Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Best Of
Re: Ranger Archetype Changes
My feedback on the ranger is simply put:
If i wanted to play a mage i would play a mage.
The current iteration of ranger feels and plays alot more like a spell caster than a ranger, your end up playing with walk animation basicly on cause every skill you use make you walk or stand still, you attacks feel sluggish and ur movement skill feel just as bad. Compared to rogues feint disengage passive ranger disengage feels so bad and floaty
It seems like you want to make ranger a more AA based with chaining ability imbetween with salvo (and previous bow mastery) however no skills can be weaved inbetween AA and you cant even dodge cause it interupt AA Chains aswell
As a shortbow ranger this weapon is no longer viable after these changes with the removal of bow mastery passive aswell as the barrage nerf combined with arrow storm dmg being reduced by bout 60%, ive nowswapped to a shortbow rogue because it plays more like a ranger than an actualy ranger which like i said above feels like a mage.
Some changes i would make personaly
1 - Passive in skill tree for bonus range +10m on bow attacks skills, this will help with ranger class idenity
2 - Vine field should mechanicaly work like caltops from rogues (casting vine field feel clunky compared to caltops) remove the root on the vinefield however have it snare and disable mobility skill/dodges, give it a passive bramble field which causes it to deal dmg when moving inside the field (kinda like how caltrop works aswell)
3 - reduce the amount of slowing cast skills in the ranger tree most people play rangers cause they like the kiting capability they have in games however having every attack slows you stops this being possible having a couple of heavy hitting/high impact skills slow you down of make you stationary is fine but every single skill shouldnt be this way however the option below can suit both play styles
4 - Personaly i would bring back bow mastery passive but instead make it do something like this when Shortbow is equiped you get the effect to reduce/remove movement penalty on ranger skills walking skills can be used while running and stationary skills put you at a walk for example and Longbows get bonus range or damage when they been stationary for 3 seconds.
5 - If you want ranger to be more AA related they have the issue of the weapon attacks realy doing no dmg compared to skills so this would need to be address in some way and tbh i think it would be better if focus increased weapon combo damage by a decent amount then the higher it is and maybe allow skills to be weaved into without interupting combo chain for the cost of some focus.
If i wanted to play a mage i would play a mage.
The current iteration of ranger feels and plays alot more like a spell caster than a ranger, your end up playing with walk animation basicly on cause every skill you use make you walk or stand still, you attacks feel sluggish and ur movement skill feel just as bad. Compared to rogues feint disengage passive ranger disengage feels so bad and floaty
It seems like you want to make ranger a more AA based with chaining ability imbetween with salvo (and previous bow mastery) however no skills can be weaved inbetween AA and you cant even dodge cause it interupt AA Chains aswell
As a shortbow ranger this weapon is no longer viable after these changes with the removal of bow mastery passive aswell as the barrage nerf combined with arrow storm dmg being reduced by bout 60%, ive nowswapped to a shortbow rogue because it plays more like a ranger than an actualy ranger which like i said above feels like a mage.
Some changes i would make personaly
1 - Passive in skill tree for bonus range +10m on bow attacks skills, this will help with ranger class idenity
2 - Vine field should mechanicaly work like caltops from rogues (casting vine field feel clunky compared to caltops) remove the root on the vinefield however have it snare and disable mobility skill/dodges, give it a passive bramble field which causes it to deal dmg when moving inside the field (kinda like how caltrop works aswell)
3 - reduce the amount of slowing cast skills in the ranger tree most people play rangers cause they like the kiting capability they have in games however having every attack slows you stops this being possible having a couple of heavy hitting/high impact skills slow you down of make you stationary is fine but every single skill shouldnt be this way however the option below can suit both play styles
4 - Personaly i would bring back bow mastery passive but instead make it do something like this when Shortbow is equiped you get the effect to reduce/remove movement penalty on ranger skills walking skills can be used while running and stationary skills put you at a walk for example and Longbows get bonus range or damage when they been stationary for 3 seconds.
5 - If you want ranger to be more AA related they have the issue of the weapon attacks realy doing no dmg compared to skills so this would need to be address in some way and tbh i think it would be better if focus increased weapon combo damage by a decent amount then the higher it is and maybe allow skills to be weaved into without interupting combo chain for the cost of some focus.
