Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Best Of
Re: Sorrow of Support and Healing classes
The whole issue might be avoided if these stats are collected by Party not individual character. Any of these instances when you are going to give out rewards just give it to the whole party, after all in most pvp your gonna fight as a party anyway.
Lodrig
1
Re: Sorrow of Support and Healing classes
Not a fan of this at all, it’s always a very small minority that are, usually those who are propped up by a large guild, so it’s easy.
It’s never adds to the community, always distracts.
It’s never adds to the community, always distracts.
Nemeses
1
Re: Sorrow of Support and Healing classes
While leaderboards influencing reward distribution during siege events may seem like a straightforward concept, there are significant challenges in accurately quantifying a player's overall contribution. Roles such as support or zoning are vital to success but are often difficult to capture through conventional metrics.
In a game of chess, for instance, a centrally placed knight or a bishop controlling a diagonal might not be the most active pieces, but their presence alone restricts the opponent’s movements and applies pressure. This concept translates directly to siege gameplay, where positioning and zoning can be just as critical as direct damage or kills. However, these nuanced contributions, such as strategic zoning or well-timed crowd control (CC), are often underrepresented on leaderboards.
Crowd control (CC) usage, for example, isn’t just about how many enemies are stunned or rooted. The timing and placement of CC can be pivotal to the outcome of a battle, but these actions are difficult to track through basic kill/death or damage numbers.
A more effective system for tracking player contributions in sieges could involve developing metrics that account for positional value and area control, in addition to the traditional stats like damage dealt or kills. For instance:
Positional Value: This could be measured by tracking how long players control key areas of the battlefield or hold positions that apply strategic pressure on the enemy. Players in highly contested areas could receive additional weighting in their contribution score, as holding or contesting strategic points is often more valuable than raw damage output.
Area Control: This could involve monitoring how long a player prevents enemy forces from advancing into critical zones or disrupts their positioning through zoning mechanics. For example, a player who maintains control over an important choke point or creates zones of denial with abilities could earn recognition based on the time they actively influenced enemy movement.
This would be my proposed solution.
Given the challenges in accurately tracking positional value, area control, and other nuanced roles, it becomes clear that relying on a leaderboard to determine looting rights is fundamentally flawed. Leaderboards are designed to measure easily quantifiable metrics—kills, damage, healing—but they are ill-equipped to reflect the subtleties of support roles and strategic gameplay.
Attempting to quantify every aspect of a player’s contribution in real-time is not only impractical but could also lead to skewed reward systems that favor direct combat over strategic depth. Therefore, rather than using leaderboards as the primary metric for determining looting rights, a more holistic approach should be adopted that recognizes the diverse roles players occupy during sieges.
In conclusion, the leaderboard system, while useful for certain purposes, should not be the arbiter of looting rights in siege scenarios. By embracing a more comprehensive understanding of player contribution, developers can ensure that all players—whether on the front lines or offering tactical support—are rewarded fairly.
In a game of chess, for instance, a centrally placed knight or a bishop controlling a diagonal might not be the most active pieces, but their presence alone restricts the opponent’s movements and applies pressure. This concept translates directly to siege gameplay, where positioning and zoning can be just as critical as direct damage or kills. However, these nuanced contributions, such as strategic zoning or well-timed crowd control (CC), are often underrepresented on leaderboards.
Crowd control (CC) usage, for example, isn’t just about how many enemies are stunned or rooted. The timing and placement of CC can be pivotal to the outcome of a battle, but these actions are difficult to track through basic kill/death or damage numbers.
A more effective system for tracking player contributions in sieges could involve developing metrics that account for positional value and area control, in addition to the traditional stats like damage dealt or kills. For instance:
Positional Value: This could be measured by tracking how long players control key areas of the battlefield or hold positions that apply strategic pressure on the enemy. Players in highly contested areas could receive additional weighting in their contribution score, as holding or contesting strategic points is often more valuable than raw damage output.
Area Control: This could involve monitoring how long a player prevents enemy forces from advancing into critical zones or disrupts their positioning through zoning mechanics. For example, a player who maintains control over an important choke point or creates zones of denial with abilities could earn recognition based on the time they actively influenced enemy movement.
This would be my proposed solution.
Given the challenges in accurately tracking positional value, area control, and other nuanced roles, it becomes clear that relying on a leaderboard to determine looting rights is fundamentally flawed. Leaderboards are designed to measure easily quantifiable metrics—kills, damage, healing—but they are ill-equipped to reflect the subtleties of support roles and strategic gameplay.
Attempting to quantify every aspect of a player’s contribution in real-time is not only impractical but could also lead to skewed reward systems that favor direct combat over strategic depth. Therefore, rather than using leaderboards as the primary metric for determining looting rights, a more holistic approach should be adopted that recognizes the diverse roles players occupy during sieges.
