damage? Or should we adjust the passability of walls instead? (Make strong, very strong and normal impassable, 10 ap to weak, 5ap to cross very weak.)

Does Kandarin's suggestion satisfy some of your issues Ongewitter?[/b]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Terrion
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Jun 29, 2011
Posts: 243
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why bother making all weapons do double damage against forts instead of halving all the fort numbers?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lijitsu
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: May 02, 2012
Posts: 120
Location: Macon, GA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

High numbers sounds prettier. You're also screwing casters and unarmed with that, as they don't use weapons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Thie
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Nov 26, 2012
Posts: 103

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Terrion wrote:
Why bother making all weapons do double damage against forts instead of halving all the fort numbers?


I wondered this myself. We went with 500 because that is the current value for forts. I think Using Kandarin's suggestion makes the double dmg unneeded.

Lijitsu wrote:
High numbers sounds prettier. You're also screwing casters and unarmed with that, as they don't use weapons.


Casters can learn a spell to destroy forts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kandarin
Dreamweaver
Dreamweaver


Joined: Jan 19, 2010
Posts: 1904
Location: Charlotte's Bakery University

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kandarin's Fort Idea wrote:

Very Strong - 401-500 HP, Impassable, 10 soak (strongholds), 5 soak other inside locations and requires steel, 0 soak outside
Strong - 301-400 HP, +10 AP to cross, 8 soak (strongholds), 4 soak other inside locations and requires iron, 0 soak outside
Normal - 201-300 HP, +5 AP to cross, 6 soak (strongholds), 3 soak other inside locations and requires wood, 0 soak outside
Weak - 101-200 HP, +2 AP to cross, 4 soak (strongholds), 2 soak other inside locations and requires rock, 0 soak outside
Very Weak - 1-100 HP, +1 AP to cross, 2 soak (strongholds), 1 soak other inside locations and requires no components, 0 soak outside


That was pretty much it, but my suggestion would run more toward a narrowing range of materials rather than a sequence - a sequence of materials would require a very intricate supply train and make this all but impossible for factions without a lot of boring micromanagement. Instead I would do it like so:

Kandarin's Fort Idea wrote:

Very Strong - 401-500 HP, Impassable, 10 soak (strongholds), 5 soak other inside locations and requires steel, 0 soak outside
Strong - 301-400 HP, +10 AP to cross, 8 soak (strongholds), 4 soak other inside locations and requires iron or steel, 0 soak outside
Normal - 201-300 HP, +5 AP to cross, 6 soak (strongholds), 3 soak other inside locations and requires wood, iron or steel, 0 soak outside
Weak - 101-200 HP, +2 AP to cross, 4 soak (strongholds), 2 soak other inside locations and requires rock, wood, iron or steel, 0 soak outside
Very Weak - 1-100 HP, +1 AP to cross, 2 soak (strongholds), 1 soak other inside locations and requires no components, 0 soak outside
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shadok
Nexus Fixture
Nexus Fixture


Joined: Aug 15, 2010
Posts: 3955
Location: Gehenna (Earth Branch)

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thie wrote:
Terrion wrote:
Why bother making all weapons do double damage against forts instead of halving all the fort numbers?


I wondered this myself. We went with 500 because that is the current value for forts. I think Using Kandarin's suggestion makes the double dmg unneeded.

Lijitsu wrote:
High numbers sounds prettier. You're also screwing casters and unarmed with that, as they don't use weapons.


Casters can learn a spell to destroy forts.


Just for the record, the devs kinda made a pact to not use multipliers for attacks anymore. It just gets out of hand REALLY fast (you stuck buffs on buffs and then you're suddenly dealing 200HP per hit on the fort. This leads to people frustrated by how difficult BUILDING the forts are and they can be smashed in no time by one angry attacker). Not to mention that with the role system, it means that a weapon-based multiplier won't benefit the right people. It means that the hunters deal the most damage to the forts, but the ones who need the ability are the tanks (who can survive a petswarm long enough to have a punch at the forts).


But in the event of using your method of forts, we'd definitely want to give spellcasters a fortbreaker spell. And just roll a fort-breaking skill into the haymaker skill. Call the attack "Pry apart" or something and it gives a description of the player tearing the forts to pieces. The attack only appears when targeting doors or forts.
_________________

"Oh, sorry, thought I was in a Vault of Enlightenment, not someone's booze cabinet." -Kharn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ongewitter
Wikinator
Wikinator


Joined: Jan 19, 2010
Posts: 2638

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like how you get less component options the higher the forts HP gets, actual components could do with a look-over once find-rates get fixed.

I'm also not big a fan of yet another spell, one that requires CP to learn, to break down forts instead of just cutting all forts HP values in half.

Sliding scale would be T1<T2<T3 but I'm not sure about the numbers. I'd think T1=+2, T2=+4 and T3=+5
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Nexus Clash Forum Index -> Promoted Suggestions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Forums ©
Credit: Site homepage artwork (C) 2017 Acaisha Buffo
Character creation and raid ticker icons by Lorc and Delapouite at game-icons.net
Original Nexus War classes, powers, and lore copyright 2003 - 2019 Brandon Harris (bharris@gaijin.com) used with permission.
PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.