Veeshan
5
Re: Ranger Archetype Changes
Hi,
I think the changes are the step in the right direction, but they are overshadowed by bad TTK. I will elaborate.
I think the gameplay around focus and trying to max it out before using big hitters is engaging.
The idea of having decent hunts, sacrifising them to get even stronger debuff on the enemy. So now the effect is stronger, but you are limited to just the target you marked. And then getting defensive after job well done.
The problem is that this defensive means nothing because you are getting smoked in 1/2 hits anyway. Caring about high focus does not matter because you oneshot ppl without it anyway.
And outside of those changes ranger for me still have 4 issues:
- the class that usually has exceptional range does not have range advantage over other range classes which kinda misses the class fantasy (pls, give ranger abilities the range of the bow he is using and give the passive in the skill tree that allows you to invest a point to increase the bow range by 15% or so)
- ranger skills are relativly long cast time, meanwhile mage can just instacast thundershot and instacast firebolt and destroy targets before ranger is done with even one cast. But this issue is mainly that mage is overloaded class with good mobility, defensives, aoe and single target. And also the issue of TTK that allows for those oneshots.
- ranger lacks reliable oh shit button defensive, while higher damage counterpart, mage, gets very strong self shield.
- Ranger mobility is lacking. It was supposed to be second most mobile class after rogue and for now bard has 2 dashes and big speed buffs, mage blink has more range than ranger disengage and its faster.. fighter has several dashes that are longer.. you get my point. Ranger disengage is only decent ranger mobility because due to wind up time of airstrike, it's not good mobility too and most often it's used offensivly as another root. Both disengage and airstrike have the problem that you are stuck in the flight animation while you are getting shot at. In my opinion wind up time of airstrike should be removed and disengage should get 2 more passives in the skill tree. One that gives it 2 charges, and other one that increases evasion of the ranger during disengage.
Some other notes about the changes:
- i like the salvo, its good weaving ability. But it often keeps shooting at dead target and there is no convinient way of stopping that
- i think power shot is also nice ability, good way to weave in the combo for some focus jump
- right now for me barrage became ability that I use only when other stuff is on cooldown, i'm not sure if that's good or not
- removing knockback on scatter shot is nice, but it also took away small dash, would be nice to get this mobility somewhere else
- concussive ammo having 100% chance is huge, before that ranger being useful was very coinflipy. Multiple times i used barrage, 2 scatter shots, weapon combo, and still didnt get a single daze. Now it feels much better to use.
PS. Sorry for typos, its 2 am.
I think the changes are the step in the right direction, but they are overshadowed by bad TTK. I will elaborate.
I think the gameplay around focus and trying to max it out before using big hitters is engaging.
The idea of having decent hunts, sacrifising them to get even stronger debuff on the enemy. So now the effect is stronger, but you are limited to just the target you marked. And then getting defensive after job well done.
The problem is that this defensive means nothing because you are getting smoked in 1/2 hits anyway. Caring about high focus does not matter because you oneshot ppl without it anyway.
And outside of those changes ranger for me still have 4 issues:
- the class that usually has exceptional range does not have range advantage over other range classes which kinda misses the class fantasy (pls, give ranger abilities the range of the bow he is using and give the passive in the skill tree that allows you to invest a point to increase the bow range by 15% or so)
- ranger skills are relativly long cast time, meanwhile mage can just instacast thundershot and instacast firebolt and destroy targets before ranger is done with even one cast. But this issue is mainly that mage is overloaded class with good mobility, defensives, aoe and single target. And also the issue of TTK that allows for those oneshots.
- ranger lacks reliable oh shit button defensive, while higher damage counterpart, mage, gets very strong self shield.
- Ranger mobility is lacking. It was supposed to be second most mobile class after rogue and for now bard has 2 dashes and big speed buffs, mage blink has more range than ranger disengage and its faster.. fighter has several dashes that are longer.. you get my point. Ranger disengage is only decent ranger mobility because due to wind up time of airstrike, it's not good mobility too and most often it's used offensivly as another root. Both disengage and airstrike have the problem that you are stuck in the flight animation while you are getting shot at. In my opinion wind up time of airstrike should be removed and disengage should get 2 more passives in the skill tree. One that gives it 2 charges, and other one that increases evasion of the ranger during disengage.