In conclusion, the leaderboard system, while useful for certain purposes, should not be the arbiter of looting rights in siege scenarios. By embracing a more comprehensive understanding of player contribution, developers can ensure that all players—whether on the front lines or offering tactical support—are rewarded fairly.
ariatras
2
Re: Sorrow of Support and Healing classes
I think healing output and rez are good metrics for Cleric. (Bard is the confusing one.) I think it'd be neat if they could calculate "saves". Like this player was below a certain % of health and your shield prevented their death (calculating the incoming damage) or your big heal (gambit) pulled them out of certain death, etc. Also for bards doing buffs; Assists might work? Anytime anyone killed someone with a damage buff on them the bard gets an assist. Or maybe calculate how much mana a bard gave back to their team in total?
keenow
1
Re: [DE] PhoenX Society | PvX | Semi-Progress | Family
Wir haben schon ne Menge Alpha 2 Tester mit an Bord.
Aber auch alle anderen sind gerne willkommen für Watchpartys im Discord.
Aber auch alle anderen sind gerne willkommen für Watchpartys im Discord.
Re: Player enemy visual Health Bar update on hit.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »The result of the polls is already known. Majority of players will vote against majority of AoC's designs. This is exactly why Steven keeps repeating "this game is not for everyone, but that's ok".So best is to see voting polls for hot topics, otherwise what we do now is more for our own entertainment, in the forum, and not for a change or for the rest "up to 1 million players"
He knew that L2 wasn't as popular as WoW back in mid 00s. He knew that AA failed despite showing a lot of promise. He liked both of those games, took a ton of inspiration from both and designed Ashes in the way that resembles those 2 games.
Players from all the other mmos will dislike a ton of design decisions in Ashes, so if Steven simply followed the popular opinion - Ashes would not longer be Ashes. And some of us don't want that to happen, which is why we keep yelling "Steven, we believe in your vision and we're still here".
The result of polls is fairly dependent on the previous MMO experience of people taking part.
For the most part, people kind of do want a game similar to the MMORPG's they have played before - you do, I do, everyone does.
Edit to add; for the record, I want Ashes to be as similar to Archeage as possible, but with significantly better PvE content.
Noaani
2
Re: Where is the progress
daveywavey wrote: »Nothing to do with the state of the game, (but I am picking up a real Star Citizen vibe) the fact that the community seems so polarised and toxic. The point raised seemed logical, but the personal attacks and back and forth rants point to a baseline of aggression that wasn't in earlier gaming communities.
To be fair, the OP's generally one of the main perpetrators there! Hahaha
And the points made weren't actually that good, when you look at them as part of a development process. You don't build a house from the top downwards, you build it from the ground upwards. He's asking for the middle/top floors, when the foundations and ground floors are still being made.
Thank you for replying, the hahahaha! Sais all I need to know, however if these questions ever got answered I wouldn't need to ask them
If you were building a house, and went to inspect it and saw a small but solid base established, then went away for 3 years,
whilst away the builders were sending you videos of your beautiful house being built and it looked astonishing, you come back to inspect it again to find the house looks nothing like the videos, infact the entire base had been scrapped and all they had kept was a thin layer of cement which had been painted but was the exact same, you would be okay with it?
I mean, houses don't take 3 years to build. If I came back after a week or two, and there was nothing happening, maybe I'd ask why, and they'd tell me that the foundation needs its curing time before it can be built on.
Now, what you're doing is saying: "OMG you have to build on it now why haven't you built on it already?!"
Whereas I'm saying: "That's sensible. Get the underlying structure sorted first, and then start building."
I mean, they've not got all the archetypes up and running, yet, why would they be bothering to create different World Bosses already? Why would they be creating multiple World Boss mechanics when they haven't finished the last archetypes that will be fighting against them? Every archetype that's added needs to be tested against everything that's gone before, so each one increases the work and the testing exponentially.
I'd be gobsmacked if the World Boss from the latest livestream made it to Launch without any changes. It's simply a test-dummy at the moment; something they can throw archetype testing at to see what needs tweaking.
As I said earlier, just let them do their thing. They know what they're doing.
Re: Player enemy visual Health Bar update on hit.
Maybe you right, but i feel like that there is no attention from up there, to show a sign that posts like your or others are read by the team. If there was at least an icon sign next to the post "this topic has been read by the team", would somehow give your ideas and the time you put in your posts some admiration.
Also the way you put it "Steven, we believe in your vision and we're still here", feels like everything is decided and feedback and ideas are a waste of time.
It is simply unreasonable to expect fundamental design philosophies to change based on the voices from the forums. That doesn't mean that feedback is not important. However, the idea is to enrich the path already taken, not to ask for a different direction.
Vargan
2
Re: Player enemy visual Health Bar update on hit.
People are looking for a new MMO to play because they are unhappy with their current MMOs. Yet, given the chance, they demand a clone of the game they played to get disappointed again. TypicalLudullu_(NiKr) wrote: »The result of the polls is already known. Majority of players will vote against majority of AoC's designs. This is exactly why Steven keeps repeating "this game is not for everyone, but that's ok".
He knew that L2 wasn't as popular as WoW back in mid 00s. He knew that AA failed despite showing a lot of promise. He liked both of those games, took a ton of inspiration from both and designed Ashes in the way that resembles those 2 games.
Players from all the other mmos will dislike a ton of design decisions in Ashes, so if Steven simply followed the popular opinion - Ashes would not longer be Ashes. And some of us don't want that to happen, which is why we keep yelling "Steven, we believe in your vision and we're still here".
Flanker
2