Best Of
Re: Resurrection during combat
There should be a cool down on all forms of resurrection.
I'd say the ability for a cleric should be limited to rank 1 or 2 and have a 10 second cast time, at least 15 but no more than 30 second cool down and have a mana cost on the higher end. The High Priest should get to max out the ability rank with same cast time and cool down but maybe a lower mana cost.
Scrolls of resurrection shouldn't be a thing, that being said, I grudgingly admit it would be useful to have them available. Scrolls should have a cast time of at least 30 seconds and 60 to 90 minute cool down. Scrolls are a bit of a slippery slope, if everyone has easy access to them then it invalidates part of the role of clerics. Therefore they should not be widely available, easy to acquire or cheap. They should be a last ditch emergency use only type deal. I'd be perfectly happy if they end up as a guild only purchase tied to whatever guild purchased them and each guild can only have a small limited number, lets say 10, at any given time.
That is an extremely true statement.
Also a partially true statement, but one with some caveats to it. As a very long time healer I do feel the need to point out these caveats.
How well does the dead player know how to play their specific role?
How often does the dead player die?
Tied directly to the previous question; How often does the dead player do something stupid or unnecessarily flashy to get themselves killed?
Given the current state of the battle, is it more or less efficient time and mana-wise to revive the dead player or heal others?
A hard bit of truth that most people don't like to admit, even more so when they are one, there are players that at any given time even alive are just useless as a dead player. Some even more so, by being just alive they are a detriment the teams around them. Refusing to follow orders, not paying attention, not keeping their mouth shut when the grown ups are talking.
Absolutely not. This should remain with the cleric class only. I'd honestly go so far as to say the High Priest class only. I'll be playing a High Priest but I mean, if you are going to be handing out class skills, gimmie Aegis from the tanks, Blink from the mages, Cathartic Melody and Cheerful Melody from the bards, Disengage from the rangers and lets see.... Throw in a Blood Fusion from the fighters too.
I'd say the ability for a cleric should be limited to rank 1 or 2 and have a 10 second cast time, at least 15 but no more than 30 second cool down and have a mana cost on the higher end. The High Priest should get to max out the ability rank with same cast time and cool down but maybe a lower mana cost.
Scrolls of resurrection shouldn't be a thing, that being said, I grudgingly admit it would be useful to have them available. Scrolls should have a cast time of at least 30 seconds and 60 to 90 minute cool down. Scrolls are a bit of a slippery slope, if everyone has easy access to them then it invalidates part of the role of clerics. Therefore they should not be widely available, easy to acquire or cheap. They should be a last ditch emergency use only type deal. I'd be perfectly happy if they end up as a guild only purchase tied to whatever guild purchased them and each guild can only have a small limited number, lets say 10, at any given time.
daveywavey wrote: »Resurrection during combat is essential.
That is an extremely true statement.
daveywavey wrote: »It opens up so many more options, and means that once somebody dies, if the fight goes on for another 20mins, that they get to actually join in, rather than either lying there being useless or having to port to the nearest resurrection shrine and being useless.
Also a partially true statement, but one with some caveats to it. As a very long time healer I do feel the need to point out these caveats.
How well does the dead player know how to play their specific role?
How often does the dead player die?
Tied directly to the previous question; How often does the dead player do something stupid or unnecessarily flashy to get themselves killed?
Given the current state of the battle, is it more or less efficient time and mana-wise to revive the dead player or heal others?
A hard bit of truth that most people don't like to admit, even more so when they are one, there are players that at any given time even alive are just useless as a dead player. Some even more so, by being just alive they are a detriment the teams around them. Refusing to follow orders, not paying attention, not keeping their mouth shut when the grown ups are talking.
daveywavey wrote: »All archetypes should be able to do it, with different degrees of efficiency.
Absolutely not. This should remain with the cleric class only. I'd honestly go so far as to say the High Priest class only. I'll be playing a High Priest but I mean, if you are going to be handing out class skills, gimmie Aegis from the tanks, Blink from the mages, Cathartic Melody and Cheerful Melody from the bards, Disengage from the rangers and lets see.... Throw in a Blood Fusion from the fighters too.
Re: Contest for Parent Node
I agree on having a contest, this is much better than automatic slavery!!
I like contests, I just had a contest in Factional Warfare in EVE a few minutes ago, it ended up with me shooting my own faction a couple times and forcing everybody out my site I love a good EVE undeclared civil war
My idea of a contest is almost the same as yours in a general sense, with this difference:
So, the upgraded node probably will have more people living in it and they will have to split their forces to multiple borders, the lesser nodes will have a better chance fighting in a smaller scale.