Some other notes about the changes:
- i like the salvo, its good weaving ability. But it often keeps shooting at dead target and there is no convinient way of stopping that
- i think power shot is also nice ability, good way to weave in the combo for some focus jump
- right now for me barrage became ability that I use only when other stuff is on cooldown, i'm not sure if that's good or not
- removing knockback on scatter shot is nice, but it also took away small dash, would be nice to get this mobility somewhere else
- concussive ammo having 100% chance is huge, before that ranger being useful was very coinflipy. Multiple times i used barrage, 2 scatter shots, weapon combo, and still didnt get a single daze. Now it feels much better to use.
PS. Sorry for typos, its 2 am.
Snekkers
5
Alpha Two Update Notes 0.7.4 - Tuesday, April 1, 2025
These are the update notes for changes to the Alpha Two that went to testers on Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Node Siege Rewards have temporarily been removed. We’ll be doing testing of this feature on Alpha Two realms. You can find out more about Node Siege testing in Discord here.
As a reminder, if you come across bugs during Alpha Two testing, please report them to us in-game using /bug
ALPHA TWO UPDATE NOTES 0.7.4 - TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2025
Node Siege Rewards have temporarily been removed. We’ll be doing testing of this feature on Alpha Two realms. You can find out more about Node Siege testing in Discord here.
As a reminder, if you come across bugs during Alpha Two testing, please report them to us in-game using /bug
ALPHA TWO UPDATE NOTES 0.7.4 - TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2025
- Node Siege Gate hit points have been increased
- Characters should no longer be able to get into the pedestal rock near the Node Siege banner objective
- Node Siege Guard leash range has been reduced
- Node Siege results will now be broadcasted to the Realm
- Clouds in the sky should move more smoothly
- Pop up events can now be scrolled through
- Caravel ships have been reduced in cost to make it easier for people to test this new feature
Roshen
4
Make Levels Great Again!
I remember in phase 1 where they spent so much time on mob drops and experience tables to try and stop people from boosting other characters with higher levels.
Nowadays you dont even need the higher levels, just dump some crazy jacked up twink gear.
Levels are only worth about 10% of max player power, the rest is items anyways. Levels aint shit.
Nowadays you dont even need the higher levels, just dump some crazy jacked up twink gear.
Levels are only worth about 10% of max player power, the rest is items anyways. Levels aint shit.
Xeeg
4
Re: Undead and Zombies! (latest Sept. update video )
There ARE - a few, really cool Enemy Mobs in the Game already,
for example the Grave(yard?) Golem and the likes. But there is just SO much more potential for cool Mobs around, which are somehow all related to Undeads - and things like Massgraves, unholy Ground and Soil, etc.
I imagine my very on Viking-Warrior trimmed and designed Kae'lar Human to run from a huge Monster - Abomination - a hulking Horror of dead Corpses and only motivated and moved by an unholy Hatred for everyone alive,
around where the Tropics change into the more "tame" Forests of the Riverlands or elsewhere,
a Monster or several with HUUUGE Ranges of which they will persecute and go after you,
in order to kill you - once you aggro'ed them.
Maybe give Healers, Clerics, etc. - some Extra Damage or Control against Undead.
Maybe give One OR SEVERAL -> on Necromancer styled Summoners the Ability, to enslave such a hulking Monster for half an Hour - like once every Day because when You enslave something undead so powerful that like +10 Players or so are needed to take it on,
you should have a reasonable Cooldown, so that this Ability is not completely overpowered.
for example the Grave(yard?) Golem and the likes. But there is just SO much more potential for cool Mobs around, which are somehow all related to Undeads - and things like Massgraves, unholy Ground and Soil, etc.
I imagine my very on Viking-Warrior trimmed and designed Kae'lar Human to run from a huge Monster - Abomination - a hulking Horror of dead Corpses and only motivated and moved by an unholy Hatred for everyone alive,
around where the Tropics change into the more "tame" Forests of the Riverlands or elsewhere,
a Monster or several with HUUUGE Ranges of which they will persecute and go after you,
in order to kill you - once you aggro'ed them.
Maybe give Healers, Clerics, etc. - some Extra Damage or Control against Undead.
Maybe give One OR SEVERAL -> on Necromancer styled Summoners the Ability, to enslave such a hulking Monster for half an Hour - like once every Day because when You enslave something undead so powerful that like +10 Players or so are needed to take it on,
you should have a reasonable Cooldown, so that this Ability is not completely overpowered.
