test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› PvE Discussion

AD Stronghold costs

nymerosnymeros Member Posts: 72 Arc User
edited September 2015 in PvE Discussion
Overall AD costs:

48.0M Guild Hall LV20
45.9M Boon Structure LV10
22.3M Support Structure LV10
15.3M PVP Tower LV10
7.9M Market
0M Resources structure


Here's an example of an "economic fortress", remembering that to bring the Stronghold to LV20 it needs at least 12 structures lv 9.

Guild Hall
4 Boon Structures
Market
4 Resources structure
3 PVP Towers
1 Support structure

48+(45.9x4)+7.9+0+(15.3x3)+22.3=261.8 Millions AD

Account Quote= 261.8M/150 Accounts = 1.745.333 AD

Not bad for guilds with many active users, like mine, but outrageous in the case of medium/small guilds.

Start saving! :)

Thanks to miller for data collection
Words are like arrows. Once loosed, you cannot call them back
Co-Leader of G r A v i t y X G a m e - Founder of the 1st Legit LFG and member of NW_Legit_Community
Post edited by zebular on

Comments

  • bioshrikebioshrike Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 4,729 Arc User
    Yes, it's a lot - but spread across 150 accounts/500 characters, that's less than 1.8 million a piece, and that is further spread across however much time you want.
    <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::>
    "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
    Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
  • humorisbenefithumorisbenefit Member Posts: 60 Arc User
    I looked forward to see this calculation, THX for great effort to bring it on. Average guild with 5 - 10 accounts, semi active, it will be nice to have that AD amount.
  • oldbaldyoneoldbaldyone Member Posts: 1,840 Arc User
    Be interesting if someone in a personal or very small guild ran these numbers. They mentioned from the start that the numbers adjusted themselves for the size of the guild.
  • nymerosnymeros Member Posts: 72 Arc User
    No scaling
    oldbaldyone said:

    Be interesting if someone in a personal or very small guild ran these numbers. They mentioned from the start that the numbers adjusted themselves for the size of the guild.

    As far as I know there is no scaling.
    Words are like arrows. Once loosed, you cannot call them back
    Co-Leader of G r A v i t y X G a m e - Founder of the 1st Legit LFG and member of NW_Legit_Community
  • kreatyvekreatyve Member, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 10,545 Community Moderator
    oldbaldyone said:

    Be interesting if someone in a personal or very small guild ran these numbers. They mentioned from the start that the numbers adjusted themselves for the size of the guild.

    Ummm, when I questioned them about this during a live stream, they said they do not.
    My opinions are my own. I do not work for PWE or Cryptic. - Forum Rules - Protector's Enclave Discord - I play on Xbox
    Any of my comments not posted in orange are based on my own personal opinion and not official.
    Any messages written in orange are official moderation messages. Signature images are now fixed!
    kuI2v8l.png
  • bioshrikebioshrike Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 4,729 Arc User
    It wouldn't make sense to scale the costs - if they did, then it'd be advantageous to keep the guild small, build it up, then invite a bunch of people later.
    <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::>
    "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
    Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
  • rapticorrapticor Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,078 Arc User
    I'm fine with just waiting until the next module. Hopefully it has something for the smaller guilds / casual players.
  • rickcase276rickcase276 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,404 Arc User
    Which is why I am little concerned about getting my guildhall to much higher than level 3. So at least I can get my marketplace to level 2. Anything else beyond that will be considered gravy. And yes, I am the only active player in my guild. And the biggest hangup at the moment is influence and frozen vouchers.
  • urabaskurabask Member Posts: 2,923 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    bioshrike said:

    It wouldn't make sense to scale the costs - if they did, then it'd be advantageous to keep the guild small, build it up, then invite a bunch of people later.

    In Warframe this is exactly how it works :|

    But that's because they're focused on trying to make it such that large guilds don't outpace small ones whereas Strongholds seem intent on making only "large" (150 isn't large : | ) guilds able to finish anything.

