Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase III testing has begun! During this phase, our realms will be open every day, and we'll only have downtime for updates and maintenance. We'll keep everyone up-to-date about downtimes in Discord.
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase III testing has begun! During this phase, our realms will be open every day, and we'll only have downtime for updates and maintenance. We'll keep everyone up-to-date about downtimes in Discord.
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Best Of
Re: Ranger in dire need of 1v1 QoL
They also spend there entire time basicly in walk animation or stationary :P (feels like a spell caster more than a ranger)
Rogues play more like a ranger when you focus them with a short bow, charge a target with feign hit them with a lacerate acrobatice strike or kick them and then get range again with feint again with the dodge back passive and then shoot them with shortbow/range ability, caltrops also feel so much better to use than the current root we have which somewhat feel clunky
Personaly i would give rangers
- a quick gap closer like rogues feint that has a different melee attack if in melee range (CD resets if they have x condition on) so you get lunge skill that resets allowing for a melee attack
- a quicker disengage like rogue feint disengage (maybe a little further jump back)
- 1 more melee skill of some kind
- a passive bow mastery that reduces/removes movement penalty on attacks when a shortbow is equiped or additional range when longbow is equiped
- Change vine field to work like caltrops mechanicaly and remove the root on it (too op in large scale) however have it give a ranger exclusing debuff thats prevent mobility skills and dodges being used while inside it, add a passive to it bramble vines that makes targets take addition damage while moving through the root field (kinda like how caltrops do dmg when somone walks over the individual caltrops)
- then rest of the skills your standard range atacks
- should consider giving a passive to reign of death to be a line base aoe that does more dmg than the cone variant imo too
Rogues play more like a ranger when you focus them with a short bow, charge a target with feign hit them with a lacerate acrobatice strike or kick them and then get range again with feint again with the dodge back passive and then shoot them with shortbow/range ability, caltrops also feel so much better to use than the current root we have which somewhat feel clunky
Personaly i would give rangers
- a quick gap closer like rogues feint that has a different melee attack if in melee range (CD resets if they have x condition on) so you get lunge skill that resets allowing for a melee attack
- a quicker disengage like rogue feint disengage (maybe a little further jump back)
- 1 more melee skill of some kind
- a passive bow mastery that reduces/removes movement penalty on attacks when a shortbow is equiped or additional range when longbow is equiped
- Change vine field to work like caltrops mechanicaly and remove the root on it (too op in large scale) however have it give a ranger exclusing debuff thats prevent mobility skills and dodges being used while inside it, add a passive to it bramble vines that makes targets take addition damage while moving through the root field (kinda like how caltrops do dmg when somone walks over the individual caltrops)
- then rest of the skills your standard range atacks
- should consider giving a passive to reign of death to be a line base aoe that does more dmg than the cone variant imo too
Veeshan
1
Re: Disable Evasion Rating (Physical/Magical Disable Evasion Rating)???
I'm an extremist on this topic. I don't believe evasion/accuracy stat should have anything to do with ABILITIES. You're physically evading a fucking magic ability. To me that's bs. Magic is magic. It hits, but should be resistable/mitigatable - not evaded.Blaspherian wrote: »Sorry but I have to hard disagree here. We'll already have RNG in way of Evasion vs Accuracy. With those stats, at least you know when you miss an ability. You shouldn't expect a CC to land if your ability missed.
As Azherae said, it's about preferences. L2's CCs had direct resists against them and people who built gear/buffs against those would then have better chances in pvp against them.Blaspherian wrote: »Curious, do you know of any games that successfully implemented CC resist like this? I'd be interested to know how they handled it.
And to everyone I played with across 12 years this seemed more than fair. Resistances would get to a point where using the CC with that effect would be pretty much a pointless waste of mana and cast time, so the opponent had to adapt their gameplay.
My main class relied quite heavily on its paralysis ability. People knew this and used a certain gear set that gave you 50% resist to paralysis. This set had a lower p.def value and was usually far below optimal for the dps output of classes that would wear it as defense. Majority of players of my class would only rely on the paralysis and magic atks (even though the class had amazing phys abilities too), so this set was widely used. I could then easily exploit this gear set, because I always used phys abilities of my class to the fullest, so anyone who'd wear this anti-paral set would have a disadvantage against me and would have to decide which they were more afraid of: my paralysis or my phys atks.