Aszkalon
1
Re: Undead and Zombies! (latest Sept. update video )
A glimpse of the zombie
I am a huge fan of what undead can bring to games thematically.
Undead, to me, serve a purpose of hopelessness and despair. The difficulty of killing undead should create tension and suspense in multiple ways. But, we have to look at how the developer views what undead, to them, means.
Lets look at some different types of undead we have seen in media.
- The cursed: Undead who rise every night to punish the living. Set about by magic or by godly laws in the set universe.
- The diseased: Undead from a biological mutation.
- The Parasite: Undead being controlled by a host creature or insect.
Cursed: This type of undead, to me, is the pinnacle of how undead came to be. Through godly curses and incantations born from hate and malice. To punish those who are living for deeds they neglected or have done. Usually created by those with power or those who are desperate to make a difference. Abusing the natural laws of the gods.
I want to explain why this should be more prevalent in games to come and why ashes should invest in more immersive undead. What games have done to undead in almost every game is appalling. Killing undead, in video games, is boring. There is a stigma in the industry that make undead campy and they have to be considered low level mobs. The best example is Diablo series making them feel like paper. Blizzard in general making undead feel silly and stupid.
How to make cursed undead more enjoyable and more thrilling to encounter is easy in concept. You make them hard to kill, you make them in mass quantity, and you make them unstoppable until the morning light. This would be the curse in effect. The way to stop it or stall it for story purposes and/or re-playability would be to allow a catalyst that needs to be destroyed. These can be hidden in a nearby dungeon or in the bottom of a lake or in a house. Depending on how you want the player to interact with the world. Why does this makes the game more immersive? it's creating zones in which difficulty has increased to either go around or challenge. Luck can play a huge roll in how a character at night would experience a cursed undead horde. Creating moments of intense interaction that make for good player stories. The idea of a curse is to be unfair in how you can deal with it. Nobody makes a curse going I want it to be fair for the people who will experience it. When it comes to making undead, this would be the case of quantity, relentless quantity of un-killable past family members or recently deceased loved ones.
Making this into part of the games mechanics would amplify the undead experience and intensity of gameplay.
The Diseased: This would be your ideal resident evil zombie. Not technically what I would call a real zombie and more of a mutation. But, they have had the best overall view of how a zombie should act, only in resident evil 1 and 2. Slow and cumbersome, hard to kill, and in mass quantity. This makes a more scientific "realistic" reason for undead, similar to the walking dead series as an example.
The Parasite Portrayed in more futuristic games and some resident evil games. Having a creature embody a corpse or take over a host to the point of eventual death. I find this to be the least undead-like for the types of undead we see in video games.
intelligent cursed undead
Now, as for intelligent undead. You know the Boss fights that we all experience where a "death looking" ghost comes out and tries to kill us. This would be the creator of the curse, usually. Whether being punished for breaking the natural laws or using forbidden magic to become everlasting. Somehow, a subjects soul is trapped in an undead vessel with similar restrictions or laws governed by a curse. Being more aware because of their soul still being intact gives rise to influence and manipulation to have such power. What limits them from destroying the world could be lore related. Trapped in dungeons by punishment or trickery from gods, witches, catalyst restriction (genie in the lamp kind of thing). Essentially intelligent undead is very rare. Undead with a sole purpose is more common. both are curses. and whether they like it or not both have a hunger for life.
In Conclusion
So, how will undead be treated in the world of Ashes of Creation? Will we be scared to go into ruins at night alone? will we have quests to destroy the curse that plagues the lands (a node territory) full of undead? Will we come across a random catalyst and place it in the lake? (heh heh heh) Will we have random dungeons to enter in and experience a gripping tale of survival to whom which a party of 12 would have a hard time simply because of the sheer quantity of undead? Will we see nodes change due to undead influence growing if not kept in line? or will we simply crush them like paper and forget their existence until the next halloween event?
thanks for reading this. I hope maybe some of this can translate into future MMO's and possibly into Ashes of Creation. Maybe you have been broadened to the idea that cursed zombies are better. or not? either or I hope to see your comments and ideas.
cheers,
Kol Draco
Great post, Kol. This is exactly the kind of feedback and creative thinking that can make Ashes something truly special.
