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: 1 to 1 AP Rating > AS Rating
So talking with chadautry in guild chat about the tick damages such as bleed, poison and burn. According to them these damages do not have stacks and only trigger off of weapon finishers generally for now. So the fact that these are not stackable in my opinion is also in detriment to AS as a stat since multi apply effects is a big upwards scaling for AS.
Then another question I asked was whether AS affected cool-down of ability's, but no it only effect's the cast time. So while the AS stat will have an effect on the speed you can do your rotation while it's up it doesn't actually effect the time it takes your rotation from coming up. In comparison AP effects the full output every time you cast the ability.
I do think some of this will be toned down with the TTK changes Intrepid has in the works but I agree AS as a stat doesn't have the same meatiness as AP, because of the reasons pointed.
Then another question I asked was whether AS affected cool-down of ability's, but no it only effect's the cast time. So while the AS stat will have an effect on the speed you can do your rotation while it's up it doesn't actually effect the time it takes your rotation from coming up. In comparison AP effects the full output every time you cast the ability.
I do think some of this will be toned down with the TTK changes Intrepid has in the works but I agree AS as a stat doesn't have the same meatiness as AP, because of the reasons pointed.
Re: Dev Discussion #75 - Node Siege System
The area players fight in need to be bigger for non-stage 6 nodes.
The empty node cork area around the nodes should be utilized for this.
With this method, there is no need to redesign the inside of stage 3 nodes to make it more "siege-compatible".
Before a siege, a (non stage 6) node should automatically place make-shift walls, trenches, etc. around its walls. Basically any form of obstacle that can slow down the attackers' advance and spread the players apart instead of just everyone being at the very middle of the node from the start.
I think at the very least 3 layers of gates should be used for the defending node, but even more for higher level ones. For a stage 3 node, 2 of these layers can be placed around the default node walls.
Here is a rough example of what I'm thinking:
Although all node stages on the picture have 3 layers, it shouldn't mean they are equally hard to conquer.
I'd expect that inside the node walls there are considerably more defensive buildings and guards than between the node walls and the outer walls. This means that the higher stage the node is (and the further the node wall is out), the harder it will be to siege.
Of course the number and position of walls can differ from my suggestion:
e.g. inside a stage 6 node there could be multiple districts, each with its own wall, and a successful siege could require taking over all of them.
The empty node cork area around the nodes should be utilized for this.
With this method, there is no need to redesign the inside of stage 3 nodes to make it more "siege-compatible".
Before a siege, a (non stage 6) node should automatically place make-shift walls, trenches, etc. around its walls. Basically any form of obstacle that can slow down the attackers' advance and spread the players apart instead of just everyone being at the very middle of the node from the start.
I think at the very least 3 layers of gates should be used for the defending node, but even more for higher level ones. For a stage 3 node, 2 of these layers can be placed around the default node walls.
Here is a rough example of what I'm thinking:
Although all node stages on the picture have 3 layers, it shouldn't mean they are equally hard to conquer.
I'd expect that inside the node walls there are considerably more defensive buildings and guards than between the node walls and the outer walls. This means that the higher stage the node is (and the further the node wall is out), the harder it will be to siege.
Of course the number and position of walls can differ from my suggestion:
e.g. inside a stage 6 node there could be multiple districts, each with its own wall, and a successful siege could require taking over all of them.
Tryol
1
Re: Dev Discussion #75 - Node Siege System
Feedback on Lotharia's April 1st Siege - participated as an attacker, fighter archetype.
Ignoring the very obvious poor performance, i.e., too short character render distance, unresponsive health and stamina bars on targets and self (including the gate's health bar), and known issues like the very low TTK.
Control Point Respawns
Control points turned out to be irrelevant for both teams as their only purpose is to serve as spawn points:
- Defenders may respawn within city walls, so respawning outside is pointless when all foes are inside.