    Warframe is also still in the top ten on Steam so maybe Cryptic should take a page out of their book.
    I8r4ux9.jpg
  • rhoriangelusrhoriangelus Member Posts: 703 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    bioshrike said:

    It wouldn't make sense to scale the costs - if they did, then it'd be advantageous to keep the guild small, build it up, then invite a bunch of people later.

    Could always 'lock in' guilds on a specific bracket. If a guild starts very small, they are locked into the smallest bracket, and only pay what they need to upgrade, but they can't add more accounts to their guild without also paying to increase their bracket.

    Just as an example. Bracket 1 starts with between 1 and 30 accounts in a guild. A hypothetical guild starts with only 20 players in it. This locks them into bracket 1, where they pay the least to upgrade their Stronghold, BUT, if they add more than 10 new people to the guild, their bracket increases to 2, and their stronghold progress gets put on hold until they can accumulate the difference in resources between bracket 1 and 2. But, once they've done that, they can safely add 30 more people before they have to increase to bracket 3, and so on up to 150 accounts. Upgrading all the way in bracket 1 wouldn't exempt you from having to pay the difference if you suddenly added 130 more people after reaching 20, either. Your stronghold would basically 'pause', and you'd have to pay the difference before you could utilize your upgraded whatnots.

    Don't mind me, I just like coming up with hypothetical solutions to things like this.
  • putzboy78putzboy78 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,950 Arc User
    rhoriangelus said:

    bioshrike said:

    It wouldn't make sense to scale the costs - if they did, then it'd be advantageous to keep the guild small, build it up, then invite a bunch of people later.

    Could always 'lock in' guilds on a specific bracket. If a guild starts very small, they are locked into the smallest bracket, and only pay what they need to upgrade, but they can't add more accounts to their guild without also paying to increase their bracket.

    Just as an example. Bracket 1 starts with between 1 and 30 accounts in a guild. A hypothetical guild starts with only 20 players in it. This locks them into bracket 1, where they pay the least to upgrade their Stronghold, BUT, if they add more than 10 new people to the guild, their bracket increases to 2, and their stronghold progress gets put on hold until they can accumulate the difference in resources between bracket 1 and 2. But, once they've done that, they can safely add 30 more people before they have to increase to bracket 3, and so on up to 150 accounts. Upgrading all the way in bracket 1 wouldn't exempt you from having to pay the difference if you suddenly added 130 more people after reaching 20, either. Your stronghold would basically 'pause', and you'd have to pay the difference before you could utilize your upgraded whatnots.

    Don't mind me, I just like coming up with hypothetical solutions to things like this.
    That would be a very mature approach that encourages an opportunity for small closer communities to stay united...
  • ironzerg79ironzerg79 Member, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 4,942 Arc User
    If you've dug into Strongholds at all, you'd know that the AD cost isn't really the "hard" part...it also wasn't intended to be one module's worth of content. The intent is that most guilds are going to spend the next year or two building this out.
    "Meanwhile in the moderator's lounge..."
    i7TZDZK.gif?1
  • putzboy78putzboy78 Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 1,950 Arc User
    ... until we get events for 2xSH Awards :-)
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited September 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • dfncedfnce Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 509 Arc User
    putzboy78 said:



    rhoriangelus said:

    bioshrike said:

    It wouldn't make sense to scale the costs - if they did, then it'd be advantageous to keep the guild small, build it up, then invite a bunch of people later.

    Could always 'lock in' guilds on a specific bracket. If a guild starts very small, they are locked into the smallest bracket, and only pay what they need to upgrade, but they can't add more accounts to their guild without also paying to increase their bracket.

    Just as an example. Bracket 1 starts with between 1 and 30 accounts in a guild. A hypothetical guild starts with only 20 players in it. This locks them into bracket 1, where they pay the least to upgrade their Stronghold, BUT, if they add more than 10 new people to the guild, their bracket increases to 2, and their stronghold progress gets put on hold until they can accumulate the difference in resources between bracket 1 and 2. But, once they've done that, they can safely add 30 more people before they have to increase to bracket 3, and so on up to 150 accounts. Upgrading all the way in bracket 1 wouldn't exempt you from having to pay the difference if you suddenly added 130 more people after reaching 20, either. Your stronghold would basically 'pause', and you'd have to pay the difference before you could utilize your upgraded whatnots.

