~300 million for a flame basi 1bil< for a mamoth ?

    • ~300 million for a flame basi 1bil< for a mamoth ?

      Is it intended that flame basi cost (energy only) is above 300 mil ? 16600*20k > 300 mil... Mammoth cost is north of billion.

      Is there anyone who can afford to use that thing in a "sorry disconnected + you dismount after disconnect = dead" ZvZ ?

      What's the "planned" energy cost ? Even if energy becomes 10 times cheaper the mount price will be about 30 mil. May be that this is the intended price but then, is energy planned to be around 2k per unit ?

      2k per energy -> 4k per t4 relic -> 200k per "relic" t4 artifact item ? It doesn't make sense either.
    • Monochrome schrieb:

      There's no planned silver cost, it was balanced in terms of "how many (fractions of) X can you afford with the points from one territory over one season". How the silver values shake out is up to the players :)
      I like the concept. Could you shed some light on the formula? Do you guys consider raiding in it? I just am wondering more of how you guys saw a season going more than the battle mounts.
    • Monochrome schrieb:

      There's no planned silver cost, it was balanced in terms of "how many (fractions of) X can you afford with the points from one territory over one season". How the silver values shake out is up to the players :)
      But the relation of "cost of one relic artifact" vs "cost of flame basi" is defined by the hardcoded value of energy used.
      For t4 artifact you need 36 relics -> 72 energy.
      For 1 flame basilisk you need 16600 energy.

      1 flame basilisk = 230 t4 relic artifacts.

      This relation is not player controlled. The price of 1 unit is.

      Therefore, my question is: are the relic artifacts (t4 in this ex.) are supposed to be dirt cheap or flame basilisk supposed to be billionaire grade item ?

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von XKent ()

    • angrad schrieb:

      Monochrome schrieb:

      There's no planned silver cost, it was balanced in terms of "how many (fractions of) X can you afford with the points from one territory over one season". How the silver values shake out is up to the players :)
      I like the concept. Could you shed some light on the formula? Do you guys consider raiding in it? I just am wondering more of how you guys saw a season going more than the battle mounts.
      It's less a formula and more an approximation - we don't really know how the season is going to go, how much raiding there will be (although if everyone raids at the same sort of frequency, it cancels out anyway) etc*. What we did was look at, for example, if territory ownership stayed static, how many points would the highest-scoring Guild get and how much do we want them to be able to afford. Once we see how the first season actually plays out, we'll be able to do a lot more tuning if needed :)

      *If we can predict how it'll go, then so can players (some of whom are always smarter than us), and if players can predict it, they can solve it, and if they can solve it, it's no longer interesting. If you're designing a long-term game like Albion, you should be designing systems whose outcomes cannot be predicted in advance (but which still end up being good!).
    • XKent schrieb:

      Monochrome schrieb:

      There's no planned silver cost, it was balanced in terms of "how many (fractions of) X can you afford with the points from one territory over one season". How the silver values shake out is up to the players :)
      But the relation of "cost of one relic artifact" vs "cost of flame basi" is defined by the hardcoded value of energy used.For t4 artifact you need 36 relics -> 72 energy.
      For 1 flame basilisk you need 16600 energy.

      1 flame basilisk = 230 t4 relic artifacts.

      This relation is not player controlled. The price of 1 unit is.

      Therefore, my question are the relic artifacts (t4 in ex) are supposed to be dirt cheap or flame basilisk supposed to be billionaire only item ?
      True, but there are varying efficiencies for different uses of energy, and the average price of artifacts is itself an emergent property, so it's not totally straightforward.

      But yeah, from another angle, the battle mounts are generally intended to be very rare, which will likely translate into a lot of money. We just didn't worry about how much money when setting them up :)
    • Monochrome schrieb:

      angrad schrieb:

      Monochrome schrieb:

      There's no planned silver cost, it was balanced in terms of "how many (fractions of) X can you afford with the points from one territory over one season". How the silver values shake out is up to the players :)
      I like the concept. Could you shed some light on the formula? Do you guys consider raiding in it? I just am wondering more of how you guys saw a season going more than the battle mounts.
      It's less a formula and more an approximation - we don't really know how the season is going to go, how much raiding there will be (although if everyone raids at the same sort of frequency, it cancels out anyway) etc*. What we did was look at, for example, if territory ownership stayed static, how many points would the highest-scoring Guild get and how much do we want them to be able to afford. Once we see how the first season actually plays out, we'll be able to do a lot more tuning if needed :)
      *If we can predict how it'll go, then so can players (some of whom are always smarter than us), and if players can predict it, they can solve it, and if they can solve it, it's no longer interesting. If you're designing a long-term game like Albion, you should be designing systems whose outcomes cannot be predicted in advance (but which still end up being good!).
      Agreed. However, you may also want to consider making battle mounts a commodity. The reason for this, and I have not tested it myself so bare with me, is that if the design limits the amount of battle mounts a ZvZ should have and remain efficiently effective then there doesnt need to be a high buy in price. Also, if battle mounts become necessary to ZvZ, especially during a reset, then guilds that had little to no territories would benefit the most by having them be readily and easily accessible.

      I think my point here is that something necessary to obtain a goal shouldn't also be the reward of that goal. This will just create a stagnant climate in the game.
    • With a 1 flame basilisk = 230 t4 artifacts I find it hardly "worth the effort".

