Best Of
Re: Balderags Garde // Deutsche Feierabendgilde // Discord // PvX // Alpha 2 und Release
Hallo wie groß ist aktuell die Gilde wie aktiv ist sie wieviel werden an Alpha teil nehmen
Re: Removing Waypoints During Questing: A More Immersive Exploration?
I agree that waypoints etc "shouldn't" be necessary while questing. HOWEVER, this all comes down to the quality of quest design. Take for example the last livestream:
One thing I would certainly say is a marker who has a quest in the first place would be great and I think that citizens of religious Nodes or players who have a shrine in their freehold could get a clearer indicator seen from further away to find the starting points of quests. (This is under the assumption that religious nodes' "theme" is "PvE" and quest activity).
As for quest goals, I think area marks are enough, if certain objects are necessary to progress the quest, I'd suggest a "twinkling" indicator that activates automatically after a character spends a certain time in the quest area. e.g. after 30 min (maybe even make this dependent on the Intelligence stat of that character?) looking for the components of the Toy Soldier in the Oakenbane Castle ruins, getting near a mob that drops a part of it triggers a 2 second twinkling effect that indicates a point of interest, same could be done when passing by the grave where you ultimately have to lay down the completed toy soldier.
But routing indicators on the map are too much, I found myself looking a lot at the map in games that have that and when something ended up not being marked on the map despite me being there before I realized I had no idea how to get there or where exactly that place was - that is not good for an immersive game.
One thing I would certainly say is a marker who has a quest in the first place would be great and I think that citizens of religious Nodes or players who have a shrine in their freehold could get a clearer indicator seen from further away to find the starting points of quests. (This is under the assumption that religious nodes' "theme" is "PvE" and quest activity).
As for quest goals, I think area marks are enough, if certain objects are necessary to progress the quest, I'd suggest a "twinkling" indicator that activates automatically after a character spends a certain time in the quest area. e.g. after 30 min (maybe even make this dependent on the Intelligence stat of that character?) looking for the components of the Toy Soldier in the Oakenbane Castle ruins, getting near a mob that drops a part of it triggers a 2 second twinkling effect that indicates a point of interest, same could be done when passing by the grave where you ultimately have to lay down the completed toy soldier.
But routing indicators on the map are too much, I found myself looking a lot at the map in games that have that and when something ended up not being marked on the map despite me being there before I realized I had no idea how to get there or where exactly that place was - that is not good for an immersive game.
Kilion
1
Re: Removing Waypoints During Questing: A More Immersive Exploration?
I had immense fun playing Morrowind and using map + directions + exploration to find places.
it also made me stumble on to a lot of different things while I was out in the wild exploring. if they can bring some of that wonder to ashes then I am all for it.
it also made me stumble on to a lot of different things while I was out in the wild exploring. if they can bring some of that wonder to ashes then I am all for it.
Kyskei
3
Re: Removing Waypoints During Questing: A More Immersive Exploration?
Having to find your own way can make the game world feel more alive and engaging.
Rorchard
4
Re: Removing Waypoints During Questing: A More Immersive Exploration?
It's a tough question, and good points been made about Ashes in particular having to rely on automatable systems because of its modular world and node state design.I was just being snarky but with a hint of what would actually happen to me. Unless there is a compelling storyline most quests are not worth the time to actually read beyond cursory examination. The devs shouldn't spend time developing masterpiece stories just to save 7 villagers.
But what I know for sure is that I'd rather spend 5 hours stumbling about while actively engaged in figuring out what to do than 3 hours ticking off tasks by following exclamation marks with my brain entirely shut off.
If I don't want to think, I can go farm overland map monsters or an easy dungeon. I don't need quests for that.
If the lack of directions make quests take substantially longer, you can offset that by also adding more encounters to complete them, and then rewarding them with more XP, and then you also keep dev time equal by designing fewer, but more challenging/engaging quests.
Re: Fixing the Class system
I feel like there might be too much attachment that people (myself included) have already developed to the "existing" augment/class designs. Even though they don't really exist yet... Doesn't Intrepid want us to give feedback and tell them when we think their design direction is flawed? Especially before they waste a bunch of work on it?
I think people here have clearly identified two potential flaws to the whole system: 1) The 64 subclasses are not likely to feel unique enough. And 2) it might take way too long to make as many augments as Intrepid supposedly wants. (Although I think people might be misinterpreting the "4 augment paths" thing. It's probably just 4 "trees" not 4 augment choices for every single ability. Still, that's a heavy cost for something that might feel shallow or redundant in the end.)
And of course, balance might be an issue, but it's entirely secondary to the others. If classes feel unique and augments aren't infeasibly numerous in the first place, then balancing them afterwards shouldn't be too tall of an order.
I think people here have clearly identified two potential flaws to the whole system: 1) The 64 subclasses are not likely to feel unique enough. And 2) it might take way too long to make as many augments as Intrepid supposedly wants. (Although I think people might be misinterpreting the "4 augment paths" thing. It's probably just 4 "trees" not 4 augment choices for every single ability. Still, that's a heavy cost for something that might feel shallow or redundant in the end.)
And of course, balance might be an issue, but it's entirely secondary to the others. If classes feel unique and augments aren't infeasibly numerous in the first place, then balancing them afterwards shouldn't be too tall of an order.