    Don't mind me, I just like coming up with hypothetical solutions to things like this.
    That would be a very mature approach that encourages an opportunity for small closer communities to stay united...
    it works for guilds with 7 day inactivity kick policy. My observation across many games that there are always many inactive accounts, they might be friends or friends of friends.

    Problem to me that GH boons are 100% dependent on collective effort. It reminds me deteriorated communist system where no matter how hard you work, you waste your time on any effort. You can change it by joining to 7-day inactivity kick policy guild but i'm not happy with it either.

    If there were 20/80% split of boon structure,it would be great. 20% of boon bonus you get when you unlock as your own campaign in stronghold framework. 80% of boon bonus you get as guild level boon bonus and your progress in particular guild. You should never grant full 100% for new invited player. New invited player should get 10% of it and pay guild marks to unlock rest. No guild jumping.

    I also think what should be consequences of kicking players from guild. All contributors are on mercy of guild policy and leaders. I treat m stronghold involvement as business investment (measured by AD/ZEN/RP/time) and i don't feel such deal of contribution is secured by any in-game law. So it is pretty much communist labor camp and no legal rights like in third world country where cheap labor force crafts your luxury goods for 2$/day payment.

    EX-DL-BtS / ITF-KC-KB / BF-HD-IBS / FtF-IT-ST-Dis / CA-GW-PG
    "When no appropriate rule applies, make one up."
    — (The unwritten rule)

  • humorisbenefithumorisbenefit Member Posts: 60 Arc User
    dfnce said:

    putzboy78 said:



    rhoriangelus said:

    bioshrike said:

    It wouldn't make sense to scale the costs - if they did, then it'd be advantageous to keep the guild small, build it up, then invite a bunch of people later.

    Don't mind me, I just like coming up with hypothetical solutions to things like this.
    That would be a very mature approach that encourages an opportunity for small closer communities to stay united...

    I also think what should be consequences of kicking players from guild.

    All contributors are on mercy of guild policy and leaders.

    I treat m stronghold involvement as business investment (measured by AD/ZEN/RP/time) and i don't feel such deal of contribution is secured by any in-game law.

    So it is pretty much communist labor camp and no legal rights like in third world country where cheap labor force crafts your luxury goods for 2$/day payment.
    defiantone99 said:

    If it takes 2 years then why level 70 weapons? Won't they be obsolete before we get them?

    Maybe Laborcam... I mean stronghold get "food" upgades and we get "Bread and water" NOT only water.

    They can easily do upgardes via Stronghold market place where higher level Guild OFC get better items so no worries that Stronghold stuff goes old.
  • gromm1gromm1 Member Posts: 47 Arc User
    nymeros said:

    Overall AD costs:

    48.0M Guild Hall LV20
    45.9M Boon Structure LV10
    22.3M Support Structure LV10
    15.3M PVP Tower LV10
    7.9M Market
    0M Resources structure


    Here's an example of an "economic fortress", remembering that to bring the Stronghold to LV20 it needs at least 12 structures lv 9.

    Guild Hall
    4 Boon Structures
    Market
    4 Resources structure
    3 PVP Towers
    1 Support structure

    48+(45.9x4)+7.9+0+(15.3x3)+22.3=261.8 Millions AD

    Account Quote= 261.8M/150 Accounts = 1.745.333 AD

    Not bad for guilds with many active users, like mine, but outrageous in the case of medium/small guilds.

    Start saving! :)

    Thanks to miller for data collection

    OMG, if we ever get there... maybe need get something else to do and is this Stronghold so much "must have"... I mean will it give big advantage and create that way unfair balance depending guild size (same grind per person because items are capped per day).


Sign In or Register to comment.