Best Of
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
AirborneBerserker wrote: »bloodprophet wrote: »Starting to think no this is a troll thread and I have been had.
Well done good sir.
This isn't a troll.
Do you want to grow the community? Of course you do, how do you do that? By making the game as accessible as possible and creating a place for people to integrate at their own pace. Not by forcing people to play the game the way you want to play it. That's how you piss people off.
No.
The way you grow the community is by being honest.
This is what we are offering. There are tools to help people integrate into what we are offering. Then let the chips fall where they may.
Stop trying to force everyone to play solo and stop expecting what has always been promoted as an old school MMO that is centered on groups.
You want to play solo and mage tank everything. Great, hope you find what your looking for, but this was stated from the very beginning as not that.
Stop trying to force people to play solo.
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
Did anybody actually make it all the way through that?
Re: 📝 Dev Discussion #67 - AoE Form and Function 💣
Area of Effect (AoE) abilities are a common staple in MMORPG combat. We’re curious to know what your thoughts are on AoE abilities and the way they’re displayed.
Here is the tip for top 2 that aren't done right:
1. Instant AoE:
a)If doesn't have ongoing effect-quick flash or burst animation followed by loud sound effect (Shattering of glass, explosions, gust of wind)
b) If it has ongoing effect (stays after you cast it)- minimal subtle effect that loop. Silent sound effect.
2. Channeling AOE
I am scared to give a feedback on this one. You guys make everything that needs emphasis saturated with color. That's not good spell design. Your Tank's Wall ability literally looks like stacked up Turkish delight. Its horrible.
Channeling AoE must be most visible out of them all, so you can give a chance to opposing player to interrupt it. Your Blizzard spell is perfect in saturation and effects. Dont you dare change it.
Guild Wars 2 has done them perfectly. Especially with their Elementalist class.
The rest are up to you...
In PvP, which Area of Effect (AoE) abilities, should be telegraphed to enemies?
Burst DmG and stunning ones. Meteor, for example.
How clearly should AoEs be to enemy and friendly players?
I think you should adapt to a game so you can tell it just by looking. Thats where good spell design comes to a play.
Do your thoughts differ in a PvE setting?
Unless it has some wind up mechanics that you can showcase with animation (Which would be preferable), you should make the danger zone visible.
Example: Boar readying to charge at you shouldn't have any notification, but some crazy magic effect cast by a magical being that isn't exactly humanoid should, if that makes sense.
Do you have examples from other games in which AoE abilities are presented in a way you like? If so, please share them!
YES! Guild Wars 2 has a large variety of AOEs with very different cast times and FX. I think its masterfully done.
In Guild Wars 2 has also done AOE danger area notification perfectly. Especially in PVE
Just a simple faded, slightly burning red circles was a simple yet effective solution. Works in PvP too.
Telegraphed boss AoE's notifications are good too.
Here is the tip for top 2 that aren't done right:
1. Instant AoE:
a)If doesn't have ongoing effect-quick flash or burst animation followed by loud sound effect (Shattering of glass, explosions, gust of wind)
b) If it has ongoing effect (stays after you cast it)- minimal subtle effect that loop. Silent sound effect.
2. Channeling AOE
I am scared to give a feedback on this one. You guys make everything that needs emphasis saturated with color. That's not good spell design. Your Tank's Wall ability literally looks like stacked up Turkish delight. Its horrible.
Channeling AoE must be most visible out of them all, so you can give a chance to opposing player to interrupt it. Your Blizzard spell is perfect in saturation and effects. Dont you dare change it.
Guild Wars 2 has done them perfectly. Especially with their Elementalist class.
The rest are up to you...
In PvP, which Area of Effect (AoE) abilities, should be telegraphed to enemies?
Burst DmG and stunning ones. Meteor, for example.
How clearly should AoEs be to enemy and friendly players?
I think you should adapt to a game so you can tell it just by looking. Thats where good spell design comes to a play.
Do your thoughts differ in a PvE setting?
Unless it has some wind up mechanics that you can showcase with animation (Which would be preferable), you should make the danger zone visible.