I wonder how random players (those not affiliated with either node) would play if Intrepid had implemented my idea of using node gold to pay for kills based on the repair cost of the killed targets. With such a system, any random player from any node could have come to aid in the event and influence the vassalization or freedom of nodes. It’s truly disappointing that this system wasn’t introduced, as it would have opened up many possibilities for node politics and warfare.
Maybe there should be quests too, who knows, but I don't think this is the time for even more PvE after people already crunched PvE and upgraded their node through PvE, do you get me? The PvE aspect and requisits were already met and it was clear who did the better job in this.
I think the after the upgrade there should be a full PvP contest to settle things up and if the lesser node has the chops for a fight they should free themselves from the fate of being vassals, this will be a huge morale boost
Yes, in my vision there should be a big notification and people should run to the border to defend it!
I can already imagine the rage ping on Discord and people loggin in the game to defend the border
I like contests, I just had a contest in Factional Warfare in EVE a few minutes ago, it ended up with me shooting my own faction a couple times and forcing everybody out my site I love a good EVE undeclared civil war
My idea of a contest is almost the same as yours in a general sense, with this difference:
- When a node is upgrading, a contest should start at the borders around this node, and right at the border there should be a small area for capturing the border.
- The system is simply a domination style: stay inside the ring to gain points.
- Anyone stepping inside will add score to your node.
- If there are people from both nodes or no one in the capture point, then the score won't progress.
- The general idea is to stay in the cap point and kill anyone from the other node.
- Once the score limit is reached by the upgraded node, it will become the master of the losing node.
- If the lesser node wins, it won’t become a vassal and will have the opportunity to upgrade itself after the contest is over if it manages to reach the XP requirements.
- If no one wins after many hours, then the vassalage will happen
- Citizens of both nodes are automatically subscribed to this event, so they can step inside the capture zone and score for their node
So, the upgraded node probably will have more people living in it and they will have to split their forces to multiple borders, the lesser nodes will have a better chance fighting in a smaller scale.
I wonder how random players (those not affiliated with either node) would play if Intrepid had implemented my idea of using node gold to pay for kills based on the repair cost of the killed targets. With such a system, any random player from any node could have come to aid in the event and influence the vassalization or freedom of nodes. It’s truly disappointing that this system wasn’t introduced, as it would have opened up many possibilities for node politics and warfare.
Maybe there should be quests too, who knows, but I don't think this is the time for even more PvE after people already crunched PvE and upgraded their node through PvE, do you get me? The PvE aspect and requisits were already met and it was clear who did the better job in this.
I think the after the upgrade there should be a full PvP contest to settle things up and if the lesser node has the chops for a fight they should free themselves from the fate of being vassals, this will be a huge morale boost
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »Players in the contesting node (if there is one at the time of the challenge) would get a notification of "neighboring node is about to lock this one out. Do this and this if you wanna try and prevent that". And it'd be up to players in those node to decide on the spot if they wanna help the potentially locked out node.
Yes, in my vision there should be a big notification and people should run to the border to defend it!
I can already imagine the rage ping on Discord and people loggin in the game to defend the border
This is AoC in my book, it has many great ideas, but it always seems to fall short when it comes to delivering the grand finale. Each system is interesting and promising, but then there's a bit of a letdown at the end. I'm really concerned about thisLudullu_(NiKr) wrote: »Imo this would be a much better system than just "well, this node simply had more people in it, so your node got fucked over".
Re: Vassal resentment
I was just looking over the original kickstarter for something else and found that rebellion IS supported by the original Kickstarter. Just saying.
But change for change’s sake means nothing without consequence. That means that these changes and these choices must have repercussions, they must be *felt* throughout the rest of the world. It means that when a player makes a choice in a quest, that choice can’t be undone. It means that when that volcano erupts and destroys a city, the landscape is forever altered. It means that when a tyrant makes life difficult for his citizens, his citizens can rise up against him. Players have choices to make, those choices lead to change, and that change has consequence. Day to day, server to server, the world will be in flux, and history will remain where it always should, in the hands of the player.
Re: So....bagpipes for the Bard class?
100% only for AoE damage or to help people run faster =-D
So....bagpipes for the Bard class?