- Attackers barely got any casualties and the difference between respawning at the main camp or at a control point is under 30 seconds travel time without enemy presence.
Control points need to be made relevant.
Wave respawns are the way to go but the time between waves needs to be increased as the opposing team completes some specific objectives. For example, devices built by either team in preparation for the siege could reduce the time between waves, and the destruction of these devices by the opposing team during the siege could increase it. Please don't simply increase the time between waves based on how long the siege has been going on for, that is really shallow design.
Attackers could also have a limit to how many times they may respawn at the main camp. Think a ticket system like in other games with conquer and hold game modes, such as Battlefield or Squad - respawning at the main camp consumes X tickets for the team, respawning at the control points consumes Y tickets for the team. Building some devices before the siege increases the number of tickets available, the destruction of one of these devices by the opposing team consumes Z tickets from the team.
Final Objective Location
First of all, running the game at low settings made the final objective completely invisible, including the supposed giant red beam. If I hadn't been told we were channelling there, I would have never known.
As for the location iteself:
- From a roleplay perspective, it's in a place of too little importance - it would make more sense to have it on top of the hill, closer to the town hall.
- From a gameplay perspective, it's way too in the open and too close to the possible entry points - attackers should need to get past several layers of defences to get to the final objective, as well as traverse a final set of terrain/obstacles leading directly to the objective, which attackers may then use to hold off defenders - again, it would make more sense to have it on top of the hill, but within a building.
As for interrupting the channelling, we were told by someone from Intrepid staff that the channelling of the final objective should not be interrupted by any ability. This is really poor design - the channelling should be interruptable. If the intention is to make attackers have a chance at channelling, the solution is not to make the channeller impervious to effects, but to move the capping point away from out in the open where it can be easily interrupted from a distance and to provide ways for other attackers to aid him, such as:
- Move the final objective location inside a building so that attackers may make use of terrain to hold off defenders once they take the building.
- Make it so that only one attacker may channel at a time and make the channelling time longer, but also make it so that if the channelling is stopped, the progress is not completely reset but rather it is set back by a fixed amount and then decays over time. The progress should resume increasing whether the channelling is resumed by the same or a different attacker.
Gate Destruction Time-To-Kill (TTK)
The gate was destroyed way too fast - it needs to take more time to destroy it. But to be fair I think this has more to do with the power creep in unbalanced gear and stats than with the gate itself. Attackers were fairly well geared, too.
Impact of Archetypes
From most to least impactful:
Bards - the most impactful one because of all of their ranged AoE buffing, debuffing, CCing and damaging capabilities. Way too overpowered in all situations, including sieges. They not only make others stronger but are themselves too strong - you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too.
Mages and rangers - too impactful because of all of their ranged AoE CCing and damaging capabilities, although this is to be expected.
Tank - placing walls is a cool mechanic when fighting in difficult terrain such as cities with alleyways and whatnot, too easy to channel with because of CC immunity while channelling and greater defenses than other archetypes - CC immunity should be removed.
Rogue - far too great mobility, overpowered damage output - still not very impactful in large scale fights or sieges for the same reasons as fighter below.
Fighter - has no place in the game as it is, it is outshined by all other classes in every situation and aspect of the game, including and especially in sieges and large scale battles - for the better part of any fight, fighters are restricted to autoattacking with longbow only; they can play as their archetype is meant to only when the outcome of the fight is nearly decided in their favor, otherwise they die instantly before having any impact.
Fighters will obviously benefit from a rework to stats, gear and TTK, but even in the current state of things they would be more impactful in sieges if there were actual secondary objectives in a siege. Secondary objectives would force teams to split into smaller groups where melee classes could have some impact. It should be noted that secondary and main objectives should be tackled simultaneously so that teams actually need to split and strategize, and not move in quick succession from one objective to the next as a single zerg blob.
