Best Of
Re: 📝 Dev Discussion #67 - AoE Form and Function 💣
clear, distinct edges of aoes via colouring or customizable settings that take precdence over the rendering of the skill effects would be very helpful for large-scale pvp/group content tbh.
lolage
1
Re: Ideas on goldsellers and ban that feels?
They need detection rules which detect bots and rules which monitor player accounts for sudden and unexpected changes in available resources.
Also the banning aspect...I really believe they should accept only limited number of credit card issuers and credit card types, and ban not the means of the payment, but the identity associated if that is possible. No pre-paid bs.
Also the banning aspect...I really believe they should accept only limited number of credit card issuers and credit card types, and ban not the means of the payment, but the identity associated if that is possible. No pre-paid bs.
Re: Node alliances should be thought about like factions
Peeps, learn this... gamers will not hate the unknown people from the other nodes, they will hate the people within their own node. There will be a lot of beef happening because the dungeons, the trees, the flowers, etc, almost always you will hate the people who live around you
Re: Node alliances should be thought about like factions
I do not care about 'factions' unless they are natural and real consequences of how people approach the game, otherwise they are just fake reasons for conflict and snowball almost immediately. Node Alliances that are supported too much by ingame functions that aren't either 'economic' or 'philosophical' feel too 'fake' to me.
A simple opinion to illustrate my point:
I think New World would have been a much better game if they made more effort to make the Factions much more ideologically different, with more clarity about it. I don't just mean flavor either, I mean outcomes, ways they handle things, bonuses, etc.
New World couldn't escape this because its roots are as a PvP game, not a PvX one. I'm used to playing PvE or PvX 'territory control' type MMOs, and the thing that keeps those going is that they are better at making the 'factions' feel properly distinct in how they approach things.
It wouldn't have been as disturbing for New World's servers with their 2000 Concurrent Users to be taken over by one 'Faction', if it really just meant 'everyone on this server prefers the same playstyle'. Because that's fine, it becomes a 'PvE server', sure, but with only 2000 Concurrents, who really cares?
Ashes is too large for that, but I also don't want the usual artificial 'we're supposed to fight because we belong to different Nodes/Nations'. I want there to be something behind that friction. RP-PvPers can use it, Econ players can use it, PvE players can mostly ignore it, and the GM/CM team can build off it.
It adds to the world, for me. If Intrepid makes Node Alliances do most of the things mentioned in the OP, I'd expect only drama/'abuses' of those systems, and a hollow feeling, for me personally.
I do not mind #3, I would expect something like it as part of the Vassal system because it's easier to understand for the 'common man' than economic reports or whatever.
A simple opinion to illustrate my point:
I think New World would have been a much better game if they made more effort to make the Factions much more ideologically different, with more clarity about it. I don't just mean flavor either, I mean outcomes, ways they handle things, bonuses, etc.
New World couldn't escape this because its roots are as a PvP game, not a PvX one. I'm used to playing PvE or PvX 'territory control' type MMOs, and the thing that keeps those going is that they are better at making the 'factions' feel properly distinct in how they approach things.
It wouldn't have been as disturbing for New World's servers with their 2000 Concurrent Users to be taken over by one 'Faction', if it really just meant 'everyone on this server prefers the same playstyle'. Because that's fine, it becomes a 'PvE server', sure, but with only 2000 Concurrents, who really cares?
Ashes is too large for that, but I also don't want the usual artificial 'we're supposed to fight because we belong to different Nodes/Nations'. I want there to be something behind that friction. RP-PvPers can use it, Econ players can use it, PvE players can mostly ignore it, and the GM/CM team can build off it.
It adds to the world, for me. If Intrepid makes Node Alliances do most of the things mentioned in the OP, I'd expect only drama/'abuses' of those systems, and a hollow feeling, for me personally.
I do not mind #3, I would expect something like it as part of the Vassal system because it's easier to understand for the 'common man' than economic reports or whatever.
Azherae
4
Re: Vassal resentment
after today's podcast. I am 100% one of the petty & vindictive people that won't accept being a vassal no matter what the reward structure looks like. the thought of someone else being in an inherently better position than me (if not mechanically then prestige wise) is something I tend to act in resentment of. I would rather do everything to tear down the owning node than join it in any capacity.
there are absolutely going to be people like that in the game.
now that being said. we have not actually tried the vassal system at all. but what are the community's initial view on it?
it seems to me that a lot of people are having a gut reaction to immediately want to rebel but are there some who see this in a more optimistic light?