This feels like a serious oversight? Also I hope different instruments change the Bard abilities VFX and SFX.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3na4qTW1o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3na4qTW1o
Re: Contest for Parent Node
The revolution id a originally was a great thought. The major issue around this is about the exact mechanics of how a node becomes a vassal. With most opinion being that it just automatically happens.
I would hope to see some type of deliberate action that leads to vassal status. Either 1). The subject node mayor and citizens want to be part of the parent node. So they have a node event, mayoral commission, to bend the knee and offer themselves to the parent.
Or 2). The higher level node decides they want this node as a vassal. So there is a commission for some type of war or subjugation action against that node. That if won or successful the citizens of the node bend the knee. But it provides that lower level node the chance to form a defense against becoming a vassal by fighting against anyone who wants to take their independence or sovereignty away from them.
Kind of a real world thing led to this thinking. That vassals do not just pop up and happen. There are politics, strife, war and all sorts of nasty stuff that leads to a vassal status.
I agree that automatic vassalization is a poor system and it should be done by deliberate action.
What I would propose is that nodes tier of development is not cappby by BEING vassalized, but by how many vassals THEY HAVE (as in network size so vassals vassals count). Thus the aqusition of vassal nodes becomes the means to raise your own tier.
Aquisition can be by warfare or peaceful means. In both cases the vassal must be of equal or lower level (if a vassal of equal level is take the patron will immediatly earn promotion), and sufficiently close by to the Aquiring nodes network, maybe not nessarily directly adjacent. If it peacefull submission then the vassal might negotiate for lower taxes, more benifits etc, while a defeated node would get a 'standard' rate and low but atleast some benifits. By having voluntary vassalization present possible alternatives their is an incentive to both bully and negotiate at the same time and more complex politics results.
Once vassal status is established by peacefull means the vassal is considered in a state of 'contentment' and either side can propose modifications but these take effect only if signed by the other party, thus allowing both sides to continue to keep the relationship up to date with changing needs and expectations. So long as the most recent interaction between two nodes is a signed agreement the vassal is in contentment. Vassals in this state have a very hard time declaring war against their Patron, needing to be no more then 1 tier lower in development, and must pay a large war declaration cost.
But if a vassal is taken by force it has an initial 'defeated' status which lasts a specific time period (2-4 weeks maybe) after which it automatically goes to 'agrived' and vassals in such status can at any time make a war declaration at reduced or possibly no cost to try for liberation, if they lose they go back to defeated as a timeout.
The Patron node can also pull a Vader and "Alter the agreement" unilaterally, if the changes are in any way negative for the vassal (higher taxes or lower benifits even if combined with offsets elseware) then the vassal node is set to a state of 'agrived' allowing them to essentially fight for independence or perhapse a return to the old agreement with a freeze out period in which no alterations are allowed. Alternativly the vassal can submit and sign the new agreement and go back to contentment. This allows some brinksmanship and friction between patron and vassal nodes and encourages them to again get into disagrements.
Lastly possibility for a node to develop up to a level through aquiring vassals and for them to then lose thouse vassals which were a pre-requisite to their development level. This puts a node in a state of 'over-stretched' and will trigger a decay process. If they do not bring their vassal count back up in a specified period (likely the same 2-4 weeks that 'defeated' status lasts) the development tier will regress 1 level then start another decay timer if it is still over-stretched. Over-stretched should carry significant penalties such as not being able to create any new buildings or lossing lots of taxes and no wars delcarations for purposes other then aquiring vassals.
Lodrig
5
Re: Why did you stop to play an MMO you once loved?
Ultima Online, just got tired of drama with the admin team (it was a "private" shard).
Lineage 2 - I got tired of the grind and poor content variety.
WoW - one day I logged in and just felt sick, I suppose that's the way you feel if you gorge too much on something. Still I have some fond memories of my Tauren shaman open world PvP, and levelling my human warlock whilst playing BB King in the background. I came back a decade later for a nostalgia trip, but my interest in the game fizzled out. The game didn't feel much like a MMO, and the open world content felt too easy.
GW2 and SWTOR - I liked them both for different reasons, but overall the copy/paste nature of the game activities and again, PvE content which in the open world did not encourage use of your classes to the fully potential made it boring in the long run.
The Lord of the Rings Online - the landscape difficulty made it interesting, and the old school nature of some content was weirdly refreshing. The game was pretty atmospheric, despite its age, however content felt a bit uninspired around level 30+ if I remember correctly. That specific zone quest line felt weak, and I felt zero motivation to continue playing at that point. In the end server latency / server performance issues were also immersion breaking.