Team selection
The system to select attackers and defenders is too slow. Requirements to join sieges should be defined by mayors, such as minimum level. Teams should be made hours before a siege starts, there should be a main roster and a secondary roster (queue) - only the main roster gets to join the siege, but if any of them is offline at the time, the players in the secondary roster may join the siege in order as sorted by the mayor, not in the order they clicked the Join Event button. Some slots in the main roster should be guaranteed to certain officers of both nodes, such as mayor and other eventual positions - other than that, individuals for the teams should be selected by the mayor or another node officer, but everyone (even if not in the attacking or defending team) should be allowed to aid either team in the preparation for the siege by bringing materials, building siege engines or devices, etc.
Thanks!
All in all, I really appreciate the involvement of Intrepid with the community, making such events possible and taking feedback on them.
Ignoring the very obvious poor performance, i.e., too short character render distance, unresponsive health and stamina bars on targets and self (including the gate's health bar), and known issues like the very low TTK.
Control Point Respawns
Control points turned out to be irrelevant for both teams as their only purpose is to serve as spawn points:
- Defenders may respawn within city walls, so respawning outside is pointless when all foes are inside.
- Attackers barely got any casualties and the difference between respawning at the main camp or at a control point is under 30 seconds travel time without enemy presence.
Control points need to be made relevant.
Wave respawns are the way to go but the time between waves needs to be increased as the opposing team completes some specific objectives. For example, devices built by either team in preparation for the siege could reduce the time between waves, and the destruction of these devices by the opposing team during the siege could increase it. Please don't simply increase the time between waves based on how long the siege has been going on for, that is really shallow design.
Attackers could also have a limit to how many times they may respawn at the main camp. Think a ticket system like in other games with conquer and hold game modes, such as Battlefield or Squad - respawning at the main camp consumes X tickets for the team, respawning at the control points consumes Y tickets for the team. Building some devices before the siege increases the number of tickets available, the destruction of one of these devices by the opposing team consumes Z tickets from the team.
Final Objective Location
First of all, running the game at low settings made the final objective completely invisible, including the supposed giant red beam. If I hadn't been told we were channelling there, I would have never known.
As for the location iteself:
- From a roleplay perspective, it's in a place of too little importance - it would make more sense to have it on top of the hill, closer to the town hall.
- From a gameplay perspective, it's way too in the open and too close to the possible entry points - attackers should need to get past several layers of defences to get to the final objective, as well as traverse a final set of terrain/obstacles leading directly to the objective, which attackers may then use to hold off defenders - again, it would make more sense to have it on top of the hill, but within a building.
As for interrupting the channelling, we were told by someone from Intrepid staff that the channelling of the final objective should not be interrupted by any ability. This is really poor design - the channelling should be interruptable. If the intention is to make attackers have a chance at channelling, the solution is not to make the channeller impervious to effects, but to move the capping point away from out in the open where it can be easily interrupted from a distance and to provide ways for other attackers to aid him, such as:
- Move the final objective location inside a building so that attackers may make use of terrain to hold off defenders once they take the building.
- Make it so that only one attacker may channel at a time and make the channelling time longer, but also make it so that if the channelling is stopped, the progress is not completely reset but rather it is set back by a fixed amount and then decays over time. The progress should resume increasing whether the channelling is resumed by the same or a different attacker.
Gate Destruction Time-To-Kill (TTK)
The gate was destroyed way too fast - it needs to take more time to destroy it. But to be fair I think this has more to do with the power creep in unbalanced gear and stats than with the gate itself. Attackers were fairly well geared, too.
Impact of Archetypes
From most to least impactful:
Bards - the most impactful one because of all of their ranged AoE buffing, debuffing, CCing and damaging capabilities. Way too overpowered in all situations, including sieges. They not only make others stronger but are themselves too strong - you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too.
Mages and rangers - too impactful because of all of their ranged AoE CCing and damaging capabilities, although this is to be expected.
Tank - placing walls is a cool mechanic when fighting in difficult terrain such as cities with alleyways and whatnot, too easy to channel with because of CC immunity while channelling and greater defenses than other archetypes - CC immunity should be removed.
