Best Of
Re: Vassal resentment
I’d have to test it, but I think I would not care about belonging to a Vassal Node as long as the Parent Node is a Node type I want to support and has the Racial population I want to support.
But… I’d have to test it to know for sure.
(During release, I don’t plan to join a Node, so ultimately won’t impact my gameplay goals.)
But… I’d have to test it to know for sure.
(During release, I don’t plan to join a Node, so ultimately won’t impact my gameplay goals.)
Dygz
1
Re: Vassal resentment
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »My gameplay style is "I want to live in THIS EXACT NODE, and I want it to be the best it can be". I don't want to relocate. I don't want to give up my citizenship. I want to have a chance to rise up against someone who "won" a random fight of "well, people just gathered here first, so you're fucked now".First you will try that against other node chains and if that is your game-play style, you might relocate to undermine them from inside.
I don't want that chance to be high or methods easy. I want it to be hard, expensive and most likely require help from outside of your node. But I want that chance to be there. Right now it's not there.
What you're talking about really doesn't work in the "node alliance" system that they want. Steven has talked vaguely about patron benefits flowing downhill (I take this to mean a patron node uses resources to build a 3 day economic buff that is shared with vassals), even while some percentage of vassal node taxes/goods flow uphill. I imagine that vassal buffs might also go uphill too? Also, they really need to protect a node against the issue of 1 month with a bad mayor who has enough active friends to get enough support tickets to declare war against a parent.
It's nice that you want to stay loyal to your node. But it entitled of you to think that "your node" is the one that deserves to be on top, and should have multiple chanced to get there.
I'd guess that the node map is going to become very fixed about 6-10 months (population dependent) in as nodes relationship structures finally settle. And these won't change much from what we've seen about node mechanics for war and vassal/patron rules. Each server will be different!
Spif
2
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
AirborneBerserker wrote: »The way for a group-focused game to appeal to new players is to make the group-focused gameplay fun, not to offer more avenues to succeed without other players/guilds.AirborneBerserker wrote: »And I am punished with no response? =PAirborneBerserker wrote: »Implying what?AirborneBerserker wrote: »Well this is progress of a sort.Not every player who has a preference for solo gameplay is as much of a sour grape as you.AirborneBerserker wrote: »
Many of those 70% might enjoy the playstyle of WoW, or whatever other solo-friendly MMO, for now, because it's what has worked so far - but would be perfectly willing to adjust their expectations and behaviours in order to fit into a game where the priorities and demands are different, and change the way they play, if they find that this new gameplay loop is also enjoyable.
As for the rest, yes.
Yes, it is a fantastic idea to tell them to pass on this game.
All the reasons why WoW is such a boring soulless themepark filled with dailies and grind quests and arenas instead of anything of substance can be traced back to its attempt of appealing to everyone:
Where comfort and convenience are cranked up to the max.
And where communication and finding people whose playstyles you agree with is entirely optional, and grouping is streamlined without any social interaction required.
Ashes doesn't make this mistake.
Ashes is for players who are willing to combine PvP and PvE challenges,
who are willing to compete for high rewards at high risks and accept the setback when other players beat them to the objective,
and who care about building a world where their contribution alters the way the world looks, and what happens in it.
The rest can go play WoW, FFXIV and ESO, instead of disappointing themselves with something that wasn't made to appeal to their demands for a solo play theme park LFG lobby.
You didn't insult me or put words in my mouth. Which most of the posters do.
There isn't much to respond to. I agree with most of the post.
But I would caution you that if you don't create a way for new players to join the community then you only have empty servers to look forward to.
No it's not. If you want someone to change what there accustomed to you have to do it slowly, if the change is too fast then people will resist the change. People like what they like. If however what you do is create systems that create positive interactions between solo players and guilds that allows them to build up a reputation with each other so the guild knows they are getting a person they want in their guild and the person knows it's the kind of guild they want to be in. That is how, don't force them, convert them.
Maybe taverns will bring together those who refuse to join a guild.
If they are citizens of the same node, will end up knowing each-other and rely on each other's availability.
Otr
2
Re: PvE difficulty or a lack thereof
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »I hope PvE is harder than what we've seen. And any arguments of "this was only lvl25" don't matter. Raids should all be difficult, especially when they're 40-man ones.
