Best Of
Re: Fixing the Class system
I think you belive that ROLE is the same as Playstyle/tactics and that Augments will 'preserve the role' what your indicating is that playstyle and tactics will be unaltered.
No what I think is that people are underestimating the impact the (currently expected) augments will make despite being seemingly small. I am quite aware that the Role is not the same as the playstyle. The Core function of augmented skills will remain the same, Steven said as much, but he also said that augments are meant to "blur the lines a bit" between the Archetypes to allow for some adjustments regarding the Rock-Paper-Scissor System (A Mage can account for their weakness against Rangers and Rogues by augmenting their skills with Tank aspects), this allows for situational, new options during fights, but at that core the Mage is still that: A mage.
You present and speak of Flavor changes AS IF they were Radical changes because you over interpret the tactical effects of an extra damage proc or buff getting applied ontop of a skill.
I'm just saying what I think will be Intrepids approach to augments and its effects. And correct me if I am wrong: We have nothing PROVING neither me nor you wrong. It's an open question and I don't share the worry that augments will be little more than cosmetics.
So I don't think we are talking past each other, we simply don't agree on what we will get because information is not conclusive on the matter. Which is why I think that there is no "fixing the class system" when nobody can really know whether there is something to fix to begin with.
I am asking for and brainstorming playstyle varients for the classes in the light of radical changes and with the intent to create a simple description of that playstyle which synthesises both archetypes. This is healtheir then trying to design augments for an individual skill. See ny Class Fantasy thread for examples, I'd like to produce a description for all 64 classes.
Fair enough, but this is over at your thread and I was primarily concerend with OPs prompt here to "fix" something that we don't even know the workings of. Additionally, I don't think we need short descriptions for every class, which is while I will not grace/taint your thread either.
Kilion
5
Re: Removing Waypoints During Questing: A More Immersive Exploration?
I could also see specifically having no quest markers for unique quests, but full task instructions and 3d markers for Commissions and repeatable side quests.
That way you could make the big quests where you need to keep track of where you have to go and what you need to do long and rewarding, while the handheld quests grant very low rewards and mostly serve as incentive to go out and kill things.
Might sound obvious, but most games have no distinction in the amount of handholding, or worse, inconsistent handholding, guaranteeing that players will get impatient with the low-handholding story quests.
If it's a consistent design philosophy, players know the effort and reward associated with unique versus repeatable quests.
That way you could make the big quests where you need to keep track of where you have to go and what you need to do long and rewarding, while the handheld quests grant very low rewards and mostly serve as incentive to go out and kill things.
Might sound obvious, but most games have no distinction in the amount of handholding, or worse, inconsistent handholding, guaranteeing that players will get impatient with the low-handholding story quests.
If it's a consistent design philosophy, players know the effort and reward associated with unique versus repeatable quests.
Re: Fixing the Class system
You lost me.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "only change it 10%".
If a Mage Teleport applied to my Fighter's Rush allows me to blink past a Wall that would otherwise impede me, that significantly changes my tactics. A quantifier like 10% seems to be meaningless.
I'd definitely prefer some other Mage-like stuff to place on my other Active Skills, than a Teleport.
I dunno how a Teleport Augment is supposed to help augment my Battle Cry.
Your being willfully ignorant if you can't understand this.
And your example is emblematic of lazy thinking. You have to postulate a SPECIFC enemy countermeasure produced by 1 opposing archetype for limited time under which a teleport augmented Blitz would seemingly play ANY different then the base Blitz. To call this reaching is an understatement.
No player worth their salt would call that a meaningful change to tactics let alone playstyle because once you think about it for more then a second you remember the barrier is still present and your now trapped and cut off from team mates so in even in your hypothetical 90% of the time you ain't gonna teleport through said wall because you have no escape path. Your still a Fighter with a gap closer which is gonna feel exactly the same as every other fighter, that's what 10% change is, something you don't even need to relearn or alter your play around.
I'm no fan of that example from Steven either, but if we just discount the difference between two skills that both gap close but differently, then we might as well just downgrade all expectations of all the combat.
See, this is some kind of logic that I cant dress as deserved because then peoples feelings can get hurt.
Here you have people telling you that the promised "play as you want" wont provide meaningful variety, and that the meta will be narrow and they want to discuss new ways forward.
