Best Of
Re: Loot System Changes
Time scale is simply different, but those players would still get their loot, even if the boss only drops 2 items per farm.Otherwise the question would be: Why should a player performanig good and investing a his time not get a loot? What's the justification here?
The overall progress in the game would simply be slower.
Also, solo players will not be rewarded because AoC's looting rights don't reward everyone who touches the boss (nor have the suggestions here been about that). Solo players must either join guilds or grind their little solo mobs until they can afford to buy big boi items.
He will get feedback from both sides and will have to decide if he wants to listen to the majority of modern players that will leave the game for a variety of other reasons or to his already established TA who're used to this kind of design and have played with it before.but test phases will show him good feedback - I hope.
Ludullu
1
Re: Loot System Changes
Players can also to be kicked out from the group before the looting starts.
That is not a good thing
A guild need to fill to manage a raid.
They invite a couple of players, just to kick them before loot starts to ensure the guild gets the loot.
Or any raidleader really who want to make sure his competition is gone before the loot, so he kicks everyone who might need on the same drops.
don't group with that guild then ;3
Thank you for demonstrating the point. These sort of loot systems discourage players from assisting each other because the game enables very easy, unpunished ways for the group lead to screw people over.
you are only thinking about the immediate consequences, not future ones. A system like that promotes good behavior. this isn't a game where you will be running instances 24/7 and using cross server queues to go into them and never see the same person again (or be stuck with them). you can literally choose who you play with. play wit the good people. your actions have consequences. ruin your reputation in a server and you are doomed.
I’m thinking of the overall social atmosphere the game will create if these sort of loot systems are the norm. It’s not about immediate consequences, it’s about how players will not be encouraged or want to cooperate with others because the systems at play are designed to not reward them.
You are vastly overestimating how much influence a reputation will have when the large guilds most likely to abuse these systems are already set up to have immense influence over castles/nodes/etc. Most of the community will just shrug and tell slighted players the same thing: ‘well, that’s on you for not picking a group better’ as if it were their fault some people decided to be an ass.
As for the other portion of your post, if 1000 people show up to nuke a lvl25 dragon, I would first expect the dragon to scale up significantly so it doesn’t just fall over like a sack of flour.
Secondly, many games use some kind of metric to grant looting rights in the event of zerging like that. Whether that’s a fixed amount of damage done, time engaged with the boss, average threat held, healing done, damage mitigated, buffs contributed etc, would be up to the devs, but contributors to a fight should all be rewarded in some way even if it’s only crafting materials they’ll then have to take to a node and craftsperson to turn into something actually useful.
again, different game. the game promotes not doing shitty things like that to other people because of the social consequences. it promotes good behaviour. you do that to most people who play ow pvx games and you get perma camped out in the open world, for example. cant do that when you are in instance queues 24/7.
2nd point. raid wont scale depending amount of players., confirmed by steven. all contributors shouldn't be rewarded. as you said, other games do that, not ashes. not everybody is a winner here ;3
Social consequences should exist in addition to gameplay mechanics that minimize abuse potential rather that enable it. They are not a replacement for mindful reward systems, if they even work at all, which they're definitely not going to when that big toxic guild owns a castle or node. Good luck blacklisting the Patron Guild of the economic node.
Also, link the source for that change in raid approach, because it would be, in no uncertain terms, extremely idiotic to not have a scale-up mechanic on open world bosses.
Not a single person here is after an easy street farming experience, but everyone deserves to be rewards for taking on and defeating challenging content at risk of their time, gear degradation, PvP and PvE death penalties. I'm in full favor of instituting merit requirements to get looting rights as I said before, but that should be handled by the game, not by other players.
Players have proven many a time that they cannot responsibly handle those player-controlled loot systems.
no, nobody deserves to be rewarded. ppl don't deserve things. they earn it. do you think the big toxic guild you mention is gonna invite you when they could invite their own members? please xD
these type of games work differently. bosses will be fought over by warring guilds. winning the boss is still important and rewarding even if you don't get an item. not letting your opponents get it its still as good. you will eventually get the item you want. just see it as doing multiple runs of an instance to get that 1% drop or whatever. you don't always get something you need on each run and that's okay.
also, no need to link anything. watch the dragon stream again, steven mentioned it in a q & a
You're a shining example of why these loot systems are a bad idea. Anti-social behavior is bad for an MMO, and systems that directly encourage that sort of behavior while leaving the majority of contributors with nothing means you're going to have a very sparce population willing to do the difficult content.