I know we're in testing and all that, but my main feedback is "make it harder, while making it even more pvx".
Agreed reducing healing output by 60-70% so things will be super hard.
Mag7spy
1
Re: World Boss AI and PvP
It should react to all of these
- flag states
- aggro list placement
- location in the vicinity
- player interaction with environmental hazzards
- general player movements
Ludullu
1
Re: Instanced Content Should Not Offer Power Gains
You know what there's been a shortage of? OW PvX MMORPG, we haven't seen a good one in years.
I wanted to post yesterday that this is true.
Now I see this statement:If the game doesn't attract those PvE players, PvP players will peel off from the bottom.
If the PvP-ers at the bottom can defeat PvE players, will those PvE players stay in the game?
I have the feeling somebody will leave anyway, is just that they leave from two bottoms.
Then after a while IS will have to create content for the top PvPers and top PvEers who still play the game.
PvErs are going to quit the moment they're looted. They're won't stick around for being looted and asset loss every time a city flips.
OW PvXers will be the absolute heart, spine, and lungs of this game.
Solvryn
1
Re: Instanced Content Should Not Offer Power Gains
PlasticLemons wrote: »It's important for AoC to avoid instanced content as much as possible since the basis of the game is player interaction.
They are avoiding instanced content as much as possible, hence why it's only 20% of content, but in some places you simply cannot balance an encounter without closing off the combat area. It's just not possible to do unless they dumb down the fights encounters and deny themselves the chance to use all sorts of mechanics, which is not what I want to see from them.
The challenge should come from the encounter once you've fought your way through mobs and other players to that final room in the dungeon. High-end content is there to test your teamwork and skill, not your patience for trolling from other players as the most noteworthy 'difficulty' facet.
I’m on my phone, It’s a OW PvX game, there shouldn’t be even 20% of the content.
Much hasn’t changed with the raid only crowd in the last twenty + years I’ve been playing MMOs.
At this point I don’t think I owe it to you when you talk at people, not interested in dialogue because you haven’t played an open world dungeon before. Your lack of experience doesn’t constitute anything on my part.
The bulk of your argument is “it’s impossible for devs to make great PvE content in the presence of PvP”.
You just haven’t seen it, that’s your problem.
No, I've said that it's not possible to design a high-precision raid if you have to account for other players actively attempting to sabotage it. I even gave you an example of how it happens in the face of punishing mechanics, more than one in fact but you haven't actually addressed any of it.
I've asked you to share these games that you claim have successfully blended extremely difficult boss encounters with an open PvP area, and you've declined to provide even one example. I'd be happy to engage in dialogue if you actually provided some evidence to back up your claim, as it goes against common sense and many people's direct experience with mixed PvX combat encounters.
Yeah dude, because you've been in instanced encounters you can only see it from the instanced pov.
You just think "only the encounter", the PvXer thinks give me the hard encounter + the threat, no need to dumb it down. If you cannot conceive how it would work that's fine, you only want encounters.
Solvryn
1
Re: Loot System Changes
Join a guild you like. If is guild is "toxic" leave it and start your own. Taking power away from players is not what this game is about. You act like two hours of prep is really difficult, try spending months on building a node only for the bad men to come and burn it down.
Please tell me how I’m supposed to join a guild that I like when your solution to circumvent the negative consequences of the current system is to avoid majority of the player base in an MMO?Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild.
This is one of the main reasons the systems is flawed and more encouraging of lone-wolfing or strictly playing in a static group of known friends from other games that come over to AoC with you. This goes against everything an MMO should be.
In my personal experience, there is no point in having a greed choice in a rule-free looting system because everyone is going to need, need, need. Even your most honest players will do it out of fear that others will and leave them empty handed. There will be no social repercussions becau000se it will be too common for anyone to care about blacklists.
Also in my experience, loot master usually ends up with a guild leader and his top officers being rewarded and no one else. Round Robin is pointless but probably the most desired out of the choices because at least you’re guaranteed something from the game rather than a player but rarely if ever something you want.
With all of these loot options, why not have the option to let the game decide your loot, similar to how it does in round robin, but smarter and more effective?
Be social? Ask on discord, general chat, or talk with people in groups if you like them about joining their guild. Seems like an inability to make friends is your issue.Games with personal loot have significantly more lone wolfing than games that require some level of social engagement.