Example: Boar readying to charge at you shouldn't have any notification, but some crazy magic effect cast by a magical being that isn't exactly humanoid should, if that makes sense.
Do you have examples from other games in which AoE abilities are presented in a way you like? If so, please share them!
YES! Guild Wars 2 has a large variety of AOEs with very different cast times and FX. I think its masterfully done.
In Guild Wars 2 has also done AOE danger area notification perfectly. Especially in PVE
Just a simple faded, slightly burning red circles was a simple yet effective solution. Works in PvP too.
Telegraphed boss AoE's notifications are good too.
Yenn0war
1
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
AirborneBerserker wrote: »
This isn't a troll.
Do you want to grow the community? Of course you do, how do you do that? By making the game as accessible as possible and creating a place for people to integrate at their own pace. Not by forcing people to play the game the way you want to play it. That's how you piss people off.
So.... Your complaint is that solo players are at a disadvantage in a game largely designed and intended to be played in groups... And your solution is to force everyone else to play the way you want to or accept you being some sort of OP solo-man? Somehow single handedly being able to compete with entire teams of other players? Are you catching the "you’re a bit touched in the head vibes" I’m sending here? I’m sending them pretty hard. I’m sorry, but if you think reworking the game like that and taking it so far from the original and promised vision, for a potential minority of players to get their feel goods about being OP then this isn’t going to be the game for you. Piece of advice, cut your losses now, move on.
Re: List of reasons to allow Shadow computers
As long as these vertual computers follow the same security protocols. I don't see the problem. Otherwise no ty
Re: Let’s guess the next livestream topic
Since it'll probably be the last livestream before A2, my guess is a walkthrough of sorts of the starting experience of A2, creating your character, starting quests, learning professions, etc.
arkileo
3
Proposal for Class mini Dev series on 8 points.
1) Proposal for Dev Update mini series
2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?
3) What are the powers and tools of the archetypes as secondary classes? Will people like them?
4) Should there be a 8x8 class system? Would 8x4 be of a better quality? Maybe some archetypes dont make sense as a combo
5) Transparency and people feedback will save development time. Let's hear what the Devs plan and let's answer.
6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.
7) The unique case of the supports.
8) Conclusion. Let's see if we need to change direction after the devs give us a picture, without having to wait for a fleshed out class system. Necro and druid.
1) Title
Every month we see the Development of the game. Typically there is a topic, and some had a backlash like the various mount skins, followed by a gameplay video, a few artistic concepts to familiarise us with the world, ingame assets and QnA.
It would be very interesting we could get a couple of Dev Updates with the archetypes as the topic, with some official art concept of each archetype, created based on the Devs vision for each of them.
2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?
At this point we have been shown 6 archetypes:
Tank cleric mage ranger fighter bard and we are waiting for 2 more.
Would it be safe to assume that at this stage IS has not worked on class combos and skill augments? There might be a few placeholder ideas or even animatioms/effects (Fighter/mage gapcloser teleport augmentation) but in my opinion the system is still an idea.
3) What are the powers and tools of the archetypes as secondary classes? Will people like them?
What if we could have a Dev Update about the Rogue for example, where did they draw inspiration for the archetype, how do they invision the gameplay of the archetype and what tools would it lend to the other 7, as part of the 64 class combo.
Will the rogue lend shadow powers to the other archetypes, to create the different classes, or we can expect a rogue in a sense of a dirty killer, and as such, the powers that the rogue will lend will be more about oppertunistic blows.
4) Should there be a 8x8 class system? Would 8x4 be of a better quality? Maybe some archetypes dont make sense as a combo
And what is the inspiration on the Fighter? Does the Fighter has any specific magical powers in the universe of AoC? Or will he just give combat augments to the other classes? How would that look on the mage? And how would that look like on the summoner? How would the rogue, ranger, tank and fighter create 4 different summoners? Summon shadows? Summon falcons? Summon beasts? What would the summoner/tank do differently?