Why would I or anyone waste hours of time for no gain? Why would I or anyone volunteer to help when the systems at play practically beg the group I'm helping to give me nothing for it? If bosses don't drop much of anything, why would I even care to go fight off another group to deny them it? Oh no, they got one armor piece for their 20man team and a pittance of crafting materials.
Whereas if I know there is a large stock of materials on the line because everyone gets Gathering drops and I have a lot of high-level players with maxed Gathering lines, I'll be fighting tooth and nail over control of those bosses to deny other groups looting rights. They can't contribute toward the merit thresholds if they're at respawn, and I stand to gain a lot.
Edit: The world boss was confirmed to adjust attacks based on the number of players engaged with it in the stream. Not sure what you were listening to that gave you the idea they wouldn't implement any anti-zerg mechanics. Here, timestamp 01:01:40 https://youtu.be/pfdnNWkUov4?si=rKKhZUK8E5Ncl2-F&t=3700
lmao I've never screwed anyone over loot in my 20 years of mmorpg. I've been screwed sometimes though. what a shining example I am of whats wrong.no, nobody deserves to be rewarded. ppl don't deserve things. they earn it.
We’re talking about the groups that did earn it.
So far not a single person has tried to claim every single person who so much as breathes on the boss should get a payout.
What is being asked for is that the successful raid group actually get rewarded in a way that isn’t prone to gm/office abuse. Players shouldn’t have loot control like that, loot distribution should be handled entirely by the game itself.
no it shouldn't. just join a guild that doesn't do gm/officer abuse. the game will give you different loot options. pick one you like and play with people who like the same one.
not everybody should get rewarded, or even rewarded equally anyways. not everybody contributes equally. its nice to get things, but if not, you should keep trying.
what happens to those people who managed to pvp and kill everybody trying to kill your pve raiders and take the boss? they never touch the boss or are in the same group as the people killing it but their contribution is significant. how do you reward them?
giving the loot to the guild bank and distributing it based on different parameters and merit isn't a bad system.
Depraved
1
Re: Loot System Changes
Neither:
"Guilds are built by randos and solos coming together because THEY HAVE TO, if they want to succeed."
Nor
are true.
This is not a necessary incentive, Intrepid.
"Guilds are built by randos and solos coming together because THEY HAVE TO, if they want to succeed."
Nor
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »Changing loot rules to "everyone gets something" changes the economy balancing completely.
are true.
This is not a necessary incentive, Intrepid.
Azherae
2
Re: Loot System Changes
If player time is respected, of course, this should happen, because as long as a contribution (damage, tanking healing) is done, a reward should be given, because time was invested. And first of all, MMOs are time-consuming games, so if players will not get items according to their invest, why should they play (within the assumption, that gear progress matters in AoC, so in difference to Guild Wars 2 for example, as item progress is not that important which also offers a lot of advantages, but also disadvantages (no dangling of a carrot in front of someone's nose).Everyone gets their own loot
Agreed. These games are time consuming enough. I'm saying this based on everything I said, not a crying baby lol, but I won't be playing this game if the loot system remains as is. I don't have the time, energy, or desire to want to deal with loot BS.
Mdini
3
Re: Loot System Changes
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »Time scale is simply different, but those players would still get their loot, even if the boss only drops 2 items per farm.Otherwise the question would be: Why should a player performanig good and investing a his time not get a loot? What's the justification here?
The overall progress in the game would simply be slower.
Also, solo players will not be rewarded because AoC's looting rights don't reward everyone who touches the boss (nor have the suggestions here been about that). Solo players must either join guilds or grind their little solo mobs until they can afford to buy big boi items.He will get feedback from both sides and will have to decide if he wants to listen to the majority of modern players that will leave the game for a variety of other reasons or to his already established TA who're used to this kind of design and have played with it before.but test phases will show him good feedback - I hope.
1) The established TAs will likely stick around regardless. Changing the loot system won't be a deal breaker for most of you all.
2) New players are more likely to stick around if they don't need to deal with artificial obstacles and frustrations to experience character development. Even players like me are more likely to stick around. Restricting my character development with these thoughtless and artificial systems are deal breakers for me and a lot of people.
Mdini
1
Re: Loot System Changes
I was talking about the random solos running around, not the party/raid members. Solos get removed, because they are the spies.Well, if a guild or group is acting like this, to just remove members and friends, than we are anyhow talking about completely different approaches how to play such a computer game.