The average players have to understand that a hierarchical structure is just a content generator, the idea of being at the bottom of the chain is making the whole thing fall apart.
Ashes need enough gaps among the many rules so people have the freedom to destroy the chain if they want to
Re: World boss and greater loot drop idea/discussion
Very much in favor of gatherer systems over the tiny amount of gear loot from World Bosses, but caravans can only launch from a town so it’d have to be some other system if there’s gonna be a decay feature.
I believe caravans can be launched from anywhere it just takes more time to launch the further from a node u are
Their current design plan is to only let it launch from a specific building in a node and I haven't heard any rumors to the contrary, so any decayable trophy loot would have to be lugged back manually by an induvial before the expiration.
When you destroy a caravan, you can create a new one right there to take all the loot, we saw as much during the pvp caravan stream
Not sure if it was locked to only after destroying a caravan, but they did wait like 5 minutes for the caravan to arrive
That's not creating it right there though, you're calling it up from the nearest town where you've already set one up, hence that wait time based on distance from the node. So while a rapid decay sounds interesting, it wouldn't work out due to caravans not arriving/spawning quickly at the dungeon area (which I wouldn't want them to, to be clear. Wouldn't be good for the spying/plotting systems they want when it could be done on a whim). I'm also pretty sure it'll just be for successful Caravan attacks, since as far as I could tell the cargo was loaded up before the original Caravan actually launched from town.
I'd much rather a generous timer (15 minutes or so) and it require a manual trek back to the node the player wants to buff up, at risk of dropping on death.
The decay timers were just a idea, it would obviously need balancing
There wasn’t any indication on wether the new caravan to collect from the looted one, and the crates were on the ground until the new caravan finished setting up
I based it more on the first caravan video where we saw the caravan being loaded up before the team went out of town to call to it to launch from the town, and I can’t remember if there was any UI system brought up for placing the cargo of a defeated caravan into that empty one they called from town.
Still think the gather from everything in the boss arena, including the boss to fill a caravan would be the best way to make raiding and world bosses more satisfying and have a risk/reward
Need/greed on random shit items each boss kill is boring and if it’s gear, well then there is no risk on getting it back to the node to sell/ breakdown/wear, since it can’t be dropped on death
On this we definitely agree. I think Steven’s comment about Hunters not having any interaction with the dragon is a huge backpedal. It started as ‘you’ll want to bring Gatherers to get the best drops’ to ‘Hunters will just be hunting specific mobs and get nothing extra from world bosses’
Caeryl
2
Re: Node alliances should be thought about like factions
That's why you need to think of node alliances as factions. In faction based games your harmful actions against people in your faction are limited. Node war is a harmful action, and you can't do it to allies. But...you can still slap people around in your faction if they are jerks. It's nice.
And like with factions, you don't have total control over who is in your alliance, since node membership looks like it will be first-come first-serve. AKA you joined Horde and your current node is the Barrens
The classic guild affiliation is much more PvP related
Look, I play factional warfare everyday and the limitations create unecessary drame ingame and almost everyday people ask for a civil war within the faction so we can sort out some stuff
Because we are locked within the faction now I am creating neutral alts so i can kill people from my own faction, they will get hurt bad and it is a chore to me creating more alts and skilling them. Everybody loses like this!!
Just let me kill and declare war anyone I want
Re: Let's TheoryRaid #5 - Tiamat (FFXI) vs FireBrand
How many games have tried going for a "you can stand in the fire and get a dps boost, but the stacks of fire can be blown up by the mob" approach? I'm assuming there has to be at least a few. And how successful were those attempts?
And then a more personal question for you here. If you, as a cleric, had to track burning stacks on your party and had a tool to only remove a part of them (say a mage elemental augment, or maybe smth religious) - would that make this encounter (and any potential other one) more interesting to you? Or would that still be a bit too much of a bottable thing for you to value it highly?
As an additional thing here, what if FireBoi had a much much higher chance of turning and aoe attacking the people who have gone over a certain amount of stacks of burning.
And on the summoner side of things, what if Transfer Pain was the main resource of the archetype and would then have augments that would interact differently depending on the type of summon you're using.
Say, a sum/tank's TP would go up based on how much damage your summon absorbed by standing next to someone who's taking dmg (i.e. being in fire for the dps boost).
Sum/cleric's would grow based on the HP healed by the summon, which is done at the cost of summon's own hp (reducing the main Cleric's tasks to do, but also being less reliable cause summon heals would be obviously weaker, hence riskier).