5) Transparency and people feedback will save development time. Let's hear what the Devs plan and let's answer.
I think it would be a good idea to start presenting us the archetype, not only in the sense of the gameplay around them, and their role in the group, but as well as their source or type of power from the universe of Verra.
Nothing can be set in stone yet, and people should be open minded to changes, but maybe Steven can start sharing what he expects each archetype to give to the other seven, and the reason I am writting this topic, is for the Developers to get an impression and measure of the communities hopes for the Class system.
And this proposed small series of the archetype powers and lore, will help in the Development of the class system OR be a confirmation that they might be a need for sigfnicant change.
6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.
Is it necessary for each archetype to mix with the rest?
What if the Tank and the Ranger can only be a secondary for CERTAIN other archetypes only?
What if some similar classes have a big gap in power and usefulness between them?
For example, what can the ranger give to the mage, since they both offer ranged dmg playstyle?
And if you are a Tank or a Fighter looking for more agression would you take Rogue as your secondary? Or the Ranger?
Who would be better or more useful across the board of the mmos gameplay, the Fighter/Rogue or the Fighter/Ranger?
Similalry as a Mage, what secondaries would you be looking to alternate or enhance your playstyle?
What would be the difference between a Mage/Rogue and a Mage/Fighter?
Can the weaker choices provide a fun experience or might it be a good idea to eliminate some of the 64 possible classes. Why? Quality over quantity. Some augments can be moved from the deleted classes to the number of the remaining classes. In my opinion the 64 classes might not be fun enough, but an improved table of 45 or whatever classes might be able to provide good gameplay for all the players.
There will be significant time invested in each char. It will take effort to create a combetitive character with the gameplay that people feel satisfied with.
This opens up the possibility for better animations since the number of eventual classes is reduced. It opens up the possibility for more pronounced weapon usage in certain archetypes. For example the Ranger seems very weapon restricted.
What is the AoC vision for the Ranger and its Classes? Should he get sword skills? 1handed 2handed? Depending on the class combo? Should secondary archetypes play a role in weapon gameplay?
7) The unique case of the supports.
Bard cleric
The bards and the clerics strength is in improving the groups chances of success. The players choosing such archetypes in games are giving up much in order to fill this role.
I am not sure to what extend the other archetypes should borrow powers from the bard and the cleric to empower and heal the group.
The obvious choice to turn these powers into selfbuffs only, in order to perserve the identity of the bard and the cleric.
The other way to implement class combos with the bard and the cleric as secondary is if their powers from a lore standpoint are let's say seduction and inspiration, and divinity and healing, and so by lending them to the other archetypes there are these flavours/tools to create unique classes with.
8) Conclusion. Let's see if we need to change direction after the devs give us a picture, without having to wait for a fleshed out class system. Necro and druid.
Lastly I want to close the topic from where I started.
We have been shown 6 out of 8 archetypes and 0 out of 64 classes.
Perhaps Intrepid could work on two more classes such as a necromancer, which could unlock dark powers when used as a secondary to the other archetypes, and a druid, which could unlock natutres powers as a secondary.
And maybe rethink the 64 class system. Maybe the archetyles could only combine woth 4 or 3 archetypes for a reduced number of classes, down from the 64. But i believe that this lower number of classes would be of better quality, with a solod number of abilities, tools and weapon specilization. For example I dont see any powers that the fighter can lend to the other classes. Agression? Pick rogue as secondary. Endurance? Pick tank. Magic? Mage. Empowerment? Bard. Self healing? Cleric.
Let's have a serious discussion with the Devs and see if there is a need to change direction before too much effort is invested in something that may not be appealing.
2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?
3) What are the powers and tools of the archetypes as secondary classes? Will people like them?
4) Should there be a 8x8 class system? Would 8x4 be of a better quality? Maybe some archetypes dont make sense as a combo
5) Transparency and people feedback will save development time. Let's hear what the Devs plan and let's answer.
6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.
7) The unique case of the supports.
8) Conclusion. Let's see if we need to change direction after the devs give us a picture, without having to wait for a fleshed out class system. Necro and druid.