Why should a player being afk because of picking up a phone call be removed? Or why should he if dps is 4% less than from other players (plus the current fact: No DPS meters, which is a very very good thing - so nobody knows that beside the game - that's why the game should do the loot, not a human person living out his bad behaviour)
Spy? Those players play together one year long within a guild or group, with discord, and they are spies? Oh well, interesting.
I didn't say they are bad, I said they are not part of the group unit. And anyone outside of the group unit are not part of the same competitive side, so they should be removed from the premises of the encounter so as to not mess with it in any way.I've been playing MMOs since over 20 years with all sort of content and randoms are no bad people, elitist (or self named elistist) players are not welcomed.
And as I keep saying, if some high value content (as a boss would be) pops up - people will compete over it, so your group of friends won't be able to just join a random raid or smth.Some events are triggered due to other events before. The dungeon + Firebrand are a good example. You just CAN join this free open world boss encounter whenever it is triggered and available. Perhaps you are just in a group with your friends in discord and say: "Let's join this fight" or you are just running around in that area for resource farming and then you are joining this fight by accident, random. This can and will happen, this is a fact of all other MMOs out there since 20 years that offer open world encounters and events. AoC is not the first one doing this..
This has also been happening in Lineage 2 for 20 years, so it's nothing new as well.
And I'm convinced of the exact opposite, also due to my experience in open world pvp mmos (namely, L2).That was not the point. A group is full with 8 people. To always get 8 players will at every second of playing not be possible, there will be natural downtimes, so designen the entire game and loot around groups will not work and time will show this, I'm quite convinced about that due to my experience in such games.
Every evening I'd play with the exact same group (full party group) of people. And prime-time design will only help with this, because people will know the exact time when they gotta be online and will party up with others who can be online at the same time.
This is also nothing new.
And if your 3-4 player group is more skilled than a full party - it'd be super easy to find a guild that would take you on, add another 5-4 players to you and you'll be able to join raids easily.Invididuals can perform bad, but be in a group. The sum of 8 bad players will not be better of 3-4 individual skilled players. I can tell you pvp stories of my playing time where we (3-4 guys) outplayed a group of more people, or dungeons, where good players peform with 4 players doing everything and 1 nothing (just imagine boosting scenarios) wheres 5 players are dying at the same boss 10 times because their individual skill is bad.
So, sure, grouping is the usual goal and helping, but also surrounding players invest their time and perform their attacks and heals. They contribute to the fight that is going on, not only the "barrier" of being in a group is changing this fact.
Or if your 3-4 people are stronger than the entire party, then simply party yourselves up and outdps them. This will give you the looting rights and you'll get your loot.
You'd be deciding to help out of charity. I've done so many times and to many people.Should, but what if they didn't? They just than should pass away and not contribute with their healing at this world boss event? Seriously? What a strange behaviour and thinking about game design.
Of course the should and can help, if they want, and a group will like this support as things will be easier than. But this healer should get something for his time and support. Imaging a small fight with a small encounter. An 8 man group is starting to prepare a fight against a mini boss. 2 random players, a healer and a DD (perhaps friends) join the situation. It's a 10 player group than, but only one group is formed. Your "design" is the 8 man group are the elitists and better players, because of "group based" and so on and "you don't care about the randoms". And I'm different. I care. I thinkt, both can - if they want - support. If they just want to pvp, they can start doing a 2 vs. 8, will not be successful, let's guess. So, they decide to help and so it's a 10 man fight. And than 8 should get loot after 10min and 2 no loot? Very, very - I mean very - bad game design.
If a boss is meant for an 8-player group - taking 10 players to it means you're "zerging it" (even if not by a lot), which would then trigger its anti-zerg mechanics and make the entire fight harder for the initial 8 people that came to farm that boss. Which means that your help is not helping and instead making things worse.
The design is not bad. It's meant to reward groups of people rather than solos. If your 2 people from the example are so strong - you can suggest finding a stronger boss, splitting into groups of 5 and fighting it as a mini-raid. You'd get a higher reward for it, instead of making a weaker encounter worse for the initial 8 players, while not making the reward better.
The loot is predetermined to be limited and to go only towards the players that have gotten the looting rights for it. Those 8 players will not want your help if it would mean lower rewards for themselves. This is an owpvp game, not a cooperative pve game.Will not happen. There a loot tables, with percentages. Usually. Or is it different in AoC? Show me, that's my lack of knowledge than, can happen. Otherwise it means something like this:
Mini-Boss jungle snake drops (really just doing examples):
- 100 gold - 90% change to drop
- 3 crafting materials ABC - 40% change to drop a piece
- 1 rare shield ("blue" quality) - 2,5% chance to drop
- 1 rare dagger - 4% chance to drop
- 1 legendary sword ("orange" quality) - 0,0002% chance to drop
Why shouldnt the 2 randoms mentioned above be in a position to geht 20 gold, 1 crafting material and the dagger?
