ACE_Jackal

Co-Op City Building - Official Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Do defensive buildings take up both types of tokens? Like can a Tower, for example, take a M defense slot AND a M building slot (since its a building and not something like a gate)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm a vassal and I have a vendor set up in someone else's EK, and I get kicked, what happens to that vendor and its inventory? Does the upkeep/billing still cycle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can a Monarch place buildings on a Noble’s parcel? And Can a Monarch move a vassal’s building on a Noble’s parcel? Wasn’t clear in the FAQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, coolster50 said:

Can a Monarch place buildings on a Noble’s parcel? And Can a Monarch move a vassal’s building on a Noble’s parcel? Wasn’t clear in the FAQ

"they have full administration rights" so I would go with yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the tech involved in this help out CWs in any way?  Will it affect city building in shadows and dregs campaigns, for example?

This is helpful in that I can combine all my accounts into a single EK and make them all nobles in it.  But that said, I don't expect to use my EK for anything, since I have no interest in the economy outside the CW I'm participating in.   If we can display trophies in the EK, that'd be kinda cool.  Storage chests would also be useful.  But outside trophies and storage, instanced housing has little appeal for me. 

It seems like EKs are going to be a significant burden on your server pool without actually bringing much gameplay benefit.  There will be a few large market EKs, and guilds may set up guild EKs to display their trophies alongside their shops, but for the vast majority of us, it feels like EKs will be instanced housing that will strain the servers with no benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Durenthal said:

It seems like EKs are going to be a significant burden on your server pool without actually bringing much gameplay benefit.

You have to remember that not everyone plans to avoid the EKs and all campaigns with Imports. It may add little benefit for a player that chooses to ignore the persistent economy and Import campaigns, but that doesn't mean it doesn't add gameplay benefit for everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jah said:

You have to remember that not everyone plans to avoid the EKs and all campaigns with Imports. It may add little benefit for a player that chooses to ignore the persistent economy and Import campaigns, but that doesn't mean it doesn't add gameplay benefit for everyone else.

There is a value to having a dozen or so big market EKs for the people you're talking about.   There remains no value in having 50000 personal EKs consuming server resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news. :) Some questions. ;) 

If I am a vassal and place a building, and a noble or monarch moves my somewhere else ... how am i to find it again (and be it only for the reason to put it back in my inventory)?

In this early implementation, will I be only able to place my work station in my own houses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Durenthal said:

There is a value to having a dozen or so big market EKs for the people you're talking about.   There remains no value in having 50000 personal EKs consuming server resources.

Other people's EKs may be of little value to you, but it is silly to proclaim that other people's EKs aren't valuable to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jah said:

Other people's EKs may be of little value to you, but it is silly to proclaim that other people's EKs aren't valuable to them.

I'm saying they aren't valuable to ACE.  They are a money sink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Durenthal said:

I'm saying they aren't valuable to ACE.  They are a money sink.

Not when people are paying to buy EK assets for them, or actively playing and enjoying the game to earn those EK assets for themselves.

Keep in mind, EKs that people aren't using won't be spun up, and won't take much server resources. They are just some data in a database when they aren't being enjoyed by their owners.

EKs may not be your cup of tea, but they are in fact a selling point for other customers.

Edited by Jah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a suggestion:

Make onlining an EK part of the join world process.

The current systems incentivize players to AFK in their EKs for extended periods to keep them open to visitors. This is costing you money in AWS fees as you have servers online for extended period of time with nothing happening in them. Extending the online times based upon number of vendors, nobles, etc. doesn't change this. You have a lot more EKs online that are actively in active use by players because player feel the need to AFK and keep them online so their vendors are accessible.

If any player with entry rights could also start up the EK, you wouldn't need to extend their online times, no one would have an incentive to AFK in the world and cost you money, and you'd only be paying for servers that were actively in use by a player. You could move time to die for servers to be less than a minute even, simply starting the server close procedure when all players exit.

And, in fact, this entire process could be mostly transparent to the players in the first place. The button would say "join world" and the players would only use the "offline" tag as an indicator that joining the world will take a bit longer (as it has to boot itself up first)

Functionally, this would be like having every EK online at all times, and doesn't really pose any kind of access risks since simply joining a world doesn't afford you ant permissions you wouldn't otherwise have. having it be part of the join process would also largely prevent players from making costly moves like going down the list of public EKs and simply onlining all of them for lols.