1) Title
Every month we see the Development of the game. Typically there is a topic, and some had a backlash like the various mount skins, followed by a gameplay video, a few artistic concepts to familiarise us with the world, ingame assets and QnA.
It would be very interesting we could get a couple of Dev Updates with the archetypes as the topic, with some official art concept of each archetype, created based on the Devs vision for each of them.
2) The class system hasnt started yet. Should it be developed or not?
At this point we have been shown 6 archetypes:
Tank cleric mage ranger fighter bard and we are waiting for 2 more.
Would it be safe to assume that at this stage IS has not worked on class combos and skill augments? There might be a few placeholder ideas or even animatioms/effects (Fighter/mage gapcloser teleport augmentation) but in my opinion the system is still an idea.
3) What are the powers and tools of the archetypes as secondary classes? Will people like them?
What if we could have a Dev Update about the Rogue for example, where did they draw inspiration for the archetype, how do they invision the gameplay of the archetype and what tools would it lend to the other 7, as part of the 64 class combo.
Will the rogue lend shadow powers to the other archetypes, to create the different classes, or we can expect a rogue in a sense of a dirty killer, and as such, the powers that the rogue will lend will be more about oppertunistic blows.
4) Should there be a 8x8 class system? Would 8x4 be of a better quality? Maybe some archetypes dont make sense as a combo
And what is the inspiration on the Fighter? Does the Fighter has any specific magical powers in the universe of AoC? Or will he just give combat augments to the other classes? How would that look on the mage? And how would that look like on the summoner? How would the rogue, ranger, tank and fighter create 4 different summoners? Summon shadows? Summon falcons? Summon beasts? What would the summoner/tank do differently?
5) Transparency and people feedback will save development time. Let's hear what the Devs plan and let's answer.
I think it would be a good idea to start presenting us the archetype, not only in the sense of the gameplay around them, and their role in the group, but as well as their source or type of power from the universe of Verra.
Nothing can be set in stone yet, and people should be open minded to changes, but maybe Steven can start sharing what he expects each archetype to give to the other seven, and the reason I am writting this topic, is for the Developers to get an impression and measure of the communities hopes for the Class system.
And this proposed small series of the archetype powers and lore, will help in the Development of the class system OR be a confirmation that they might be a need for sigfnicant change.
6) Some classes will be weaker. Let's not waste ability functions on them. Let's enrich the classes that make sense.
Is it necessary for each archetype to mix with the rest?
What if the Tank and the Ranger can only be a secondary for CERTAIN other archetypes only?
What if some similar classes have a big gap in power and usefulness between them?
For example, what can the ranger give to the mage, since they both offer ranged dmg playstyle?
And if you are a Tank or a Fighter looking for more agression would you take Rogue as your secondary? Or the Ranger?
Who would be better or more useful across the board of the mmos gameplay, the Fighter/Rogue or the Fighter/Ranger?
Similalry as a Mage, what secondaries would you be looking to alternate or enhance your playstyle?
What would be the difference between a Mage/Rogue and a Mage/Fighter?
Can the weaker choices provide a fun experience or might it be a good idea to eliminate some of the 64 possible classes. Why? Quality over quantity. Some augments can be moved from the deleted classes to the number of the remaining classes. In my opinion the 64 classes might not be fun enough, but an improved table of 45 or whatever classes might be able to provide good gameplay for all the players.
There will be significant time invested in each char. It will take effort to create a combetitive character with the gameplay that people feel satisfied with.
This opens up the possibility for better animations since the number of eventual classes is reduced. It opens up the possibility for more pronounced weapon usage in certain archetypes. For example the Ranger seems very weapon restricted.
What is the AoC vision for the Ranger and its Classes? Should he get sword skills? 1handed 2handed? Depending on the class combo? Should secondary archetypes play a role in weapon gameplay?
7) The unique case of the supports.
Bard cleric
The bards and the clerics strength is in improving the groups chances of success. The players choosing such archetypes in games are giving up much in order to fill this role.
