Best Of
Action Bar Keybinds are Triggering me
Hi Team,
This is triggering me beyond beliefs, had to post this;
Before:
After:
Takes literally one second to look a lot better
Have a nice day
This is triggering me beyond beliefs, had to post this;
Before:
After:
Takes literally one second to look a lot better
Have a nice day
anarcx
8
Re: Open World Bosses and You - The Importance of Furniture Drops
I’m gonna be real, this suggest reads a lot like a joke. Inventory slots are restrictive, and I don’t think most players actually care about a big dramatic Wyvern Chair to put in their little in-node apartments.
Just give everyone that meets a merit threshold loot, whether it’s material to be used for crafting or upgrading, or some kind of recipe/plan/quest lead etc. The more reliable the loot acquisition is for the victors, the more people will want to fight over it.
Just give everyone that meets a merit threshold loot, whether it’s material to be used for crafting or upgrading, or some kind of recipe/plan/quest lead etc. The more reliable the loot acquisition is for the victors, the more people will want to fight over it.
Caeryl
2
Pre-Order game time on release?
So if you bought the "Voyager Plus Pre-Order Pack" it included 9 months worth or game time. Now my question is how does this get applied on release. Does the account automatically charge the 9 months or do I get to individually activate it when the right time arise for me to play. I am asking this since I am working alot from time to time and wont always be able to dedicate my life to this game and it would be quite the bummer to lose out on 4-5 months worth of time because I can't manually activate the play time.
My recommended way of handling this would be to give ultimately one code per month to be activated. (9 codes in total). This way I can activate the play time when I feel like I have enough time to actually make use of the subscription instead of losing out.
My recommended way of handling this would be to give ultimately one code per month to be activated. (9 codes in total). This way I can activate the play time when I feel like I have enough time to actually make use of the subscription instead of losing out.
Yepod
2
Re: Looking back on Rangers. (Rangers being weapon locked)
I highly agree with all of this, and this is coming from someone that wants to play a ranger and most likely use bows, however! I agree locking rangers into bows and from what I've seen, we are missing a huge part of the ranger fantasy, for example having a connection with beasts, tracking, etc, a great example I could give for anyone that has read the lotr books ( doesn't really go into detail in the movies ) but the type of ranger Aragon is in the books sums it up pretty perfectly, and he mostly uses a great sword
I'd argue that it was just a case of historical name misappropriateion, the 'Ranger' of D&D was always a direct evolution from earlier generic 'Elf warrior' classes which were directly ripping off Legolas (who was capable in melee and ranged combat). While Aragon is far closer to a Paladin (rightious leader, healing ability, battling and turning the undead),
That said I agree with the OP that Ranger being locked into bow for all effective purposes is very inconsistent with the huge weapon flexibility which is the norm for every other archetype. I suspect that Intrepid faced a similar dilema when deciding if ranged weapons would suffer a penalty in melee and seem to have decided against it so that the Ranger can just fire pointblank with no downside and then don't 'need' melee attacks in its kit.
George_Black wrote: »They should add more skills to the ranger for melee combat, they should add a necromancer, since let's not forget... we turn to ashes when we die. No skeleton logic, no zombie logic. They should add a druid or shapeshifter.
They should create more detailed animations for better variety of the archetypes. Not go with generic animations and magical projectiles.
And take it from there.
I am very much in favor of Ranger skill set getting some actual melee skills. Two or three more could do a lot, I could see a melee delivered hamstring attack, a knockback, maybe a finisher etc etc.
Also you need to stop diverting every thread with class discussions we have just come off a bunch of threads dealing with exactly that, use them if you want to keep that discussion going. And even if you DO think they need to add new archetypes that clearly will not come untill expansions. THAT is when MMO's of any stripe add new root class/archetypes and when we might reasonably expect to see a Druid which as a hybrid class that basically shape shifts to take on aspects of other classes are not essential to balance.
Lodrig
1
Re: Tank - The role of threat/Hate in PvP
Every single hate/threat skill should have an useful ability in pvp.
Tanks as a total afterthought out in the world as a solo character is an awful design.
One nearly every mmos ignores.
If the Tank is the worst pvp class out in the open world, everytime, than its a total fail by the designers.
Tanks as a total afterthought out in the world as a solo character is an awful design.
One nearly every mmos ignores.
If the Tank is the worst pvp class out in the open world, everytime, than its a total fail by the designers.
Endowed
1
Re: Resurrection during combat
Either like 30 min cd, With option from talents to make it for example having 2 charges.
Or to cost like 70% of max mana.
Or to cost like 70% of max mana.
Githal
3
Re: Looking back on Rangers. (Rangers being weapon locked)
I don't see a problem with ranger meaning "ranged weapon specialist". In fact, I've played other games where that's what "ranger" means; it means someone fighting at range. It doesn't necessarily mean a WoW Hunter, or a Ranger from Dungeons and Dragons or Lord of the Rings.
I would also like if "Ranger" meant having skills that interact with all ranged weapons, whether they were bows, wands, orbs, and so on. And that would make "Ranger" a more fitting archetype name than "Archer" since it would be about more than bows.
Essentially, it would be the ranged weapon mirror to the Fighter, which is the melee weapon specialist.
I would also like if "Ranger" meant having skills that interact with all ranged weapons, whether they were bows, wands, orbs, and so on. And that would make "Ranger" a more fitting archetype name than "Archer" since it would be about more than bows.
Essentially, it would be the ranged weapon mirror to the Fighter, which is the melee weapon specialist.
Atama
2
Re: Looking back on Rangers. (Rangers being weapon locked)
Essentially, it would be the ranged weapon mirror to the Fighter, which is the melee weapon specialist.
Literally exactly my thoughts.
Noaani
1
Re: Looking back on Rangers. (Rangers being weapon locked)
Now I need to reevaluate my position...
(Just kidding, great minds think alike. )
Atama
1
Re: Looking back on Rangers. (Rangers being weapon locked)
George_Black wrote: »I don't see a problem with ranger meaning "ranged weapon specialist". In fact, I've played other games where that's what "ranger" means; it means someone fighting at range. It doesn't necessarily mean a WoW Hunter, or a Ranger from Dungeons and Dragons or Lord of the Rings.
I would also like if "Ranger" meant having skills that interact with all ranged weapons, whether they were bows, wands, orbs, and so on. And that would make "Ranger" a more fitting archetype name than "Archer" since it would be about more than bows.
Essentially, it would be the ranged weapon mirror to the Fighter, which is the melee weapon specialist.
They could create a class that does that.
A class that throws arrows, bolts, rocks fireballs, ninja stars (and logic, out the window).
But when people talk about ranger the mind goes to the shadowy, hooded watchmen of the woods. And frankly, there is a way bigger audience for such a class than there is for a non coherent, ranged attacks specialist with random abilities.
And when people hear "class" they think they know what that means, but it means something different in AoC than every other MMO out there. Intrepid doesn't seem to care about things like that.
Another MMORPG I've supported in Kickstarter is based around superheroes, and rangers in that game are just superheroes with ranged powers.
One of the great things about making your own game is that you get to make up whatever you want. You can go against a stereotype and redefine things however you want. I don't see that Ashes doing something different is a problem. We can play a Mage who carries a sword, your Tank can zap people with a wand. The last thing we need to worry about is what people are going to assume from playing other games. If they want a clone of WoW, this is the wrong game.
Your argument that there is a bigger potential audience for a stereotypical MMORPG that just does the same things as everything else is both true and irrelevant.
Atama
2