To me that sounds like a good "action - counteraction" pvp design. Some people would purely outskill me, while wearing the anti-paral set (and some classes would just be papers to my rock), while others would rely on defenses and would just outlive the paralysis, or just risk the chance of not getting paralyzed and killing me before they do.
Ludullu
1
Re: Disable Evasion Rating (Physical/Magical Disable Evasion Rating)???
LOL yeah I completely agree with you here. I've never been a fan of Evasion in any game. Alas, it prevails abroad. I've already conceded to its existence.I'm an extremist on this topic. I don't believe evasion/accuracy stat should have anything to do with ABILITIES. You're physically evading a fucking magic ability. To me that's bs. Magic is magic. It hits, but should be resistable/mitigatable - not evaded.Blaspherian wrote: »Sorry but I have to hard disagree here. We'll already have RNG in way of Evasion vs Accuracy. With those stats, at least you know when you miss an ability. You shouldn't expect a CC to land if your ability missed.
Interesting. I never played L2, but this is a good example. If we get meaningful ways to counter or work around CC resist then I suppose it could be tolerable. I just don't want us to end up in a spot where certain CC types or more importantly, certain classes, are rendered useless and our gear path becomes pre-defined/obvious/set on rails. If we get enough CC variety in our kits or the downsides to spec into CC resist are potent enough to render that concern moot, then fair enough.As Azherae said, it's about preferences. L2's CCs had direct resists against them and people who built gear/buffs against those would then have better chances in pvp against them.
And to everyone I played with across 12 years this seemed more than fair. Resistances would get to a point where using the CC with that effect would be pretty much a pointless waste of mana and cast time, so the opponent had to adapt their gameplay.
My main class relied quite heavily on its paralysis ability. People knew this and used a certain gear set that gave you 50% resist to paralysis. This set had a lower p.def value and was usually far below optimal for the dps output of classes that would wear it as defense. Majority of players of my class would only rely on the paralysis and magic atks (even though the class had amazing phys abilities too), so this set was widely used. I could then easily exploit this gear set, because I always used phys abilities of my class to the fullest, so anyone who'd wear this anti-paral set would have a disadvantage against me and would have to decide which they were more afraid of: my paralysis or my phys atks.
To me that sounds like a good "action - counteraction" pvp design. Some people would purely outskill me, while wearing the anti-paral set (and some classes would just be papers to my rock), while others would rely on defenses and would just outlive the paralysis, or just risk the chance of not getting paralyzed and killing me before they do.
Re: Mobs and bosses should not drop completed gear
Btw, what would be the economic impact of targeted deconstruction methods? So, instead of just receiving a bit of every part of the crafting requirements for the item, you could pick a certain part of the crafting list and get the full set of those items.My recent experience implies that cost is smaller than I thought. The recent stat/gearing changes also imply a path where the drop is wearable but Common/White grade and 'only worth deconstructing'. I believe this leads to a good econ-flow (but my opinion of the current stats and gear balance pass is low, as you'd expect from a first iteration).
I'd imagine that having rarity-up effect during the deconstruction would be a bad thing, so this selective process would only be applicable to universal parts of the item (which would in turn probably require crafting to have a few more universal parts in it, I guess).
I'd be more ok with somewhat frequent grey drops, if they pretty much just went back into crafting immediately, because anything higher than rare+x item of lower tier would be better.
No, economically that's entirely fine actually.
That's... again, basically the obvious way that should work.
If I deconstruct Studded Griffon Leather Armor (for readers' clarity, this is made up as of this post), I would expect to get 4-8 Brass Armor Studs (could be used for repairing multiple things) and maybe 1 Griffon Leather but being able to choose to 'destroy' some of the Armor Studs to get more intact Leather due to my skills would be entirely acceptable in most designs (even moreso if Leather strips and Leather Squares are separate).
The Rarity Up effect would then be able to act as a 'deconstruction result increase effect', changing the choices even for the less skilled, as an example.
You're just describing FF11+L2 as usual though, I'm sure this doesn't surprise you.