A side note: For some reason I enjoyed quite a bit both GW2 and LOTRO crafting experience as a solo player. In GW2 crafting was the reason why I ended levelling 5 different classes at the same time and levelling up different crafting schools.
Overall the passing nature of the levelling zones was one of the reasons why I disliked in a lot of MMOs. You barely ever felt a reason to come back to a "low" level zone as you have already completed all content there and roaming mobs were no threat at all. One of the reasons why I liked GW2 more with its level scaling system, which adjusted your level to the zone content. That alone made the game world feel more like a living, breathing world.
Lineage 2 - I got tired of the grind and poor content variety.
WoW - one day I logged in and just felt sick, I suppose that's the way you feel if you gorge too much on something. Still I have some fond memories of my Tauren shaman open world PvP, and levelling my human warlock whilst playing BB King in the background. I came back a decade later for a nostalgia trip, but my interest in the game fizzled out. The game didn't feel much like a MMO, and the open world content felt too easy.
GW2 and SWTOR - I liked them both for different reasons, but overall the copy/paste nature of the game activities and again, PvE content which in the open world did not encourage use of your classes to the fully potential made it boring in the long run.
The Lord of the Rings Online - the landscape difficulty made it interesting, and the old school nature of some content was weirdly refreshing. The game was pretty atmospheric, despite its age, however content felt a bit uninspired around level 30+ if I remember correctly. That specific zone quest line felt weak, and I felt zero motivation to continue playing at that point. In the end server latency / server performance issues were also immersion breaking.
A side note: For some reason I enjoyed quite a bit both GW2 and LOTRO crafting experience as a solo player. In GW2 crafting was the reason why I ended levelling 5 different classes at the same time and levelling up different crafting schools.
Overall the passing nature of the levelling zones was one of the reasons why I disliked in a lot of MMOs. You barely ever felt a reason to come back to a "low" level zone as you have already completed all content there and roaming mobs were no threat at all. One of the reasons why I liked GW2 more with its level scaling system, which adjusted your level to the zone content. That alone made the game world feel more like a living, breathing world.
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
Starting to think no this is a troll thread and I have been had.
Well done good sir.
Well done good sir.
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
AirborneBerserker wrote: »I did not strawman anything. I asked a simple yes or no question and rather then just saying yes and agreeing to something that is just a basic fact about people, you spouted off a bunch of things which have nothing to do with anything I said.
I gave you a clear answer: I know that Intrepid makes mistakes and if you cant even filter that from 13 words, how are we to discuss complexer systems than that?
AirborneBerserker wrote: »Do any of the things you stated prevent the Devs from making a mistake? No, they don't. Did I ever claim any of those things, no I haven't, in fact I have said the opposite. So who is committing the strawman fallacy here?
What are "those things"? You want to discuss this, be specific.
AirborneBerserker wrote: »So now let's look at a couple of the reasons why the devs might make a mistake. The node system is completely new and has never been implemented in a MMORPG before.
True, the system hasn't been tested yet, but this is not an issue for solo players, because they are not meant to be the focus group - groups and guilds are. If solo players are lucky, the system will provide them with opportunities to gruadually move into what the package of the game says: This is a group focused MMORPG.
AirborneBerserker wrote: »The gathering system operates different then any other game due to the materials shifting around the world and disappearing entirely some times.
The loss of resources has been present in games before and Steven is on record taking inspiration from games where stuff wasn't globally available through auction houses but instead have to be moved around. As for certain resources being available only during certain seasons: That doesn't seem to be a problem unless these resources are necessary for everyone to have and no alternatives exist. And if that were the case thats just an overall issue, not a single player issue.
AirborneBerserker wrote: »And as I pointed out in very beginning of my OP if your going to make a game difficult then you want the class system to as fun as possible as early as possible. Because it's the only system you know 100% of the player base will interact with.
And what makes the class system not fun? Do you think the Archetypes are badly designed? Do you doubt the meaningfulness of the augment system?
Again, because that is what I've been saying in my first comment: The timing is just odd. 7 years of archetype development and 8x8 class design plus a promise to make the system in the 8x8 pattern - If you want anyone to take this serious "It could be a problem" will not suffice, people will just shrug their shoulders and wait a few weeks until they can test the systems and provide ACTUAL feedback
Anyhow without stretching this discussion into the infinite: Yes there is a problem for solo players: They are trying to play a multiplayer game alone and Intrepid (rightfully) does not intend to cater to them at the cost of social group gameplay.
Kilion
2