Your response is "leave it as it is and dont discount it even though it looks that way. And dont discuss things that are not tested yet. It's not valid feedbackEven. Though. It looks. That way."
Why let the system fail and then lead to delays?
Re: Fixing the Class system
Basically I would rather see 1 good solid augment that radically changes playstyle, then 4 bland flavor choices which don't change playstyle and tactics. One augment which changes your kit 40% is better then 4 choices with each change it only 10%.
Agreed, with an emphasis for Cleric and Tank. Augments must significantly transform the base archetype or the core of the 8-man team is going to get boring.
CROW3
2
Re: Is no one else disappointed that "Persistent Alpha" AKA 24/7 Alpha 2 access isn't until May 2025?
patrick68794 wrote: »patrick68794 wrote: »patrick68794 wrote: »patrick68794 wrote: »One thing I simply do not get is people who are upset about this.
You are complaining about an ALPHA. You are not meant to play the game, you are meant to TEST it and provide feedback. Having Alpha be persistent immediately, or next year in May, should make absolutely 0 difference to you, AS A TESTER. It does however make a huge difference to devs, you know, because at this stage of the game, they matter a lot more than you.
If they cannot provide you with something that was promised during this stage, then it's totally normal, for anyone who has a slight clue about development process. Expecting them to meet deadlines, while they're still very much in the middle of developing the game and it's systems, is beyond baffling to me.
If I were Steven, I would never, ever again put a deadline on anything, ever, just because of crybabies online who complain when they cannot meet said deadlines. And for a long time, he didn't want to say when Alpha 2 will happen, because he wanted to avoid situations like these.
Be happy that you get an Alpha 2 this year, because they could've easily pushed it back to May, and maybe then you would've got persistent alpha, except then you would cry about the delay.
I'd be totally supporting the argument if we were talking about a launch, but this is an Alpha. Things change, some deadlines cannot be met due to various reasons.
No, nobody lied to you. Yes, there is a reason they had to push it back.
People that have paid money are absolutely allowed to be upset here. It doesn't matter that we've paid to "test" instead of "play" either. We've invested money into the project and if deadlines are missed then feedback should be provided.
It's beyond idiotic to think that just because they've said "this is an alpha" then that means they're beyond any criticism or negative feedback. If I told my paying clients that and continually missed deadlines you bet your ass I'd hear negative feedback about that, and I would 100% deserve it. If Steven has any sort of professionalism (and I do think he does) then I'd bet money that he'd agree with that.
And yes, missing deadlines in development is expected and normal, to an extent. That isn't some blanket excuse that can be used constantly and eventually it's just an excuse for a deeper problem. I'm not saying Intrepid is at that point but that is eventually the reality of throwing that excuse around constantly. At some point your clients/investors/customers will stop believing it and are going to get angry.
No. If you "paid money" you did it to support the game, not to get to play it before everyone else.
If you view it differently, than that's on you.
There's a huge difference between paying for or rather investing in a product, and paying to support the devs.
There's a huge difference between paying for a finished product, and paying for the development of said product.
I never said they are absolved of any negative feedback, hell, I'll be one of the first people to shit on them if necessary. Don't think I'm any sort of a white-knight for them, because far from it.
However, in this case people are completely missing the point on what the alpha is supposed to be, on what they spent they money, etc. I'll absolutely point out the bs outrage about things that do not matter.
My point is, people are completely missing the point on what Alpha 2 is supposed to be. They're completely missing the point on what they spent their money on. They view it as an early access, when it's just not that, or rather that is only a small part of it.
What does it matter if the alpha is persistent or not immediately? How does that impact you?
Btw, persistent as in there will be no wipes, you get to keep characters, etc. - it doesn't have to mean it's 24/7 online.
I never said people were paying money to "play the game early" lol I don't know where you got that from. Don't reply again until you understand what's being said to you.
I'm addressing the complaints, the whining and crying, and the overreaction in general. Not just your post, or any specific post in this thread for that matter. I've clearly stated "people are", not "you are". I'm simply explaining my point of view to you, and yeah, Don't reply again until you understand what's being said to you.