Rogue - far too great mobility, overpowered damage output - still not very impactful in large scale fights or sieges for the same reasons as fighter below.
Fighter - has no place in the game as it is, it is outshined by all other classes in every situation and aspect of the game, including and especially in sieges and large scale battles - for the better part of any fight, fighters are restricted to autoattacking with longbow only; they can play as their archetype is meant to only when the outcome of the fight is nearly decided in their favor, otherwise they die instantly before having any impact.
Fighters will obviously benefit from a rework to stats, gear and TTK, but even in the current state of things they would be more impactful in sieges if there were actual secondary objectives in a siege. Secondary objectives would force teams to split into smaller groups where melee classes could have some impact. It should be noted that secondary and main objectives should be tackled simultaneously so that teams actually need to split and strategize, and not move in quick succession from one objective to the next as a single zerg blob.
Team selection
The system to select attackers and defenders is too slow. Requirements to join sieges should be defined by mayors, such as minimum level. Teams should be made hours before a siege starts, there should be a main roster and a secondary roster (queue) - only the main roster gets to join the siege, but if any of them is offline at the time, the players in the secondary roster may join the siege in order as sorted by the mayor, not in the order they clicked the Join Event button. Some slots in the main roster should be guaranteed to certain officers of both nodes, such as mayor and other eventual positions - other than that, individuals for the teams should be selected by the mayor or another node officer, but everyone (even if not in the attacking or defending team) should be allowed to aid either team in the preparation for the siege by bringing materials, building siege engines or devices, etc.
Thanks!
All in all, I really appreciate the involvement of Intrepid with the community, making such events possible and taking feedback on them.
AstuWar
1
To many mounts on the streets of cities!
I’d like to suggest a way to prevent the city from turning into a zoo of mounts standing in the streets, which doesn’t look very nice.
You could place a stable at the entrance of the city. If players leave their mounts there, first, the mount will heal quickly if it has low health. Second, it will receive a speed bonus while staying in the stable.
When leaving the city, the mount will gain an additional percentage increase in speed.
You could place a stable at the entrance of the city. If players leave their mounts there, first, the mount will heal quickly if it has low health. Second, it will receive a speed bonus while staying in the stable.
When leaving the city, the mount will gain an additional percentage increase in speed.
Vasorion
1
Re: Cleric Heals and Gear
So lets talk spells for cleric.
it is nice to have a good mix of Damage and Healing however cleric's should have more healing skills available then DPS generally. I would like to see more healing skills to be available. Like more AOE heals / Multi-target.
Some recommendations (Using Log Horizon or Final Fantasy as a Point of Ref):
1. Reactive Heal - This would be a heal that is applied by the caster to the target and when damage is received applies x healing.
2. Reactive Heal Wide - This is the AOE version of the above.
3. Aurora Heal - This is a heal that has a massive range for a raid group.
4. Angel's Feather's - This is both a Heal AOE and a Damage AOE.
and the list goes on
it is nice to have a good mix of Damage and Healing however cleric's should have more healing skills available then DPS generally. I would like to see more healing skills to be available. Like more AOE heals / Multi-target.
Some recommendations (Using Log Horizon or Final Fantasy as a Point of Ref):
1. Reactive Heal - This would be a heal that is applied by the caster to the target and when damage is received applies x healing.
2. Reactive Heal Wide - This is the AOE version of the above.
3. Aurora Heal - This is a heal that has a massive range for a raid group.
4. Angel's Feather's - This is both a Heal AOE and a Damage AOE.
and the list goes on
Re: Guild war system - suggestion
goodsolonius wrote: »I think a feature to allow permanent wars with 1 "rival" guild would be very good.
There is such a bug in the current version, and two very competitive guilds on the Vyra server have been locked in a permanent war for months.