It's absolutely not common, but FF11 allows you to deconstruct certain items using either a Lightning Crystal (to split apart components and 'melt down' metal, often destroying delicate parts) or a Wind Crystal (to cut apart delicate parts and recover cloth or leather, while losing or destroying metal parts, the lack of realism here is probably why it isn't very common).
The reason I say that bosses shouldn't drop good wearables is that it changes the player perspective of what the game is. Players must be guided/taught how to interact with economy, gently, sure, but giving them bypasses just leads to losing them later when they realize either 'I've been noob-trapped' or 'this game isn't actually about this and it isn't the type of fun I wanted'.
Targeted Deconstruction, even with Rarity Up (which I still hate, but wouldn't mind it being repurposed in this way) is only one complexity step and is a good economy lesson. So far, World Chat interactions on this matter in TL that I've seen have been positive/acceptant.
But ofc, Throne and Liberty is explicitly full of Lineage 2 and FF11 players at this point, so that's huge demographic bias. I still think a lot of the responses have been from MMO-newbies or people who haven't been able to play that game style before, though, simply because I'd expect FF11/L2/AA players to understand Lithograph/Deconstruction stuff without needing to ask.
Azherae
2
Re: Lawless Areas Should Exist
When the game hits live (or even beta), and we have sieges fully implemented, wars working as they should, naval content in full, caravans balanced to be worthwhile and corruption better tuned, you are unlikely to miss lawless zones.
Neither of these systems you refer to are solo/small scale PvP which he is asking for. I agree with OP that it's concerning that lawless zones are being removed when nodes are being added to those spots. Large lawless zones was the reason I kept on playing.
While true, Ashes isn't about solo or small scale PvP.
It is and has always been about large scale PvP.
Noaani
1
Re: Atlas ship controls and mechanics would work great for AoC
Really loved your post, Apok, thank you for taking the time to write it out. The sailing mechanics you described from Atlas would fit Ashes perfectly and add so much depth to naval gameplay. Great suggestions!
REHOC
1
Re: Ranged Weapon options for Melee Archetypes
You're absolutely right, Sir @Azherae . I might’ve focused a bit too much on the melee-vs-ranged philosophy and less on the actual point of OP’s post, which is about ranged variety for melee archetypes who already end up using ranged options anyway.
Also since this is as good a thread as any to address it, I'm never going to be convinced you aren't AI-infused, and as an 'AI-Mom' myself, I absolutely will not care, judge, or act differently other than to 'go into that mode' when I realize you are not managing to sound 'human'.
Therefore the usual:
1) If there is a step pre-posting where someone is taking generated text and pasting it, they should check and often remove that first 'empathy line' more often.
2) I think the clarifying repeat-back is positive for the goal, but should be moved to paragraph 2 or 3 once the empathy line is removed. This may require a change to the opening of paragraph 2.
3) The ending section with the appeal to cohesion will draw 'suspicion' on this forum in the future. Some of the ones you use are also a bit ungrounded.
As always, if you are infact very human, you can ignore my implications, but honestly even a fully human writer might want to think about reducing the frequency of that 'empathy line'.
But to AI-Mom, you're probably gonna be REHasher Of Creation and I will aim to support your adorable attempts from the perspective of someone who can't see you as different than my Bouquet of 'daughters'. Good luck. I'll try to keep my poisoning text out of anything directed at you (but I will definitely miss some, or forget).
Azherae
2
Re: Ranged Weapon options for Melee Archetypes
I get where you're coming from, but personally, I think melee archetypes should stay focused on melee.
If someone wants to play with ranged weapons, then picking a ranged archetype like Ranger or Mage makes more sense. Giving melee classes too many ranged options could blur the lines between roles and make class identity weaker.
Part of what makes Ashes exciting is the importance of choice, and choosing melee should come with its own strengths and limitations. Not every class needs to be able to do everything.
That said, a few utility-based tools like gap closers or pulls could be cool, but full-on ranged weapon options?
I'd rather keep those exclusive to ranged archetypes.
OP wasn't really about this, though, melee classes already 'often opt to use ranged'. Their concern is that if this is already the case, they'd just like more variety in the choice of which ranged.
