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: Ashes of Creation must dodge this bullet
They don't have to be trash. They could be more valuable through horizontal stats rather than vertical.In other words, any legendary items under level 50 will be trash.
After a certain update in L2, boss jewelry started to lose out in vertical stats to crafted jewels of higher lvl, but their horizontal stats were waaaay better, so any class that could utilize those would always do. Ashes could have the same approach to legendary craftables (or legendary boss drops) from lower lvls.
If anything, this would be a good balancing tool, cause those horizontal stats would be great at the time of you being at the same lvl as the item, but the higher you go - the harder your enemies would start hitting you, cause the vertical stats on your items wouldn't be as good. But despite receiving bigger dmg, your overall build would still be stronger than if you replaced those legendaries with basic stuff from higher lvls.
Ludullu
5
Re: Ashes of Creation must dodge this bullet
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/471207/#Comment_471207Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »I dunno what telegram Flanker linked/talked about)
They definitely made the right decisionLudullu_(NiKr) wrote: »They'll be self-publishing in EU.
Flanker
1
Re: Ashes of Creation must dodge this bullet
Have you played a game with a similar PvP/PK system? If yes, could you share your experience?Ayeveegaming1 wrote: »@Flanker I do believe you make several very good points. This is a pvp game. Yes its pvx but it is pvp at its core. That being said, it should not be called griefing someone to taunt them into battle. I can see if its prolonged and obvious that the person is never going to pvp you, which is subjective in itself. But in a pvp game, you have the option to fight the person taunting you, or you can walk away. If he follows you around and keeps taunting you, takes it to the forums or discord, doxxes you, then its not good for sure. I think straight forward pvp without corruption actually is the best way to go. It's kind of a bandaid over an infected wound. Corruption leads to taunting, leads to griefing because you cannot directly pk without corruption. I will say it again, corruption facilitates taunting and griefing because it is a penalty for pvp in a pvp game.
I really have not been able to play as many games as lots of you guys have. Work has pretty much taken up my whole life, but now I find myself in a position where I have more time.
Yes I have played a few pvp/pk games, but they generally are dated. UO was the main game I played. It had all the elements of what is described in this thread however. In the beginning UO only had one facet, a pvp facet called Felucca. It was no holds barred, full loot. This game developed the term "Care Bear" because later on the facet split into 2 facets. One facet was no pvp (Trammel), the other facet was full loot pvp (Felucca). They where mirror images of each other except Felucca had more of a graveyard dead tree look. It also had Champ spawns, which where open world Bosses that had waves of spawn you had to fight in order to defeat. These bosses had Scrolls that dropped that made it that you could advance your char higher above the skill cap. The game had evolved after the Trammel was there and many non pvp players where in the game now, and they cried that they had to go do pvp to get the scrolls. Hence the "care bear" term came into effect.
I had to reference all of this because when you start watering down pvp to cater to pve players in a pvp world, it never goes the way of the pvp. It only goes the way of the -pve and pretty soon the pvp dries up, people start leaving and you have a dead game except for a few.
Anyways, when they split the facets, the Felucca facet dried up, and everyone lived in Trammel. they hunted in Trammel, they did all the crafting in Trammel. The "good vs evil" guilds dried up and went away. People only placed houses in the pve areas for the most part. The pvp people did place houses in Felucca however, but it was hard to find people to fight because everyone was in pve areas.
My point being is that you will never reconcile pvp with pve, they are just a different play style gamer. Not bad, just different. The best thing we could do would to discourage pve from playing Ashes because it really is not for them if they cannot handle pvp. And yes PK'ing is a form of PVP, its not griefing. I think an excellent point was that if you consider pk'ing griefing, then people camping out outside bosses would be griefing as well, as it is gatekeeping, but that's why you can fight them. You do not want the game to impose invisible barriers to give pve a foothold, it only goes downhill from there.
Re: Player enemy visual Health Bar update on hit.
I'm going to bed. Something is wrong. People are getting along and agreeing. We simply cannot have this!! :P J/K Have a happy Friday the 13th guys. I am really going to bed tho.
Re: Player enemy visual Health Bar update on hit.
Ayeveegaming1 wrote: »I'm going to bed. Something is wrong. People are getting along and agreeing. We simply cannot have this!! :P J/K Have a happy Friday the 13th guys. I am really going to bed tho.
Flanker
2
Re: Player enemy visual Health Bar update on hit.
I hope so. I raised the same topic several months ago: https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/59039/health-bar-should-be-removed-and-here-is-why/p1 and even Vaknar replied there.However, I do not see many people arguing against hp bar being invisible while not in combat. Most people are ready for that compromise.
They (me as well) only care about it being visible in combat.
But it's so freaking hard to explain that to people.Gotcha. It was pretty interesting for me and I've scrolled through several pages of comments as wellAlso that thread is, well, a lot to take in. If you don't read throughout all of my replies in that thread, you probably won't get the full picture of what I'm getting at. I have changed my mind slightly on it from the initial post, until now, but I still think there's some truth to it, even if it wasn't written in the best way, and if I maybe didn't get my actual point across in a better way.
Yep I saw that thread as well when it was linked to me.
Overall, I do not have an issue with invisible player health bar, because I can see why it would matter. I understand the need for it.