This only will drop enterily for the group?
So it will punish players that want to contribute, want to play social and support and all 10 players agree on that but loot will not be shared?
The loot is limited, which makes it a competitive game. If everyone was rewarded, as you want, it would then be a cooperative game. But it's not, nor does Steven want it to be.It is, playing together is one of the highest goals. That's done by being cooperative. Players want and should to play together. Your point is the barrier called "grouping", my point is that this is only an artificial barrier, a differenc in the UI and group-interface, but no social and cooperative difference during this fight just happening against a random world encounter in the open world free for everybody.
Every group of players will be fighting for their loot against other groups of players, because the better you defend your loot - the more of it you'll keep.
Except player time is not equal between a group and a solo player, for the exact reason you point out.Ok, that's an answer and opinion on that. For me this barrier is existing. Sometimes you will have situations where grouping is not possible, but playing is. Also playing together is, but group-size or other circumstances just don't allow it in a better way. In all this scenarios, that will happen quite often, all players should be respected with their playing time, as the invest the same time for the fight than a player within a group - there is no difference in this aspect. And that an individual player perhaps is even better than an individual player within a group is even more showing, what I explain.
It's difficult to keep playing as a group. It takes effort and coordination, which means that each person in the group has invested more time into the boss encounter than a random solo player that was just passing by. This, by default, makes their time more valuable and makes them more deserving of the loot.
That player should've been in a guild already and as soon as the boss (or other high value content) spawns, this player should ping their guild to come help him clear it. This is the social aspect of the game and mmos in general.I don't understand. Whats the problem of running and playing around in the open world and than an boss event occurs and happens? Should this solo player than log out or run away? What's your proposal what should happen next? Talking to him and saying he is not allowed to support the fight or other not very social suggestions?
And if there's gonna be some second pre-established group that was in the vicinity - they'd be the ones to make use of the opportunity and get the loot for themselves.
This is also something that's been done in L2 for 20 years now. You'd farm your own random stuff, then see a boss spawn and call up your guild to come clear it with you. And if another guild/group comes there before your own guild - it'd be on you to try and disrupt their farm to the best of your ability, because that loot is limited and you want YOUR guild to succeed and not some other random group. Again, a competitive game.
And those small groups are fully welcomed to try and pvp for this encounter. But I'd imagine they'll lose to bigger numbers, which is why they should've found more people for their group or, even better, found a guild for themselves so that they don't lose to bigger numbers.That's not the point, because this situation will happen as I've mentioned them and thus there will be a lot of situations where randoms or different outher groups in different sizes will join battles. They will be there before the battle starts, although not triggered from them, they will be there during the fights and they will come shortly after the fight is over, because it's an opern world for everybody and not for ONE elitist guild where the members think and feel they can do what they want.
Steven already knows it'll be a niche mmo. In almost every damn showcase he says "this game is not for everyone and that's ok".But he wants to be AoC to be successful and games like Lineage 2 are not successful any more and not in the existing market, he must consider that life, market and players have changed. It's the same for him, being mid 40 or whatsoever. He will definitly not play 15h a day, he will work. During his speeches to motivate his DAoC group (we all know the vid) he was bit younger, right, and nostalgia is one thing, but a MMO that will work and have meaningful designs is another.
If it is a Lineage 2 copy with additional and different stuff, than time will show us, how this will work. All the best, we will see.
Maybe you know Guild Wars 1. I do. In the end it was an entirely instanced game. Some loved it. For Guild Wars 2 ArenaNet changed this design completely and Guild Wars 2 was an even better, more successful and more fun game. I've played it for several years in PvE and s(structured)PvP. So, "modern" MMOs are "modern", becaue players, the market, want them to be modern. It's ok to have old-school aspects, that's why all of us are here - but the good things out of old-school aspects, not the bad ones. Investing time and getting nothing is a bad one. Nobody will invest if nothing will come up, it will not only be a niche MMO, it will fail faster than you can say "but groups count the most".
If he wanted to appeal to modern gamers - he would've done so from the start. He wants a successful game with his own preferred design, not with the design that the majority prefers.