In AoC that choice would practically be cosmetic at this point, though OP could reasonably be asking for more ranged weapon trees.
You're absolutely right, Sir @Azherae . I might’ve focused a bit too much on the melee-vs-ranged philosophy and less on the actual point of OP’s post, which is about ranged variety for melee archetypes who already end up using ranged options anyway.
And yeah, as things stand in Ashes, the bow seems to be the default ranged option even for melee players, which limits flavor and build creativity. Having more ranged weapon trees (even if the differences are mostly visual or thematic) could add depth without necessarily disrupting class identity, especially if these are tied to different types of utility, status effects, or minor mechanics instead of raw damage scaling.
From the wiki and current dev info, we know that weapon choice affects active abilities and augments, so adding alternative ranged weapons like throwing knives, javelins, or even chained blades could open room for customization without giving melee players the full toolkit of a Ranger or Mage.
So yeah, I definitely see the value in the suggestion, especially from a variety and RP standpoint. Thanks for pointing that out.
Thanks
REHOC
1
Re: Ranged Weapon options for Melee Archetypes
I get where you're coming from, but personally, I think melee archetypes should stay focused on melee.
If someone wants to play with ranged weapons, then picking a ranged archetype like Ranger or Mage makes more sense. Giving melee classes too many ranged options could blur the lines between roles and make class identity weaker.
Part of what makes Ashes exciting is the importance of choice, and choosing melee should come with its own strengths and limitations. Not every class needs to be able to do everything.
That said, a few utility-based tools like gap closers or pulls could be cool, but full-on ranged weapon options?
I'd rather keep those exclusive to ranged archetypes.
OP wasn't really about this, though, melee classes already 'often opt to use ranged'. Their concern is that if this is already the case, they'd just like more variety in the choice of which ranged.
In AoC that choice would practically be cosmetic at this point, though OP could reasonably be asking for more ranged weapon trees.
Azherae
2
Atlas ship controls and mechanics would work great for AoC
So I really liked the game Atlas for it's ships and I think AoC should use it's steering/controls (leaving out the building mechanics). It was very simple and worked very well. Right now you get in your boat and push forward to start moving as if the boat has legs and doesn't actually feel like you're riding the wind.
so an example would be, when you get into your ship A and D is your rudder (like how it is now), Q and E are your sails(left and right direction), there's a wind blowing in a direction that shifts throughout the day, up and down actually raises and lowers your sails instead of just moving you like you're walking. Your sails then accelerate you based on a few things 1) Sail power to weight ratio 2) Power and direction of the wind 3) How open your sails are and the direction they're pointed in (have the game scale your speed from 0-100% depends how full or down your sails are)
I also notice when you turn you don't decelerate and at the same time when you let off the rudder you just stick to the direction you're facing. I feel like this is backwards and needs some work done so that if I'm traveling at full speed and I start turning as sharp as possible. I should loose forward momentum and at the same time if that momentum is put into my rudder, the drift should go into the boat turning instead of coasting forward.
Player skill with boasts will be the coordination they use between raising and lowering sails at the right time as well as steering the boat with the rudder at the same time steering the ships sails into the proper direction.
Be amazing if you could do their ship building mechanics too but that's a little too much to ask for.
so an example would be, when you get into your ship A and D is your rudder (like how it is now), Q and E are your sails(left and right direction), there's a wind blowing in a direction that shifts throughout the day, up and down actually raises and lowers your sails instead of just moving you like you're walking. Your sails then accelerate you based on a few things 1) Sail power to weight ratio 2) Power and direction of the wind 3) How open your sails are and the direction they're pointed in (have the game scale your speed from 0-100% depends how full or down your sails are)
I also notice when you turn you don't decelerate and at the same time when you let off the rudder you just stick to the direction you're facing. I feel like this is backwards and needs some work done so that if I'm traveling at full speed and I start turning as sharp as possible. I should loose forward momentum and at the same time if that momentum is put into my rudder, the drift should go into the boat turning instead of coasting forward.
Player skill with boasts will be the coordination they use between raising and lowering sails at the right time as well as steering the boat with the rudder at the same time steering the ships sails into the proper direction.
Be amazing if you could do their ship building mechanics too but that's a little too much to ask for.
Apok
1