Then don't reply directly to someone with something that's a generalized statement while also saying "you" and then get upset when you get called out for your posts being stupid or you not understanding what you're reading. If you want to communicate learn to do it properly. See, I'm using "you" to reply directly to you, I'm not making some idiotic generalized statement about other people.
You've ignored 80% aka the rest of my reply anyways, and are focusing on my wording or the fact I directly quoted you while trying to further explain my point, after your replied to my post.
Are you here to provide good arguments to support your point, or to just argue about bs, and semantics?
I already provided good arguments. The people that paid have every right to be upset at the constant missed deadlines and changing plans and Intrepid is not above hearing negative feedback from those people. Saying "that's software development" and just dismissing the actual problem shows complete ignorance about how professional software development works just as much as people complaining the first time a deadline was missed. All you did was try and dismiss that with irrelevant drivel that had nothing to do with what I said. I never said anything about how they should have the alpha up 24/7. I never said anything about being upset that it won't be up 24/7 at the start either. I don't care what you think the reason other people bought the alpha/beta access for either because that's nothing but baseless conjecture on your part.
If by constant missed deadlines and changing plans you mean the Alpha 1 stuff, I mean sure. Hell, they changed the entire "game" from then to now, but I can only believe it's for the better, as that version had none of the key systems that are going to be in the game. If anything, they should be happy they're willing to re-iterate and improve the game - up to a point of course, they cannot do it forever.
Sure, people have a right to be upset. But the reason why they are upset might not be right. And I've explained why, which is the main point I've repeated, and that I'm going to repeat again.
Maybe they should think more before they spend large amounts of money on something, or rather maybe they should manage expectations better.
Calling it a scam, bait and switch, or whatever else, just because people are upset that they won't get to play the game "continuously" before May, is such a shit reason to be upset about.
I'd understand it more if this was closer to release, but this game is years from release. It's very much in the middle of development.
What are people actually upset about here then, if not because it's not "persistent alpha"? I mean just take a look at the OP and several replies on the first page, nothing I say is "baseless". The fact that you haven't said anything about 24/7 persistent alpha, means nothing in this conversation. Remember, you were the one who replied to me first. You cannot just say "All you did was try and dismiss that with irrelevant drivel", when I'm trying to reiterate my original point.
They're still getting Alpha 2 this year. If it not being persistent means so much to everyone, then I'd say people need to fix their priorities, and maybe focus on other actual issues with the game, its development, etc. rather than something so meaningless.
The fact is, players are upset about them not getting to play the game like they expected to, when they expected to, and my point was, they are there to test it, and provide feedback not to just play it for their own enjoyment. That is the purpose of alpha 2, and that should've been one of the reasons they bought the pack, on top of wanting to support the devs. Whether they get to do it 24/7 for weeks, continuously, or during a weekend, is totally not up to them.
Feel free to ignore this part, as this is only my assumption that might or might not be true:
So what we have now is people who bought access with maybe a lack of information, who misunderstood the purpose of Alpha 2, that are now upset. Most of them wouldn't be upset, if they only did some research.
At the same time Intrepid's FOMO tactics with packs, and now with selling Alpha 2 keys didn't help at all, so yeah, you can be upset about this, as it is a far better reason to being upset about.
At the same time Intrepid's FOMO tactics with packs, and now with selling Alpha 2 keys didn't help at all, so yeah, you can be upset about this, as it is a far better reason to being upset about.
iccer
2
Re: Timestamps in forum posts
Vanilla forums by default displays time stamps based on the users device time settings.
This only applies to posts on the same day in regards to time, however. It reverts to showing date as soon as the local time rolls past midnight.
I honestly don't see why we would need anything more than this - but feel free to give reasons if you have them.
This only applies to posts on the same day in regards to time, however. It reverts to showing date as soon as the local time rolls past midnight.
I honestly don't see why we would need anything more than this - but feel free to give reasons if you have them.
Noaani
1
Re: Free weekend at Alpha 2
If you want free access it means you just want to check out the game, and no real feedback will be given to Intrepid, or even worse, you're feedback might be "please add a dungeon finder with teleport".
There's a reason we have a paywall, to elicit some sort of commitment.
There were many chances to get free alpha 2 keys as well if you followed Intrepid streams.
There's a reason we have a paywall, to elicit some sort of commitment.
There were many chances to get free alpha 2 keys as well if you followed Intrepid streams.