RNG progression or no?

ArchivedUser

i personally really dislike RNG pregression, everything about it.

You invest a lots of time and energy, and try to upgrade something and then *poof* RNG fail, all your hours of effort wasted, like you didn't do anything at all.

I personally preffer system of progression based on effort, and RNG can be included only to a small extent for loot drops, and perhaps when you upgrade an item, RNG can say will it upgrade by 10% or 12%, something small like that, but not to fail all togeather.

How would you like progress systems to be in Ashes?

ArchivedUser

For me, it's very little RNG, or no RNG at all. Both as viable options.

I wish effort to always be rewarded, and not depend on RNG.

ArchivedUser

If upgrades cannot fail, that is not RNG.

Upgrades should have a chance to fail, in my opinion, but gear destruction on enchantment fails is just demotivating.

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

Yes I know. But as forums are place to get players feedback on dev decisions, this is one such thread to collect players feedback.

Feedback is something that potentially can lead devs to tweak mechanics they have planned out.

ArchivedUser

I dont mind a dual system
Skill based and tuned items.
RNG based overcharge 'greed' system.
You get greedy you should be punished.
The greater the greed, the greater the punishment should be if you fail.

Risk vs Reward.
I see it as an opportuity for everyone to laugh at the tears of the wrecklace.
But no one will be wrecklace with no chance of reward.

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

Kinda makes this poll nonessential I would think.

ArchivedUser

No RNG at all: In this case, everyone will end up having same gear and same everything in the end. No fun to keep trying?

A little bit of RNG wouldn't hurt anybody. Even though people hate it, people are also dying to click their +14 weapons to make it +15. RNG is one of the ways to add fun and excitement elements into the game. Obviously, players will complain when it's too much so i trust Intrepid on finding the balance.

ArchivedUser

CylverRayne said:

UnknownSystemError said:

Kinda makes this poll nonessential I would think.

If you look at it like that then it makes all the polls in all forums nonessential. Including your own opinions and feedback.

Enough said. Now stop being toxic towards particular posters and subjects (btw. toxicity comes in various degrees, from mild to strong, and as long you are targeting particular posters in any subject they post because you personally dislike them or their opinions, you are being toxic).

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

CylverRayne said:

UnknownSystemError said:

Kinda makes this poll nonessential I would think.

If you look at it like that then it makes all the polls in all forums nonessential. Including your own opinions and feedback.

Enough said. Now stop being toxic towards particular posters and subjects (btw. toxicity comes in various degrees, from mild to strong, and as long you are targeting particular posters in any subject they post because you personally dislike them or their opinions, you are being toxic).

How is this statement being toxic?   Also, you seem to be targeting me on many posts.
What does that say about you?   Opinions do differ and yet you seem to only hold yours as gospel?   Do you have an inferiority complex  or something?   Or are you a stalker?

ArchivedUser

Chill, guys. There is no harm in discussing and giving feedback even on 'already decided' matters. Just like how the devs decided to add that minigame on combat but a lot of people are discussing it, it's the same stuff. Feedback wouldn't harm anyone 

ArchivedUser

I need a Medium / High gap option. I believe they should be able to fail, downgrade or have critical success. I do not support Critical failure such as was seen in ArcheAge and the weapon goes "poof".

ArchivedUser

I have never been a fan of RNG, if you put the effort to go out and make collect something or save up to buy something and it should work plain and simple. Nothing more demoralizing then going out to collect to come back and craft and have it fail then have to do it all over again.

http://aocwiki.net/Main_Page  -Comprehensive guide to Ashes of Creation.

http://imperiumaoc.com/ -Ashes of Creation Guild.

ArchivedUser

Feedback can only happen when you've tested the systems. Other than that you're just giving suggestions on how you would prefer things. There is a distinction. All we can do right now is give suggestions as the vast majority of us have never even touched the game. I don't think Intrepid really cares for sugestions when it comes to their ideas because Steven seems to know pretty well what he wants to do. I think he just wants feedback on whether or not their ideas work as intended in game or if they are fun to play.

I personally think over enchanting should have a chance to fail as magic can be a finicky thing. But I think allowing gear to be destroyed would be to demotivating for the majority of people.

ArchivedUser

I'd prefer a system, where RNG is avoidable, but less rewarding. I am a fan of Risk and Reward, but I think Risk should be limited (not totally erased) by effort. I am not a fan of progression being halted by your luck.

ArchivedUser

Zastro said:

I don't think Intrepid really cares for sugestions when it comes to their ideas 

I disagree. Every smart developer cares about players suggestions.
And IS seem like smart developers to me.