REHOC
1
Re: Save weapon
This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Gear_appearance_priority
Econ-Friday Ranting (a Reference Post)
Phase 2 is approaching (insert multiple Game of Thrones memes, whichever ones you like)
That means it's time for my group and I to do Econ Testing and give feedback. For this, I need some context on intent, but I don't hang out on Discord and even if I did, it'd be way faster for anyone on the team to read through my many assumptions in one place.
I basically need to know if the Ashes economy is supposed to feel like New World(EVE sorta), or like FF11/Throne and Liberty, to inform our testing approach.
FFXI/Throne and Liberty Method
Henceforth referred to as the 10K form (yes I will goldbold it every time, go gold, go bold).
"New World" Method
Henceforth referred to as the UBI form (this color isn't too biased, right? If people prefer I'll change this from 'UBI' to 'AllTree')
These two things are tested differently, for the sake of any discussion that might happen I'll try to explain why.
The reason I don't play EVE is that I knew for a long time that the Devs were basically just controlling the economy in a way that let them decide winners and losers very directly. Whether they did this or not was not important. They could. So I can't take EVE seriously, it markets itself as an Econ game, a simulator, but the 'stories' are controlled by the devs. Ashes is unclear about this. They have this option, but one might assume that in a game about player built Nodes and structures, they would not want to.
If Ashes uses the UBI form, the goal in testing would always be to 'win the Dev-set econ challenge minigame' and then use the winnings to get more permanent power as quickly as possible.
The reason I enjoy TL is that currently, niches exist and the Devs don't seem to interfere too much except in very global ways (we're seeing a bit of the Amazon Games style creeping in, but the underlying 10K basis mitigates some of this, leading to mostly grumbles rather than hoarding). So you know that basically anything that takes around an hour to get sells on the AH for 10 Lucent. If supply is too high, don't gather that thing, or push it through a different value pipeline (not all of these exist yet, for example Blue Armor Extracts from common farming grounds that should be going through some other pipeline like Furnishings since their 'Dissolve' option isn't at the 'correct' value and can't be set to that value without a UBI style intervention - which would almost certainly be bad for many reasons, I digress).
If Ashes uses the 10K form, the goal in testing would always be to 'find the appropriate activity niche' and then look toward others to build the interconnective relationships, seeking equilibrium and deprioritizing permanent power.
This is because 10K creates a form of economic 'drag' on anyone rushing to do anything not in their niche just because they can.
Since Econ testing is not a priority in Phase I, and the thing I assume Intrepid is testing is their data collection and visualization, this hasn't come up before, but as we move into Phase 2, I/we need to know how to approach it, especially if we're supposed to test the FTUE more than once, and definitely if the iterations don't wipe the server.
An Alpha always acts at least somewhat like UBI if one is trying to 'compete' or even just 'progress well'. I can definitely get my group to not focus on that, but if the game's intended style is UBI, then that would be the entirely incorrect method for testing for what my group is. Basically if we keep trying to play Ashes as if it is a 10K game and ignoring the signs of UBI approach 'because it's an Alpha', but the UBI style is the intended style, a lot of time is being wasted.
idk, maybe it's silly/overstepping/asking too much to be specifically given this answer, or even 'given this answer relative to any specific stand-up of the servers, but I know that IS does take their testing very seriously, so even just a shorthand somewhere (even just for PTR) of one vs the other would really help. We don't care if they change it every test/wipe/reroll request, as long as they give the data somewhere.
I hope that somehow this was clear enough to explain why this is important to us. If not, please help me by poking at it so that I can clarify it. I'm already in 'crossed fingers' mode because I can't just ask NCSoft/Amazon about their intent for TL atm, and I really want to help my group give the feedback we hope Intrepid wants so they're not doubled down on that particular irritation.
There's obviously more to this (there's always more), but it's all minutiae like droprates and player satisfaction feelings which have nothing in particular to do with the underlying 'way we test', so I'll leave it there.
That means it's time for my group and I to do Econ Testing and give feedback. For this, I need some context on intent, but I don't hang out on Discord and even if I did, it'd be way faster for anyone on the team to read through my many assumptions in one place.
I basically need to know if the Ashes economy is supposed to feel like New World(EVE sorta), or like FF11/Throne and Liberty, to inform our testing approach.
FFXI/Throne and Liberty Method
Henceforth referred to as the 10K form (yes I will goldbold it every time, go gold, go bold).
- Everything can be defined in average time units. The economy is given freedom but a control floor of some kind.
