Best Of

Githal wrote: »

There are seasons in AOC.

This would be a known shift in the market that players will be prepared for.

Caravans won't provide much of a shift in the market outside of very small nodes.

"The more RNG events you have, the more equal it makes players." this is only true when you look the Bigger picture. The probability that you will get bad luck on all RNG events is not 0. Multiply this by all players that will play AOC. So you will get some pretty high chance that someone will fail all RNG events multiple times, and other that will get all of those RNG events from first try. Thus - Unequal player experience.

This isn't how stats work.

If you look at just one upgrade of item, then you perhaps have a point. However, players in Ashes will have roughly 18 gear slots, and the expectation should be that each of them are upgraded at least 5 times in the year after hitting the level cap (there is no point in any of this before hitting the level cap), and each of those upgrades cane be enchanted several times.

So, there should never be a point where we are talking about one upgrade. We should always be talking about hundreds of successful enchants, and many thousands of attempts.

In a sample set as large as this, things balance out.

Take a simple roll of a dice, as an example. It is perfectly possible to roll the same number three times in a row. That isn't even statistically unusual.

If you roll that die 600 times, you are likely to have 100 of each number come up, but the variation could quite easily be 10% without it beign a statistical anomoly. If you roll it 6000 times, you are likely to be within perhaps 3% of 1000 of each.

However, when you roll that one die 60,000 times, the results will be within a very small margin of you getting 10,000 of each number. The variation is likely to be less than 0.5%.

A game with a small amount of highly important RNG would indeed be bad. The low number of attempts at that with the major impact a good result has absolutely would and does result in what you are talking about. However, the more rolls on that RNG players all have, the less of an impact it has between players.

There are other ways to keep the economy in unpredictable motion.
For example, through an RNG trash rate, more RNG in the procurement of the necessary materials or RNG events, etc.

But an RNG Gear Enchanting system that makes you weaker will only hurt you. All of us. You could leave it the way how the RNG Gear Enchanting works, if you keep the power scaling mostly horizontal and replace the boring mob grind with diverse and challenging events, open world dungeons and PvP battles.

But at the moment, most of the time you are busy with long boring grinds and as a low level player you get one shots by high level players.

Noaani wrote: »

Githal wrote: »

For me RNG is never good, because it creates unequal ground for players. From all players that play the game you will have results varying from someone getting multiple successful enchants in a row from the first try. and someone failing for the 50th time for the same item.

This is only true if you are talking about a handful of RNG events.

The more RNG events you have, the more equal it makes players.

As to why an amount of RNG is good, especially in an economic sense, it is because it keeps said economy shifting. If they went with your suggstion, then the market would be fairly stable on a day to day basic. Make it so that there is a good amount of randomness, and the market will shift and move on a day to day and week to week basis, even though over a longer period of time (year to year) the market is kind of stable.

This makes it more viable to play the economic game, especially the long game. It means there will be times when you don't want to buy materials, because they may be too expensive due to someone having bought up many.

This ability to influence the market was key to the economic side of Archeage (the best aspect of that game by a mile), and Ashes wants to go even further in that direction than that game did. In order to do that, a means to keep te market shifting is literally essential, and an amount of RNG to crafting is the only real way to do that.

That's exactly what I mean. This is exactly what is called gambling. You want RNG to make the economic side even more unpredictable than it would be with loot RNG or just player behavior. This gives your economic playstyle an additional thrill that would be almost impossible to predict = gambling.

That's not a bad thing to enjoy. It's just a matter of taste. But you shouldn't ignore the impact such RNG + vertical power scaling + long, boring grind and open world PvP will have on the overall game. As I argued, it will not have a good impact. And if this is not brought under control, then you won't have a vibrant economic game anymore.

they all look horrible , ugly and on drugs not just humans

We are far from the final form and Steven has recently said the races are getting another pass coming up in P3!

Caww wrote: »

Aszkalon wrote: »

Can the Dev's not make this all optional ? How good or bad or lush or barren a Game will look ? So that every single Player can adjust the Setting just for themselves ?

It would be wonderful to slider the hell out of the visuals but the effort to provide that level of goodness for the few with enough PC to actually run it might be a drain on dev time.

I hate to say it, but you are starting to sound like me.

This was the exact answer I was about to give.

Aszkalon wrote: »

Can the Dev's not make this all optional ? How good or bad or lush or barren a Game will look ? So that every single Player can adjust the Setting just for themselves ?

It would be wonderful to slider the hell out of the visuals but the effort to provide that level of goodness for the few with enough PC to actually run it might be a drain on dev time.

I mean, ask yourselves: Have you ever played an good offline game that had an RNG gear enhancement progression system in principle? So RNG whether the upgrade will succeed or fail and if it fails, you effectively become weaker. Normally no. 7 reward & progress is used to strengthen the game principles 1-6. But I only know it from Korean MMORPG's (and apparently also in Ashes), where principle no. 7 reward & progress is linked to a UI window that is separate from the world and only rewards or punishes you after the dice have been rolled that harms all other game principles. This is simply bad game design, because no better solution has been found to create a stable economic cycle and to extend the playing time. And in the case of Korean MMORPG's to artificially create incentives to buy for their P2W store. And the pressure to take part in this nonsense and buy something in the P2W shop is created by the social factors of an MMO, vertical power scaling, an incredibly boring and long grind and open world PvP environment.

Do I have to worry now that Ashes will somehow indirectly find ways to introduce P2W later?

Noaani wrote: »

Sophisticus wrote: »

i KNOW how shit this kind of system is and the main Reason for this System is only Gambling addiction, economy and uncrativity.

Well this is in no way true.

If you see an RNG system in a game and immediately assuming it is to satisfy people with a desire to gamble, that is an issue inside your head.

It would be good if you could tell me then the “real” reason for the fun value of RNG, other than increasing the thrill of the reward and thus reinforce it (aka Gambling). I'm not talking about RNG in general, such as Loot RNG. I'm talking specifically about the RNG Gear Enhancement System, where you can lose progress.

I think I've pretty much explained above why such an RNG system is bad for everything else in the game when combined with heavily vertical power scaling and lots of dull grind. That was exactly the case in Archeage and that was one of the main reasons for Archeage's death.

Noaani wrote: »

IMO systems like this are really good.

The issue is that a good number of western players don't understand them. People tend to treat it like luck, when they should be treating it as a matter of probability.

Never enchant what you can't afford to lose, and never enchant only one of any given item.

In Archeage, where this system is mostly pulled from, if I was enchanting an item with the target of hitting a tier 3 above where the risk of destruction starts, I am starting off with 32 of that item, and am stil prepared to walk away with nothing.

What exactly is good about RNG? You mention how to mitigate some risks and ect, but nothing about what makes the system good.

For me RNG is never good, because it creates unequal ground for players. From all players that play the game you will have results varying from someone getting multiple successful enchants in a row from the first try. and someone failing for the 50th time for the same item.

Yes the average scenario will be for example 10 fails and most will vary between 8-12. But what if you are the one who failed 50 times? And yes this can be mitigated to an extend by what some Korean games implement as "Pity system" - which can be for example 20 fails, and the 21st is always success. But this still wont work on the long run. Someone will get 10 items and all will be with 20 fails, and other will get 6 of those items in first try.

And if the idea is to just destroy 10 items in the process of enchanting - you can just make the cost of the enchant those 10 items with 100% success rate.