Leonerdo
5
Re: [EU|DE] Eisenfaust || PvX | GMT+1 | Zwergengilde | Nodebuilding | Handel & Handwerk
<Eisenfaust> hat mittlerweile 50+ Zwerge und eine aktive Community auf dem Discord Server. Wir freuen uns weiterhin über jeden Zwerg der seinen Weg zu uns findet! Ab dem 25. oktober wird sich jedes Wochenende jemand finden der seinen Bildschirm teilt und diejenigen ohne A2 Key ein Fenster zu Verra bietet
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
If the intention is for Nightblade to be a rogue flavored Fighter and not a unique class, then I think it is a mistake to give it a unique and flavorful name as it will set the wrong expectation for players.
I think at the very least each two archetype combo should have a unique passive that establishes the theme and ties the two archetypes together. For example:
Nightblade: Attacking enemies from Stealth grants you a burst of Combat Momentum. Attacks that deal poison damage grant 1 additional momentum.
Hunter (Fighter/Ranger): You may cast Mark of the Bear, Mark of the Raven, and Mark of the Tiger. Melee attacks have a chance to apply Stalk to the target.
The combo-archetypes just need SOMETHING to make them feel more flavorful and unique IMHO.
Sure, if you are not familiar with the game, and you see 64 different class names, it can be confusing, or rather expectations would be different from reality.
But then again, Archeage also worked somewhat like this.
You had 3 archetypes, and you combined them into a class. Each class combination had a unique name.
I don't think many people thought you'd have 100+ classes. Many classes played similarly, and you basically had a dozen viable choices (viable as in meta, many other classes were viable, just not the best - as there was a better option available, which was similar).
People might be confused now, because simply we haven't seen the system in action, and there's so much stuff we do not know, but I don't think it's going to be the case when the game releases.
For example, let's take a look at these 2 classes in Archeage:
Skullknight = Occultism, Auramancy, Defense
Revenant = Occultism, Auramancy, Sorcery
Both classes use 2 same skill trees, with only 1 being different.
You'd be correct to assume they're similar classes, however, one of these trees was always the main influencer on your role. In this case, Sorcery made a Revenant into a really good Damage class, while Skullknight was initiator, focusing on initiating fights, pulling enemies, cc-locking them, and surviving for long enough, so the Revenants can come in and blow them up with their AoEs. Rather, this was the case during this specific meta.
In Ashes, your main archetype will determine your role.
Only 1 skill tree was different, so both classes were similar, but also different.
Skill selection from these trees mattered, so did your gear and weapons - and that is what separated these 2.
Skullknights mostly went for tank gear, while Revenants went for DPS gear. Skullknights used a weapon as a stat stick, with a shield, while Revenants used a weapon that would give them the most damage (simplifying it here). Revenants focused on AoEs, to maximize their damage, while Skullknights focused on CC skills, survivability, etc.
I'm assuming it will be similar in Ashes, where your build, gear, and weapon choices will impact the way your class plays, rather than just one of those things.
For example: Fighter + Fighter using plate armor and a Two-Handed sword will be different than a Fighter + Mage, using leather or cloth armor and a Sword + Orb or Sword + Scepter.
iccer
1
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
Taleof2Cities wrote: »If the intention is for Nightblade to be a rogue flavored Fighter and not a unique class, then I think it is a mistake to give it a unique and flavorful name as it will set the wrong expectation for players.
That is precisely the expectation that Intrepid has communicated to the players, Rippley.
The secondary archetypes merely add flavor … there currently aren’t plans for 64 classes all with unique abilities.
That’s the expectation you should have going in to Alpha 2 … and in my opinion it doesn’t diminish from the game’s immersion and combat potential.
All that said, it is possible for the devs to under promise and over deliver.
We’ve already seen the Environment Team contributing way more than expected with the seasons showcase.
If that is the case then showing the community an 8x8 Grid with 64 of the coolest, most evocative archetype names was a HUGE mistake. Because you cant look at that chart and read the name "Songbow" without immediately starting to imagine what a Songbow might be like in game.
Rippley
1
Re: What is the advantage of choosing the same archetype as class?
Ranger is one of the archetypes where I find it really easy to imagine OTHER archetypes augmenting THEM, but comparatively difficult to imagine what THEIR augments would look like on other classes.
I suppose Ranger augments could be applied to a melee ability and turn it into a ranged ability or increase the range or area of effect of certain abilities. But how would that work with Ranger/Ranger?
Interestingly I again feel the exact opposite, because the 'Carry' itemization options in MOBAs (Predecessor being the main one that comes to mind) are almost always the ones most flexibly 'inserted' into basically any other attack build.
And I'm not necessarily talking about the simple 'hit harder' or 'attack faster' ones either, though obviously, debuffing against damage or getting Penetration options would suit every Ranger player I can think of, while still not requiring it to be Ranged (and then it could be Ranged whenever that was suitable).
Also, Rangers might get 'retreating mobility' or 'certain CC types' in the Augment space. It would be best for everyone, I think, if specific types of CC could be restricted to certain Archetypes, Augment wise.
e.g. Tanks have Knockbacks, Fighters have Slows/Staggers, Rangers have Snares and Roots, Rogues have Detargeting and punish-bleeds.
Azherae
1