If putting an EK online was simply part of the join process, you'd save money, and players would have unfettered access to EKs. As a result players would have 100% uptime for the purposes of vendor shopping. Since players can only see EKs they have access to on the world browser anyway, this change would prevent the need to write any special case checks for permissions, and in the end seems like a win/win for the player and the server costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is all sounding great! I can't wait!

Quote

Who can wake up an EK?
Currently, only the monarch can wake their Kingdom, but in the future we plan to allow nobles to do so, as well.

What causes my EK to shut down?
An EK will go to sleep if there are no players in the EK. Eventually, this will be modified so that if there are vendors with wares to sell in the EK, it will stay awake longer (Watch for more information about this change in a future update).

I'm not sure if these are the final plans or not, but I'm hoping that we can eventually get to a spot where there doesn't need to be a Monarch or Noble to wake up an EK and that anyone can wake up a public EK. Part of our guild goals is to create a merchant kingdom, but if it's inaccessible when we're not online that kind of messes things up. I know it says it will stay awake longer with vendors, but unless it stays awake for a significantly long time (24+ hours) then it won't matter. Merchants will want their wares accessible 24/7.

Also, something to consider is that people will just leave an account logged into their EK to keep it awake permanently. If the goal is to avoid needing too many servers because of having too many EKs spun up, then I think it's smarter to give an option for anyone to wake up a public EK (make it an option for the monarch) to avoid having a ton of idling characters just keeping EKs awake 24/7.

EDIT: PopeUrban beat me to it by 2 minutes. ;) What he said!

Edited by Svenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Durenthal said:

There is a value to having a dozen or so big market EKs for the people you're talking about.   There remains no value in having 50000 personal EKs consuming server resources.

I'm not really sure I understand the issue here.   EQ2 gives everyone multiple houses, and just quietly puts them to sleep when no one is using them and wakes them up when someone wants to use them.  So clearly this is a solved problem, and shouldn't really be an issue.

Why can't CF just use a similar bit of tech so that no resources (memory/processor) are consumed when a world is "asleep", then just quietly wake them up when someone wants to connect?

What am I missing here?

EDIT:  Just to be clear, this isn't just EQ2, WildStar also does similar things and does them well.  I'm sure many other games do too - so I just don't get it.

Edited by Whoom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PopeUrban said:

Just a suggestion:

Make onlining an EK part of the join world process.

The current systems incentivize players to AFK in their EKs for extended periods to keep them open to visitors. This is costing you money in AWS fees as you have servers online for extended period of time with nothing happening in them. Extending the online times based upon number of vendors, nobles, etc. doesn't change this. You have a lot more EKs online that are actively in active use by players because player feel the need to AFK and keep them online so their vendors are accessible.

If any player with entry rights could also start up the EK, you wouldn't need to extend their online times, no one would have an incentive to AFK in the world and cost you money, and you'd only be paying for servers that were actively in use by a player. You could move time to die for servers to be less than a minute even, simply starting the server close procedure when all players exit.

And, in fact, this entire process could be mostly transparent to the players in the first place. The button would say "join world" and the players would only use the "offline" tag as an indicator that joining the world will take a bit longer (as it has to boot itself up first)

Functionally, this would be like having every EK online at all times, and doesn't really pose any kind of access risks since simply joining a world doesn't afford you ant permissions you wouldn't otherwise have. having it be part of the join process would also largely prevent players from making costly moves like going down the list of public EKs and simply onlining all of them for lols.

If putting an EK online was simply part of the join process, you'd save money, and players would have unfettered access to EKs. As a result players would have 100% uptime for the purposes of vendor shopping. Since players can only see EKs they have access to on the world browser anyway, this change would prevent the need to write any special case checks for permissions, and in the end seems like a win/win for the player and the server costs.

It could be tied to the vessel hunger status in the EK...   people could keep an EK up 24/7/365 with a vessel present even in starvation status...   I would think maybe a starving players EK should shut down after a set length timer...  we are talking no power movement losses to the chicken tick but rather the minimum ticker consumption rate plus the final timer meaning a topped off player (with chicken consumption training) AFK in an EK will keep it up for 4-6 hours or something before need to be fed again.

Edited by Frykka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.