He's been told "this game is DOA if this, this, this and this doesn't change", yet he has only doubled down on design points that were mentioned in thos "DOA lists".
Investments can fail. They are not always successful.So, agree to disagree, still.
For me, and I guess and know I'm not alone on the market with this opinion, every player that invests his time and plays/performs should get progress for his character in all means that make sense in this particular situation (so maybe exp, maybe gold, maybe gear, maybe ressources, maybe rare random world drop, what so ever). But not nothing only because of artificial barriers ignoring his invested time and performance.
So if you, as a solo player, come to a boss in hopes of your time investment paying off - that was a bad investment. If you had instead went to play the market economy and made money there - your investment would've paid off tenfold. If you went to a guild and said "I'm a high skill player, I want to invest my time well" - your investment would pay off tenfold.
This game does not reward everyone for simply existing. This has also been stated by Steven several times in the past.
And how exactly did those guilds and groups come together? Did they pop into existence at a large number out of nowhere?It's completely the opposite. Group members and mighty feeling guild or group leaders mistrust every solo and random player and build up their artificial barriers to avoid this type of playing together and randomly forming groups and getting in touch and connected. They are "only in their bubble" and everybody outside is bad. How did you call them: "damn bum", right?
It's clearly just exactly the opposite of what you think.
Guilds are built by randos and solos coming together because THEY HAVE TO, if they want to succeed.
And then those guilds trust each other more than randos exactly because they've come together and have been playing together. If solos want to join them - they're welcomed. They'll be required to invest their time into the guild (kinda ironic, given the context of the conversation, don't you think? ) and that time will be highly paid off.
Solos are bums by definition. They don't have a guild home. And if you're in a guild but happen to be playing solo at the time - go ask someone from your guild to party up with you.Same here, that's all about in MMOs. But the MMO should not punish players that are not in a group in a specific moment or scenario, because they can't at this point of time, but they invest time and performance. Again, it's not possible that you are playing always in a group. It's a different thing if you are permanently within a guild but you are not permantely in a group when you play. It's just untrue to assume that.
And, it's okay and meaningful to approach open to other players, perhaps it will be the next group- or guild-member.
Before you said "you don't care about solo players". But you should, because solo or random players are not bad player, they are no damn bums, you don't need to mistrust them (although you talk in one direction, your behaviour shows the complete opposite).
I don't remember a single time when this wasn't available to me, in my 12 years of playing L2. Even in tiny guilds of <20 people I'd still have at least a few others that could join me.
And in Ashes, where a lot of content will be centered around prime-time - this will be endlessly easier to do. Entire guilds will be built around that and will target their recruitement around that as well.
And as I already said, if you literally cannot find a party, for whatever reason - invest your time better than trying to siphon some loot from a boss. Bosses are meant for groups and raids. That's the entire point of large scale encounters. If you're solo at the time - that content is not targeted at you, so do something else. And then when you ARE in a group - you're free to farm what you couldn't before.
Such contrast of activities would create a much stronger social structure than "I can do whatever I want at whatever time I want and still get rewarded equally w/o problems". "When everyone's super - no one is". When all of your time investments are equally rewarded - no time is special.
Our experiences are not the same because I played the competitive L2, while you played cooperative GW2.Again, I've been playing MMOs since 20y+ with all different kinds of content and most of the time within guilds or with friends/groups, as leader, officier, member, consultant, friend, mentor. This experience we share. We only don't share the same attitude and behaviour when it comes to randoms, solo players and "grouping" in the context of time invest, loot/reward and the social aspect of it. So I'm surprised that your behaviour you explain (like: This members will be removed from the group) is the one that should be the goal within an social, cooperative MMO which emphazises that players are doing content together (or playing against each other within that content, which makes no difference for all the other mentioned points before).
As for "removing party members" - you misunderstood me, as I pointed out above.
Ludullu
3
Re: Proposal for Class mini Dev series on 8 points.
George_Black wrote: »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 - I would like to see more dev diary on classes, and possibly also on the yet to be released Rogue and Summoner aka a preview before a full reveal trailor, retreading the ones that are already revealed is unessary unless it to show something actually new.
2 - This question is proposterous, a class system that hybridizes archetypes was a core promise of the game and shall not be retracted, HOW it is implemented to fufill the promise is a legitimate question.
3 - This question is far to vague, we should be asking to what degree to secondary archetypes add or remove combat capabilities to a characters kit, how focused are they, do they change the playstyle in a mandatory or optional way, for example dose a Mage/Fighter HAVE to move to the frontlines because their spells are now short range, vs them simply getting some melee procs directly from fighter which could be used in melee but
would easily allow them to just remain as artilery.