Sum/ranger's could grow based on the additional points of dmg done to the enemy due to summon's Marks, which in turn eat away at its hp.
And stuff like that from other archetypes. In other words, make the summoner gameplay different based on their class. So, in stead of just "my summon is chasin the boss or gets out of the fire", you'd have a variety of actions, all of which require actions from both the summon and the summoner themselves.
And then a more personal question for you here. If you, as a cleric, had to track burning stacks on your party and had a tool to only remove a part of them (say a mage elemental augment, or maybe smth religious) - would that make this encounter (and any potential other one) more interesting to you? Or would that still be a bit too much of a bottable thing for you to value it highly?
As an additional thing here, what if FireBoi had a much much higher chance of turning and aoe attacking the people who have gone over a certain amount of stacks of burning.
And on the summoner side of things, what if Transfer Pain was the main resource of the archetype and would then have augments that would interact differently depending on the type of summon you're using.
Say, a sum/tank's TP would go up based on how much damage your summon absorbed by standing next to someone who's taking dmg (i.e. being in fire for the dps boost).
Sum/cleric's would grow based on the HP healed by the summon, which is done at the cost of summon's own hp (reducing the main Cleric's tasks to do, but also being less reliable cause summon heals would be obviously weaker, hence riskier).
Sum/ranger's could grow based on the additional points of dmg done to the enemy due to summon's Marks, which in turn eat away at its hp.
And stuff like that from other archetypes. In other words, make the summoner gameplay different based on their class. So, in stead of just "my summon is chasin the boss or gets out of the fire", you'd have a variety of actions, all of which require actions from both the summon and the summoner themselves.
Ludullu
1
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
AirborneBerserker wrote: »AirborneBerserker wrote: »So you think that having a narrow selection of classes and a even more narrow selection for roles is a good thing?
I am saying that people who take issue with the class system have plenty of other games they can play, because so far there is no real reason for Intrepid to reconsider the current 8x8 class system. The design idea is good and makes sense on paper and as long as the testing of that system doesn't prove the theoretic idea wrong there is nothing that would justify deviating from the current path.AirborneBerserker wrote: »I am making the post because I can see how things will go wrong, baring a minor miracle. I said this in the OP I started thinking that fixing the class system would solve the problem. As I got to about the half way point I realized this game had way larger problems then I thought. And given the devs are human and humans can make mistakes maybe the devs made a mistake and didn't realize it. Because the devs aren't infallible.
There is plenty of reason to read through the post because the post is not a bunch of suggestions, it's a prediction. And when someone predicts something using logic and reason and interdisciplinary practices its a good idea to at least listen to what they have to say. And then if there right you maybe listen more next time and heed the warning.
Just so I understand this right: The entirety of Intrepid, a studio full of veteran MMORPG players themselves with the additional experience of being game designers for years if not decades, ALL overlooked as you said it "way larger problems" in almost all its core systems and you have figured it out despite only having joined something like 2 months ago? With all due respect despite the fact that Intrepid obviously is not perfect and on point with each of its decisions, that sounds to me like you are just quite full of yourself even though nothing indicates that you are either knowledgeable about the project or game development.
So you do think the devs are infallible. Okay got it.
No I think you are butthurt that I don't agree with you and instead of adressing my counterpoints you are trying to say anything to cover that. I literally said in that commen YOU EVEN QUOTED that they are making mistakes and yet here you are making a strawman out what I said.
We can agree to disagree but this type of behavior you can take to Reddit.
Kilion
1
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
AirborneBerserker wrote: »So you just didn't read the post, but felt like commenting anyways.
First that statement means fuck all to the FACT that people coming into the game 6 months after launch will have no choice but to solo.
PvP is balanced around group content and the game has a paper rock scissors design. So 1v1 arenas are dumb and amount to gambling for a win. Duels obviously wont help given they need group content.
Imagine saying use RMT to get gear on a game.
Oh, and it's not an assumption it's a necessary condition of the game given the current planned implementation.
Nah, I read through most of it. Skimmed through some. I commented because your post is baseless, arbitrary speculation built off assumptions that you're spewing as facts. If you insist on willful ignorance that's your choice, obviously. But don't come in here and try to spin it into something it's not when Steven/Intrepid have addressed your issue and you choose to disregard it.
It's like going to a Mexican restaurant and demanding to be served Chinese food. Umm, sir, we don't serve that here.