Ofc. they will not go and change the system when 1 player asks for something, but if "enough" players suggest something, and it is obvious that many players agree on this I am quite certain IS would tweak mechanics a bit here and there.

And as good as IS devs are, it's also the fact they are only humans, and certainly an idea can pop from player here and there that they haven't considered yet. So players suggestions can certainly make an effect on occasion.

ArchivedUser

Tweaking mechanics and changing systems are completely different. There is a fine line between them that should only be crossed if the developers themselves don't like how the system turned out. Our place should be to help make the systems they want to build be built in the best way possible. Because ultimately, this is Steven's vision. Steven's dream game. More than likely we won't always agree with him, but I am certainly not going to rob him of his dream, even if something else would be more popular amoung the community. I will let him make his dream game and if I find it something I enjoy as well, I will play it, if not, then I won't play it.

ArchivedUser

Zastro said:

Tweaking mechanics and changing systems are completely different. There is a fine line between them that should only be crossed if the developers themselves don't like how the system turned out. Our place should be to help make the systems they want to build be built in the best way possible. Because ultimately, this is Steven's vision. Steven's dream game. More than likely we won't always agree with him, but I am certainly not going to rob him of his dream, even if something else would be more popular amoung the community. I will let him make his dream game and if I find it something I enjoy as well, I will play it, if not, then I won't play it.

But I bet part of the dream is also to have a large and satisfied community. And that is a reason he also cares about players opinions and suggestions.

ArchivedUser

Accommodating the community is one thing. Scrapping his own vision and replacing it with something completely different and diametrically opposed to his own ideals is something else entirely.

ArchivedUser

Rune_Relic said:

Accommodating the community is one thing. Scrapping his own vision and replacing it with something completely different and diametrically opposed to his own ideals is something else entirely.

^^^

ArchivedUser

Rune_Relic said:

Accommodating the community is one thing. Scrapping his own vision and replacing it with something completely different and diametrically opposed to his own ideals is something else entirely.

To call a slight tweaks "something completely different and diametrically oposed"... well, ok I will comment nothing on this...

ArchivedUser

You always say "Ok, I won't comment on this", yet you said this over 10 times over the course of 3 days already.

You seem very angry with anyone that has a different opinion than yours. A poll isn't a dictatorship. Don't start a poll if you can't take opinions.

ArchivedUser

FliP said:

You always say "Ok, I won't comment on this", yet you said this over 10 times over the course of 3 days already.

You seem very angry with anyone that has a different opinion than yours. A poll isn't a dictatorship. Don't start a poll if you can't take opinions.

1. I'm not angry at all, I'm simply commenting my thoughts.
2. Hearing other players opinions does not mean I can't comment on them and disagree.
3. "Ok, I won't comment on this" means I won't go in "specifics" trying to explain why I think someones comment was non sense, because I believe for most people this will be obvious.
4. If you are not clear on anything more, please feel free to ask. The forums allow anyone to comment and offer their own opinions.

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

Rune_Relic said:

Accommodating the community is one thing. Scrapping his own vision and replacing it with something completely different and diametrically opposed to his own ideals is something else entirely.

To call a slight tweaks "something completely different and diametrically oposed"... well, ok I will comment nothing on this...

I'm not sure where you got "slight tweaks" from. I am pretty sure he was referencing "changing systems". He was saying that Intrepid shouldn't completely change parts of Steven's vision for the game just to accommodate the community or parts of the community.

ArchivedUser

Medium seems like a good balance. Usually, with the upgrades can't go backwards system, you lose a bit of money already if the upgrade fails, you don't need the humiliation of losing your item on top of that.
Also, being lucky once in a while can add to the fun.

ArchivedUser

If this becomes another fantasy online casino, why would I bother to invest time in it rather than WoW, ESO, or any of the other ones I already have?

So yeah, I hope it doesn't, because that's the primary reason I'm eagerly anticipating Ashes; Meaningful gameplay rather than tedium "progression" aka "the crap I have to grind through to get to endgame".  Hopefully the endgame is apparent early on and isn't some far off thing in the distance I can never catch, with an auto-gambler bottlenecking me the whole way.

ArchivedUser

CylverRayne said:

UnknownSystemError said:

Kinda makes this poll nonessential I would think.

an absolute maybe
plausibly a possibility

ArchivedUser

Hate RNG. It gives low lvl players chance to be closer to high lvl players only because of luck. It's disgusting.