- Players trade their 'time' through some medium of currency (or multiple currencies)
- Specialization and complexity focus on personal enjoyment and spreading out the sources of products
- Somehow, somewhere, economic velocity has a cap or a friction point (FF11: AH slots and resources, originally limited per-game-day purchases, TL: basically the same but also a relatively high hard cap on no-lifing it, after a while you burn money)
"New World" Method
Henceforth referred to as the UBI form (this color isn't too biased, right? If people prefer I'll change this from 'UBI' to 'AllTree')
- The currency value of most things is effectively controlled by the Dev Team.
- Players either ignore this or compete to sort of 'win the econ challenge that the Devs have set for this update/season'
- Specialization and 'complexity' focus on hoarding and knowledge (and speculation on the hoards/knowledge of others)
- Economic velocity is capped only by resource sinks and number of participants (for example New World's original low server CCU was part of this)
These two things are tested differently, for the sake of any discussion that might happen I'll try to explain why.
The reason I don't play EVE is that I knew for a long time that the Devs were basically just controlling the economy in a way that let them decide winners and losers very directly. Whether they did this or not was not important. They could. So I can't take EVE seriously, it markets itself as an Econ game, a simulator, but the 'stories' are controlled by the devs. Ashes is unclear about this. They have this option, but one might assume that in a game about player built Nodes and structures, they would not want to.
If Ashes uses the UBI form, the goal in testing would always be to 'win the Dev-set econ challenge minigame' and then use the winnings to get more permanent power as quickly as possible.
The reason I enjoy TL is that currently, niches exist and the Devs don't seem to interfere too much except in very global ways (we're seeing a bit of the Amazon Games style creeping in, but the underlying 10K basis mitigates some of this, leading to mostly grumbles rather than hoarding). So you know that basically anything that takes around an hour to get sells on the AH for 10 Lucent. If supply is too high, don't gather that thing, or push it through a different value pipeline (not all of these exist yet, for example Blue Armor Extracts from common farming grounds that should be going through some other pipeline like Furnishings since their 'Dissolve' option isn't at the 'correct' value and can't be set to that value without a UBI style intervention - which would almost certainly be bad for many reasons, I digress).
If Ashes uses the 10K form, the goal in testing would always be to 'find the appropriate activity niche' and then look toward others to build the interconnective relationships, seeking equilibrium and deprioritizing permanent power.
This is because 10K creates a form of economic 'drag' on anyone rushing to do anything not in their niche just because they can.
Since Econ testing is not a priority in Phase I, and the thing I assume Intrepid is testing is their data collection and visualization, this hasn't come up before, but as we move into Phase 2, I/we need to know how to approach it, especially if we're supposed to test the FTUE more than once, and definitely if the iterations don't wipe the server.
An Alpha always acts at least somewhat like UBI if one is trying to 'compete' or even just 'progress well'. I can definitely get my group to not focus on that, but if the game's intended style is UBI, then that would be the entirely incorrect method for testing for what my group is. Basically if we keep trying to play Ashes as if it is a 10K game and ignoring the signs of UBI approach 'because it's an Alpha', but the UBI style is the intended style, a lot of time is being wasted.
idk, maybe it's silly/overstepping/asking too much to be specifically given this answer, or even 'given this answer relative to any specific stand-up of the servers, but I know that IS does take their testing very seriously, so even just a shorthand somewhere (even just for PTR) of one vs the other would really help. We don't care if they change it every test/wipe/reroll request, as long as they give the data somewhere.
I hope that somehow this was clear enough to explain why this is important to us. If not, please help me by poking at it so that I can clarify it. I'm already in 'crossed fingers' mode because I can't just ask NCSoft/Amazon about their intent for TL atm, and I really want to help my group give the feedback we hope Intrepid wants so they're not doubled down on that particular irritation.
There's obviously more to this (there's always more), but it's all minutiae like droprates and player satisfaction feelings which have nothing in particular to do with the underlying 'way we test', so I'll leave it there.
Azherae
1
Re: guard system sucks
I get the frustration, but I think the guard system isn't inherently bad, it’s just incomplete and poorly tuned right now.
I think similar. It will be a bit different in the 1.0. Release Version i think. (Hope ^.^)
Like they will STILL be a massive Pain for - for example - corrupted People. But not as invincible seeming as they are right now.
Aszkalon
1