4 - Yes 8x8 because that was promissed, stop trying to argue for an inapropriate downscoping. If any downscoping is to occour it should be in the number of 'augment schools' available as their number was not a core promise of the game.
5 - You say Intrepid should present archetypes when you clearly mean Augments.
6 - Yes it is nessary to hybridize all of them because this was promissed, this is you just repeating #2 and begging the question for your illigitimate downscoping AGAIN by projecting 'weakness' onto certain combinations. Their will be 'weaker' or less popular combinations but that will be the case no matter how many classes their are.
7 - Secondary archetypes of thouse two should just have more limited amounts of party aiding abilities, about 30% sounds good to me. Healing in the form of only self-healing is legitimate but not the only opion for Cleric secondary. A Bard secondary providing only selfbuffing is rather pointless though, most archetypes already have forms of selfbuffing (Ranger Hunts, Fighter Stances). The more logical solution is to allow Bard secondary to push existing selfbuffs OUT to the rest of the party as group buffs.
8 - Stop with your constant pushing for new Archetypes, it is not going to happen untill an expansion. You are blatantly asking for promissed game content to be cut and INSTEAD for your prefered contant to be made in its place. Either pony up the money to refund every kickstarter donation or STFU. Even if a radical change of direction were felt to be nessary by players it would never be towards new archetypes, it would be towards an alternative means to fufill the original promise not substituting in something new.
Lodrig
1
Re: Proposal for Class mini Dev series on 8 points.
I wouldn't be against culling some of the classes that make very little sense. For example Shadow Guardian (Rogue/Tank). The two archetype identities seem so far apart that it's hard to imagine making a good class out of it. So is it worth implementing? Don't know but I'm also not against having some "dead" classes. Perhaps someone will be able to make a good build out of it.
I think this is only a problem of lack of imagination. The essense of tanking is controling enemy aggression and denying damage on your team mates. A Rogue is not going to do that by taking the hits themselves but they could do it by being an evasion tank which is very hard to hit, tying up the enemy with CC and casting stealth onto friendly forces with classic smoke bombs or similar attack denying effects. That would certainly fufill the name Shadow Guardian, aka they guard from the shadows rather then the 'in broad daylight' of the traditional tank. Think more Batman then Captain America.
All 64 class combinations can ultimatly yield a viable and satisfying kit of skills if one just thinks about from the perspective of how would the primary archetype achive the battlefield goals of the secondary archetype.
Lodrig
1
Re: Proposal for Class mini Dev series on 8 points.
I too look for classes/weapons on any game that catches my attention.
At any rate, we had dev presentations on node types, biomes and crafting. The vast majority of players are firstly interested in their combat character first, and since the class system will define that it's worth discussing on the Dev Updates even before we have ingame footage.
But official possition as well as some official art might go a long way.
At any rate, we had dev presentations on node types, biomes and crafting. The vast majority of players are firstly interested in their combat character first, and since the class system will define that it's worth discussing on the Dev Updates even before we have ingame footage.
But official possition as well as some official art might go a long way.
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
I did not read the original post fully, but I have thought about playing solo and here was my conclusion:
I would have to accept being a humble peon, and not the saviour of the world, as the game has no main quest to lead me solo through to illogical greatness.
Therefore I asked myself how can I still have fun while being in the bottom half (or less if joining late) of gear and progression? Well that depends on my play style, self-esteem and my psychological needs from gaming.
Luckily for me I would actually enjoy trying to find my place in the world, the massive world, with up to 10,000 live players and 50,000 potential members on my realm.
I think guilds with even 100 players will have the same humbling experience, as their large member count only fills 1% of the server and they probably only muster around 1% of the nodes at a time.
Find you place, or have fun trying.
I would have to accept being a humble peon, and not the saviour of the world, as the game has no main quest to lead me solo through to illogical greatness.
Therefore I asked myself how can I still have fun while being in the bottom half (or less if joining late) of gear and progression? Well that depends on my play style, self-esteem and my psychological needs from gaming.
Luckily for me I would actually enjoy trying to find my place in the world, the massive world, with up to 10,000 live players and 50,000 potential members on my realm.
I think guilds with even 100 players will have the same humbling experience, as their large member count only fills 1% of the server and they probably only muster around 1% of the nodes at a time.
Find you place, or have fun trying.
Uboon
6