Playing in pugs will always have people who need everything. Take some initiative and eliminate that problem by joining a guild. You pretend like guilds won't invite you, but thats a you issue. There are plenty of guilds recruiting right now for this game, join one. If you don't like it, join a different one. It's really not hard.
Ive played in many top 100 guilds in various games; none did loot like this. This is a you problem.
KingDDD
2
Re: Loot System Changes
Players shouldn't decide if I get a reward or not. The game should. Make participation tiers like suggested above so everyone gets a chance of getting something with a % chance for every item. It's about fairplay. There is still risk in that system, because if you just die/respawn (mainly because of the encounter or PvP), you won't get as much rewarded as other players and if you wipe and respawn elsewhere, you don't get anything. I mean, it's not that hard to understand. Get over it, we're not in 2005 anymore.
That sounds like you want to play a single player or limited co-op game. Why are you playing an MMO?
KingDDD
1
Re: Loot System Changes
The everyone gets a trophy crowd is gonna be disappointed.
As long as intrepid enforces in chat agreed upon loot rules it'll be fine. Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild.
There's a fundamentally flawed assumption that's it either '90% of the party gets nothing' and 'anyone who breathes near the boss gets super good loot'.
Having tiered loot like already mentioned is the best way to ensure no one is walking away with nothing to show as long as they've contributed enough for whatever merit threshold is put in place, similar to the mob tagging system.
Tier 1: The basic crafting materials based on Gatherer ranks, personal loot and only useful after entering the player crafting networks. Default: Common quality in small amounts, quality and amount adjusted based on specific Gathering levels and perk selections
Tier 2: General recipes and craft plans based on Crafting rank, % based drop and useless without the materials
Tier 3: Full gear, rare enchantment stones, trophy item, etc etc, the Rares: Bid system.
I don't think Lootmaster has any place in a healthy game climate. It's far too easily misused and there's no recourse for shitty behavior. (Just look at EQ to see how useless a social blackslist would be). If people want one person handing out loot, then that can happen organically after looting occurs with everyone willingly giving up their drops to be handed out. And if they don't want to do that? Well, sounds like the guild did a bad job inspiring guild loyalty.
In a game where they want a high amount of socializing and the politicking that comes with it, they shouldn't be using a loot system that enables risk-free bad behavior with high probability of nothing awarded for taking on difficult content. It a recipe for a barren PvE landscape where no one wants to bother trying to enter into it.
The everyone gets a trophy crowd is gonna be disappointed.
As long as intrepid enforces in chat agreed upon loot rules it'll be fine. Don't play with people you don't trust or better yet join a guild.
So me taking 2ish hours of my time to prep for a fight and being a key asset in winning that fight would still constitute "a everyone gets a trophy" mindset? You are not using that terminology correctly.
No, it will not be fine. This game will be limited to guilds already formed in other MMOs transfering over. Which is fine if this game can survive with only those numbers.
Players like me, and the majority of the thread, know that taking loot power out of other players hands and into the game itself is what is best for a healthy and good community. Why? Because at the end of the day if everyone in a group invested a significant amount of time and effort, they actually do deserve to be rewarded, by the game and not some sweat.
Games with these mechanics have the healthiest communities. Games without have garbage communities from a Macro scale. If your in the sweaty guild, especially at the top, its probably great and all the lackeys have Stockholm syndrome from fiending over loot, so it probably all feels great to them too. Outside of that, garbage.
The only reason the old style MMOs survived is because that's all we had. That isn't the case anymore. New players WILL get frustrated and WILL leave the second they need to answer to some other player for loot and gear.
Someone else said something that this game is more focused on social implications or something? Guess what, I'm not going to want to attribute to anything if I need to ask for it from another player and run the risk of not getting what I want due to another players decision. Especially after I already committed a lot of my time and effort into a fight or event. I earned it, and so did everyone else.
At the end of the day, Intrepid can do what they see fit but I won't play it and that is OK. However, loot systems are important and other players, especially new ones, will also not tolerate it.
Join a guild you like. If is guild is "toxic" leave it and start your own. Taking power away from players is not what this game is about. You act like two hours of prep is really difficult, try spending months on building a node only for the bad men to come and burn it down.
KingDDD
2