      Assume a guild has a 20 people group. 16600 energy as it's "resource for ZvZ".

      This guild can equip all members of it's raid with t4 relic artifacts 12 times OR have 1 flame basilisk. I know flame basi is strong but not 10 t4.3 flame tornadoes on your head strong...
    • Monochrome schrieb:

      There's no planned silver cost, it was balanced in terms of "how many (fractions of) X can you afford with the points from one territory over one season". How the silver values shake out is up to the players :)
      You create a new aftificiallly gated currency in a Sand Box game.

      Then you create something that most guilds would not spend this currency on because the new artifact weapons are more bang for your buck and most guilds can’t afford to lose in a single fight.

      This is not what I would consider additional content if it is rarely seen and never useable by most players.

      I expect flames like you just want easy mode MMO yada yada, want everything without the grind blah blah blah, go to WoW.

      The question is how much money does it take to sustain AO and how many players does it take to generate that kinda of money consistently. Will players stick around for multiple seasons to see their guild get 1 Mammoth that can be lost because of a disconnect in a single fight? They may do it once but not twice I bet. Yep full loot game, I get that. That works for items that you can get back in minutes, hours maybe days. Don’t think it will work for things that take weeks or months to get and seconds to lose.

      If this forces guilds to force players to be taxed more to keep up with the other guilds then AO farming becomes a 2nd job and at that point I’m out, If this is your first and only job then maybe that works for you, but I bet you aren’t the people buying gold or premium for real money then. If you aren’t spending real money with SI then they should not be building content only for you.
    • angrad schrieb:

      Monochrome schrieb:

      angrad schrieb:

      Monochrome schrieb:

      There's no planned silver cost, it was balanced in terms of "how many (fractions of) X can you afford with the points from one territory over one season". How the silver values shake out is up to the players :)
      I like the concept. Could you shed some light on the formula? Do you guys consider raiding in it? I just am wondering more of how you guys saw a season going more than the battle mounts.
      It's less a formula and more an approximation - we don't really know how the season is going to go, how much raiding there will be (although if everyone raids at the same sort of frequency, it cancels out anyway) etc*. What we did was look at, for example, if territory ownership stayed static, how many points would the highest-scoring Guild get and how much do we want them to be able to afford. Once we see how the first season actually plays out, we'll be able to do a lot more tuning if needed :) *If we can predict how it'll go, then so can players (some of whom are always smarter than us), and if players can predict it, they can solve it, and if they can solve it, it's no longer interesting. If you're designing a long-term game like Albion, you should be designing systems whose outcomes cannot be predicted in advance (but which still end up being good!).
      Agreed. However, you may also want to consider making battle mounts a commodity. The reason for this, and I have not tested it myself so bare with me, is that if the design limits the amount of battle mounts a ZvZ should have and remain efficiently effective then there doesnt need to be a high buy in price. Also, if battle mounts become necessary to ZvZ, especially during a reset, then guilds that had little to no territories would benefit the most by having them be readily and easily accessible.
      I think my point here is that something necessary to obtain a goal shouldn't also be the reward of that goal. This will just create a stagnant climate in the game.
      That's a reasonable point.
    • This is all very interesting but don't let it distract you from the fact that in 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.
    • Jokar schrieb:

      Why do you cry about the Energy Cost of the battle mounts ?

      I dont think the mounts were planned for single person. Its a reward for guilds. What do you want ? ZvZ with 300 vs 300 Battle Mounts ?

      You should have this "OMG WOW" moment when you see a battlemount enter the battle
      If it was the same when you see an artifact weapon in ZvZ I would agree, but they are dime a dozen...
    • This mount will only be used in battles for the Carleon(20vs20). He will never leave Carleon for other tasks. Therefore, only 20 players will have fun on the whole server. And only one of them will ride it. The same as the elitist gvg(5vs5). I do not understand why developers spend their time on several players. Who deals with financial matters? I do not see any strategy in this.

      Do you want to make a TV-show from an Albion? So that people would follow the gvg and the battles for the Carleon? Or is it an attempt to make titans like in an eve? Then the mount should be 480k hp, not 48k.
      Игровое Инвестиционное Сообщество: инвестируем серебро, получаем прибыль.
      https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/87605-Игровое-Инвестиционное-Сообщество/?pageNo=1

      Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von Clu ()

    • Clu schrieb:

      This mount will only be used in battles for the Carleon(20vs20). He will never leave Carleon for other tasks. Therefore, only 20 players will have fun on the whole server. And only one of them will ride it. The same as the elitist gvg(5vs5). I do not understand why developers spend their time on several players. Who deals with financial matters? I do not see any strategy in this.

      Do you want to make a TV-show from an Albion? So that people would follow the gvg and the battles for the Carleon? Or is it an attempt to make titans like in an eve? Then the mount should be 480k hp, not 48k.
      You can't use battle mounts in GvG anymore according to last patch I think.
    • letwolf schrieb:

      and it is okay cuz it fcking OP
      it have 48k hp lol

      purely pay2win thing
      3 players in T4 will kill you in 1 minute. And it will cost you 1500 dollars
      Игровое Инвестиционное Сообщество: инвестируем серебро, получаем прибыль.
      https://forum.albiononline.com/index.php/Thread/87605-Игровое-Инвестиционное-Сообщество/?pageNo=1