I am not sure to what extend the other archetypes should borrow powers from the bard and the cleric to empower and heal the group.
The obvious choice to turn these powers into selfbuffs only, in order to perserve the identity of the bard and the cleric.
The other way to implement class combos with the bard and the cleric as secondary is if their powers from a lore standpoint are let's say seduction and inspiration, and divinity and healing, and so by lending them to the other archetypes there are these flavours/tools to create unique classes with.
8) Conclusion. Let's see if we need to change direction after the devs give us a picture, without having to wait for a fleshed out class system. Necro and druid.
Lastly I want to close the topic from where I started.
We have been shown 6 out of 8 archetypes and 0 out of 64 classes.
Perhaps Intrepid could work on two more classes such as a necromancer, which could unlock dark powers when used as a secondary to the other archetypes, and a druid, which could unlock natutres powers as a secondary.
And maybe rethink the 64 class system. Maybe the archetyles could only combine woth 4 or 3 archetypes for a reduced number of classes, down from the 64. But i believe that this lower number of classes would be of better quality, with a solod number of abilities, tools and weapon specilization. For example I dont see any powers that the fighter can lend to the other classes. Agression? Pick rogue as secondary. Endurance? Pick tank. Magic? Mage. Empowerment? Bard. Self healing? Cleric.
Let's have a serious discussion with the Devs and see if there is a need to change direction before too much effort is invested in something that may not be appealing.
Re: Looking back on Rangers. (Rangers being weapon locked)
I know we're well past the ranger showcase but as more and more classes have come out, it's become more and more apparent to me that rangers as they currently exist really feel counterintuitive to Ashes of Creation's design and I think they miss out on the class fantasy.
To Clarify, currently rangers feel like "bow-the class" as opposed to a more hunter/nature aesthetic. Which is fine if Ashes of Creation had classes locked to a weapon... but they don't. I've been on a trend of looking for unique combinations in Ashes of creation recently to see how they might work, 2h sword wielding mage (which they even showcased in a livestream!), bow mage, PI members have gone to talk about battle clerics with maces and heavy armor instead of wands, and all of the different weapon varieties each class can carry. there are only 3 examples I can really think of that fly in the face of this incredible diversity. Everything else besides these 3 examples is truly diverse and unique and allows the user to do whatever kind of stuff they want to do.
1st, the fighter as a whole feels pretty locked into melee weapons. There are several skills that i simply cannot picture working with ranged weapons. Like how would a spellbook work with Whirlwind? for example. But in this example, fighters still have a large range available to them. If we look at the planned weapons we can see that "melee" weapons would incorporate:
- Axes - 1h/2h
- Clubs
- Daggers
- Hammers
- Lances
- Maces - 1h/2h
- Polearms/Halberds
- Spears - 1h/2h
- Swords - 1h/2h
Fighters will still have plenty of options to them to really customize and diversify their class to make fighters feel unique, and none of the fighter skills feel required to have any specific of these. Plus I'm not sure that whirlwind wouldn't work with a wand or a scepter.
2nd, the tank has 1 skill that is weapon locked and that is shield assault. that's it.
Rangers in comparison to these two have 7 skill specifically locked to bow(Weapon bow mastery, Snipe shot+upgrades, the 3 Imbued Ammo techniques, Call of the wind (no idea why this requires the bow, but it does per the wiki), Air strike) (The imbued ammo techniques don't actually specify bow as a requirement but do say "When the target is hit by your bow" in the description.)
And then have 4 more skills that are clearly bow and arrow themed, use arrows in the animations, and/or list bows and arrows in the description of the skill. (Thundering shot, Scatter shot and it's variants, Barrage, Raining Death, and you count the 3 imbued ammo techniques here if you didn't count them above),
For a total of 11! of the rangers techniques being clearly themed for 1 weapon type and that alone. In fact it would have been easier to tell you all the things the rangers can do that aren't bow and arrow themed! which is the hunts and marks (which i love and feel very thematic), the bear trap, disengage, camouflage, and the vine field. 11 skills feels crazy in comparison to all of the other classes for weapon locking.