I have also given an example/suggestion on how you can adjust the corruption system to maybe help with that as well, where maybe an invisi health bar wouldn't be needed (even though I'd still probably be for it).
Also I've added a TLDR to my previous post to sum up my points on that thread I made a year or so ago.
iccer
1
Re: Quantity of Abilities
DerToastinator wrote: »My idea for solutions would be:
1. to have seperate points for Abilities and their talented augmentations
2. to have the talents have "softcaps" the higher you go up in a ability specific branch
(small improvement => medium imp. => large imp. => med/small imp. => small imp.)
then ballance the ratio of "ammount of talent points to talent-tree-brance-nodes" in oder to enable a minimum and maximum of used abilities ranging from lets say 15 to 30 usable upgraded abilities per build.
This could ensure the possibility of varrying ability quantity while preventing powercreep in one ability.
Making both build styles viable.
Feel free to let me know how you feel about this approach or how you would improve/solve it.
I think this could work just fine. I don't think you even need to separate out the ability points and talent points to make it work.
Intrepid seems to be doing something like this already. They showed it off when they were discussing Counterpoint and Crescendo. If you assume that all the rest of those circles on the Bard skilltree (hidden below) are passive choices too, with more to come, you're going to have to make some hard choices between taking abilities and taking passives either way. If those passives all have the same level of impact you get from Counterpoint or Crescendo, I don't think we have to worry about them being underwhelming by comparison either. I will absolutely be giving up a potential ability to spend that point on Counterpoint in my own Bard build.
Now that your concept of ability slots is up to 15-30, I have no doubt you can make a good Bard design with that. My 'shallow buff-bot' concern came from the much more severe limitation. Having reread your OP, I think that you actually meant that as an example of the minimum, rather than the maximum, and I misunderstood that at the time.
DerToastinator wrote: »In the case of AoCs bard i hope they manage to give him options to specialize into 1 or 2 of the songs.
This seems like something Intrepid may do, and it will probably be useful for those Bards that prefer to specialize entirely in dance, for instance, and don't want to think about it or make the situational, tactical choices. In those cases trading off flexibility for power can be a reasonable choice.
If you only have one Melody, then your melody will be the wrong choice in many situations. The type of bard that cares about the melody style abilities cares about them for the adaptation they allow. This type of Bard needs to spend 5 ability slots on what will, in practice in any given situation, be only 1-2 actual abilities.
Back when I understood the idea to be "12ish slots", this was a problem. With 15-30, we'll be fine. That's plenty of room for both melody options for a variety of situations, and a reasonable amount of abilities to actually use in combat.
DerToastinator wrote: »The showcase showed the layering mechanic of 2 songs, but when they said they are thinking about bumping that up to all 5 songs i shivered, because that sounds like a buff bot.
I missed this one, actually. Thanks for the timestamped link. They definitely didn't mention bumping it all the way up to 5. That would absolutely be a terrible idea to do, for exactly the reason you think. But it was Steven that brought it up, not Bucky, and Bucky clearly knows what he's doing, so I'm going to have faith personally that if something like that happens, it's not going to be quite that simple.
DerToastinator wrote: »Now dont take me wrong, i think if you wana be a melody weaving bard thats fine by me, but if i wana stick to one melody and focus on the dances, i think i should be able to do so too. If i dont wana use abilities that i didnt spec into, i should be able to disreguard them. Ether because its suboptimal for my particular build or because its just not the version of bard fantasy im going for.
Immagine wanting to focus on building a fire mage, but the game forces frost magic into your rotation, because it doesnt give you the tools to build that fantasy in a viable way. This is in my experience the case with games that think only having many abilities = fun. BOTH can be fun in my opinion!
The "few melodies, many dances" style Bard should absolutely be a valid build. I just come from a very different perspective. To me, this is the kind of thing Ashes already intends to do. Steven constantly talks about his 'wide or deep' skilltree dichotomy. Having the option to build a narrowly focused character, but whose few abilities are highly impactful, is already one of their core concepts.
It's only a problem if you start forcing people down the other way, and that's why I brought it up initially. If you aren't thinking about Bard specifically, or you don't understand Melody Bards, it's an easy thing to miss. I don't think this actually comes up for many other classes. For a Bard, however, unlocking 5 melodies does not give you 5 abilities. It gives you 1 ability (or 2) that cost 5 hotbar slots. You're paying for flexibility, not for actions. That's fine when it's skill points, but it puts you at a massive disadvantage compared to other classes when ability/hotbar slots are the limiter. In your two-point-categories world, maybe "Melody" would be the ability, and "Cheerful, Pensive, Epic, Cathartic, Menacing" would be talents that expand it into multiple.
Nobody should be forced to go Wide, and nobody should be forced to go Deep. I think Intrepid will get it right, and your updated proposal both seems possible, to me, and also reasonably close (in spirit) to what I understand Intrepid intends to do.
It's just that in "Quantity of Abilities", I had to stand for "more than 12", because in the peculiar case of Bard, unlike almost everyone else, "5 abilities" doesn't mean "5 actions".
SongRune
1
Re: Ashes of Creation must dodge this bullet
How does Corruption lead to taunting?Ayeveegaming1 wrote: »Corruption leads to taunting, leads to griefing because you cannot directly pk without corruption. I will say it again, corruption facilitates taunting and griefing because it is a penalty for pvp in a pvp game.
Dygz
1