Separate names with a comma.
Create an account today to engage in discussions and community events on the Rise of Agon forums.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Virginicus Maximus, Apr 1, 2019.
Which do you guys prefer?
when we say travelfall, are we talking local banking, slower boats, no bindstone recall, no runestones/books, no portals? because that was really fun in dnd, people were out in the world so much more, it was a verry nice convenience feature
Go play dnd if you never want to see anyone in travel fall. That shit killedtheir game before they went bankrupt
- Villages board should only be use 1x every 30 min ( when the next portable village is live).
- UNLIMITED runebooks....... only 1 runebook per account whit 10 location.
- wilderness portal chamber should all be link together.
thats my own opinion on what to adjust in game.
HOW ABOUT THE HAPPY FUCKING MEDIUM WE'VE ALL WANTED?
I like the potential that runebooks have to grant a lot of convenience. I don't like how much of a tactical advantage you can get from them.
Under the current mechanics you can port into a hiding spot and no one will have any idea you are there until you are meleeing them in the back. You could port an entire siege force and come from an unpredictable direction, effectively substituting any real siege planning with just runestones. You can port back into a location you were killed at in pvp over and over again effectively making the runebook a bindstone. I think that is too strong in all of these cases to a point that it devalues holdings, holding portals and chaos portals too much.
1.Once you start the runebook channel it should take the portal shards even if you break it or it gets broken.
2. When the rune port is started a spell effect appears at the location you are porting to. It also makes a noise AND can be destroyed by player damage.
3. If this 'port anchor' is destroyed at any point (channel and load screen) the port is broken, shards are taken and a cool down is triggered.
This takes away the stealth factor and provides a counter where people can deny the port. This makes porting directly back into fights or sieges much less possible, instead you would need to mark the runes further away or effectively hold the ground the runes are marked on. This also means you couldn't just port directly onto a champ spawn or whatever to zerg someone down without them knowing you are coming.
Yeah the runebooks have undermined logistics in sieges too. You cant really use a larger enemies size and organisation against it, when all they have to do is use a runebook, rarely having to ever move around the map, en masse, using chaos banks etc.
I like the idea of a port anchor.
Another option is to maybe make specific locations on the map be the anchor points, and only those locations. As in a set of ruins nearby contain Rune Magic, and only at this location can people port in.
It does mean though, if someone is coming to your tile, you know exactly where the nearest anchor location is. But this does allow for zone control.
You could probably add the world portal network at these locations too
I'd probably wait until after the expansion before making any more changes, just to see what its like. Maybe some new shit can tie in to what we all want.
Territory control could be very incentivised by fast travel control too. If you control a region, you can limit or even fully deny rune magic entry? Or receive bonuses for yourself.
Why not increase the run speed a little.
Just a little
What about the god damn medium!!!! Give the people what they want....
Also I agree with beatit
How about just disable runeing in 1 hour before a siege goes live with a 4 square radius?
Also I am all for adding in 8 portal chambers. One for each sub continent and 4 for mainland - NSEW all connected to the portals in the world
Then I don’t care what you do with runebooks.
How the fuck are any of you using sieges as the foundation for arguments against runebooks?
It ruined day to day PvP - not sieges. Acting like we didn't all have runes marked everywhere in the world in DFO or we didn't have pre-marked runes for important sieges is a joke.
Limit the distance that can be traveled with runes to like 5km(random number, but you get the point). This gives people local convenience and prevents what we've seen with Runefall.
Local PvP was killed because an entire clan can port in to kill some poor SoB that decided to go roaming for PvP at a hotspot(I'd be fine with this if it was because some clan owned a city within that arbitrary maximum rune distance).
If they remove or limit them, they must incorporate portal chambers. I am done running from coast to coast. I got shit to do.
reenable infinite 1 hit bunnyhop
I’ll learn to quit. Plenty other shit to do in my life then run around the world for an hour. Sorry no New Dawn here bud.
You clearly dont play this game.
Hello - reading comprehension!!!
If they remove or limit them
THEY'RE ALREADY PART OF THE GAME, HELLO?
99% of the time PvP happens at the destination, not the run there. Ports remove by far the shittiest part of this game. BPG's recent push to starve portal shards has done nothing but introduce more tedium.
If BPG's reasoning behind their attempts to devalue runebooks is for regionalization, then do that after the implementation of regionalization.
I'd agree to restrictions on runebooks' use during sieges though.
Don't @ me with some bullshit about how people rune in zerg you when a fight happens. Boohoo, pvp.
Bottom line is that if any change adds more tedium on top of the already disgusting amount of tedium present in the game, then it's a hard no. There might be a few people left with nothing going for them that still have 16 hours a day to grind through the tedium, but most of us have shit to do these days.
Portaling between your own holdings should be free for the love of god.