Despite this I think some skills can be reflavored/reworked slightly to work with any weapon, Barrage, call of the wind, airstrike, thundering shot, the imbued ammo, headshot and honestly Snipe as a targeted charge up dash for melee weapons would be awesome. All of these could easily work with melee weapons let alone other ranged weapon options. A ranger with a staff cosplaying as a druid sounds awesome! and hunting with a spear is an incredibly common depiction.
I think one of Ashes of Creations biggest draws is the customization of build crafting and building something that feels unique and fits your own playstyle/personal vision for a class. One of the biggest components of that is the ability to use any weapon you want with any class, and in it's current iteration Ranger does not allow for that freedom, and currently feels more like a class dedicated to a specific weapon than anything else. This feels like a miss from intrepid given how well they've crafted everything else and how cool the hunter/nature fantasy of the ranger class feels.
TL:DR - I think the ranger class is more of the "bow and arrow" class, and having a class so rigidly attached to one specific weapon feels counter to the general design stance that they have taken of "Any class can use any weapon"
Disclaimer - I know ashes of creation is still in alpha! the game isn't even close to release yet and several things are still a work in progress! Ranger isn't done yet, I get it! I'm more hoping that this post and subsequent discussion can help guide intrepid to getting the ranger into a better overall place and get the same sort of customization that all of the other classes get to love and enjoy. This isn't coming out of hatred or anything like that for the ranger, actually quite the opposite as someone who loves the ranger in d&d and just want it to be as free as everything else.
Edit: forgot to include camouflage under the things Rangers can do without a bow, now fixed, and is a very hunter/naturey thing i like about ranger. Originally forgot to include it cause it's not directly on the skill tree on the wiki.
I'm pretty excited for Ranger personally, but yeah it feels like it's absolutely weapon locked.
Re: Looking back on Rangers. (Rangers being weapon locked)
For the record, ‘ranger’ has nothing to do with using a bow. They are wanderers in the wilderness - it’s the verb ‘to range’ as in Aragorn ranging the wilds of Middle Earth.
CROW3
1
Re: Loot System Changes
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »You gotta put control in their hands if you're not rewarding everyone in the raid. And if you are rewarding everyone - that goes against the economy that Intrepid have supposedly planned for the game.But honestly all that isn't even the biggest point of this thread, it's that putting loot control in the hands of players invites and enables bad behavior with no consequence. Steven said he won't allow any form of DPS meter because it would, or so he believes it would, negatively affect the community, despite the fact that it's an invaluable tool for players to understand their skill level and where they need to improve. How is it that these sort of outdated loot distribution systems, which are much more easily abused by the inherent way they work, are not only the permitted, but required?
And if you don't want everyone getting valuable loot and are satisfied with people getting 1 crafting material each - we agree.
I expect 40-man raidbosses to drop 1-2 full items and crafting materials for 1-2 more (talking about BiS stuff here, for context). And I expect those items to requre ~10-20 mats each, so the boss would be dropping ~40 instances of loot overall.
If you think that would satisfy all the people asking for "fair" loot - cool. I personally doubt that. Then on top of that, if you think that those mats won't be immediately pulled to craft full items (unless the boss drops ~40 absolutely random crafting mats) - we simply disagree there, because in my experience of this exact looting design, those mats always get used to craft items for a person who deserves them.
Honestly yeah I think it would be enough, though I’d want the craft material and amount to be determined by Gathering ranks like I mentioned before. Even if it’s minor, it’s an incremental step toward an upgrade and it’s enough to lessen a sting of missing out on a gear drop or the rarer items.
Guilds coming together with those drops of their own volition to get someone a gear upgrade would also feel much better and rewarding socially than having one person taking all the loot and handing it off with no input from anyone else. One fosters genuine goodwill, the other is going to inspire bitterness.
‘No no, that’s not your loot. It’s OUR loot.’ isn’t something that people enjoy, generally speaking, and all that should be done willingly by players, not mandated by game mechanics.
Caeryl
1