It has created many moments of emergent gameplay for players on both sides, and I believe that not having such a system in place and further refined for phase 3 would be a great loss. We're all going to miss this content.
I'm sure that a permanent war, with certain anti-griefing measures ironed into it, would be a great addition to the robust PvP content in this game.
I think a permanent rival system between two guilds could coexist with that philosophy if designed carefully. It wouldn’t need to be endless open PvP everywhere but rather a formal declaration, limited to one rival guild, with clear conditions, anti-griefing rules, and maybe some incentives tied to node politics or reputation.
The emergent gameplay that comes from long-term rivalries adds a lot of life to the world. Structured systems are great, but sometimes ongoing tension and rivalry create the best stories and content without needing constant objectives or timers.
REHOC
2
Re: 🌼👋 Dev Discussion: Gatherable Spawning System
+1 to ~95% of the things said by previous posters. Excellent points by all.
Personally, I would like to say that press "F" to mine rock has been a tremendous experience for me. So I don't really care for adding the gathering minigames to this already riveting process. But not opposed to it either as long as it's something meaningful. I don't want there to be skill checks, as I feel the role of a "check" should be fulfilled by your gear.
I like the suggestion to make it so that each swing with your gathering tool extracts a portion of a resource in the node. Maybe make it for only certain professions like mining and herbalism, to give a different feel to them.
I like that I can tell what a resource is from a distance. I think that creating too much obfucsation there would take away agency from me as a player in deciding which resources I want to gather vs what I choose to skip.
I like the bag system. I like that there is that need to choose between gathering everything in your path but having to make frequent trips back to town as a result vs going out on longer trips to gather a lot of a particular resource but leaving other valuable stuff behind. But I think it could use some iteration because having 2-5 rare+ materials each occupy an entire slot in your bag just feels bad.
I like that there is a system where I can turn in the common resources in bulk in exchange for rewards from the node. It keeps harvesting the more common resources relevant.
I dislike the way artisan gear currently works. If you are gathering resources from different professions on the same trip (e.g. mining and herbalism) then you have to reequip your gear each time you switch between a type of resource you are gathering.
Either:
- Make it so you can wear all artisan gear simultaneously, just like you already can with artisan tools.
Or
- Make it so you can't change your artisan gear at all while you're out on a gathering trip. Thus forcing players to pick the right "fit" for the task they are about to embark on.
But having to min/max by constantly re-equipping your artisan gear is just annoying.
Personally, I would like to say that press "F" to mine rock has been a tremendous experience for me. So I don't really care for adding the gathering minigames to this already riveting process. But not opposed to it either as long as it's something meaningful. I don't want there to be skill checks, as I feel the role of a "check" should be fulfilled by your gear.
I like the suggestion to make it so that each swing with your gathering tool extracts a portion of a resource in the node. Maybe make it for only certain professions like mining and herbalism, to give a different feel to them.
I like that I can tell what a resource is from a distance. I think that creating too much obfucsation there would take away agency from me as a player in deciding which resources I want to gather vs what I choose to skip.
I like the bag system. I like that there is that need to choose between gathering everything in your path but having to make frequent trips back to town as a result vs going out on longer trips to gather a lot of a particular resource but leaving other valuable stuff behind. But I think it could use some iteration because having 2-5 rare+ materials each occupy an entire slot in your bag just feels bad.
I like that there is a system where I can turn in the common resources in bulk in exchange for rewards from the node. It keeps harvesting the more common resources relevant.
I dislike the way artisan gear currently works. If you are gathering resources from different professions on the same trip (e.g. mining and herbalism) then you have to reequip your gear each time you switch between a type of resource you are gathering.
Either:
- Make it so you can wear all artisan gear simultaneously, just like you already can with artisan tools.
Or
- Make it so you can't change your artisan gear at all while you're out on a gathering trip. Thus forcing players to pick the right "fit" for the task they are about to embark on.
But having to min/max by constantly re-equipping your artisan gear is just annoying.
