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: [DE] PhoenX Society | PvX | Semi-Progress | Family
Und der Tee wird immer noch getrunken ... ^^
Re: [DE] PhoenX Society | PvX | Semi-Progress | Family
Dauert bestimmt noch bis 2025. Also weiterhin abwarten und Tee trinken. ^^
Re: Player enemy visual Health Bar update on hit.
It's extremely entertaining to see people coming to a PvX game with open world PvP and Risk vs Reward as one of the core pillars and demanding to make it PvE and remove the risks. Somehow people people are okay with Reward part and even with Risk part, but not when there is a chance that Risk part may apply to them. Makes as much sense as someone coming from Rust to WoW and demanding the opportunity to build bases and full loot upon death.Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »But when people come to Intrepid and say "well, I disagree with one of the biggest designs of your game and I think you should completely change it" - that's when the feedback will not be appreciated. And that's the reason why I said what I said. We don't have any good owpvp mmos out there. Steven is trying to make one.
Like duh, in such game you can be killed. Surprise! You can even get PKed sometimes! What a bloody Greek tragedy, omg! I prefer to refrain from making broad statements, but damn, this is a GAME. You win some battles, you learn from the others. You still get revived when you die and carry on, the death of your character is not final. Stop complaining about anything and everything for god's sake.
Flanker
1
Re: Why did you stop to play an MMO you once loved?
So much revisionist history in this thread. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.
" Our Nostalgia, who art in fiction ~ hallowed be thy Essence. "
" Thy dopamine come, thy will be done ~ on earth as it is in heaven. "
" Give us this day our daily copium ~ and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive shitty Companies who trespass against us. "
" And lead us not to Activision Blizzard ~ but deliver us from that evil. "
" Thy dopamine come, thy will be done ~ on earth as it is in heaven. "
" Give us this day our daily copium ~ and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive shitty Companies who trespass against us. "
" And lead us not to Activision Blizzard ~ but deliver us from that evil. "
Aszkalon
1
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