Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
It'll be hard to notice who's the weaker enemies due to you not being able to really tell their health %
Yeah. That is part of it, but not the complete story.
Plenty of scenarios where health bars are moving up and down, and you need a real fix on which target is more worth your time. Especially in group world PvP.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I'm hoping that some of this gets overhauled though alpha feed back though. In large scale PvP I think it's important to be able to know what's a good target to go for without having to keep your mouse hovered over targets.
Mages having to hover over everyone just to see who's wearing plate vs cloth isn't my idea of a fun experience.
How to do hover over people when you're trying to use an action combat skill?
You can have a scout secretly collecting information and distributing it for a planned attack.
Two armies or groups just staring at each other in anticipation for a fight will have time to build up their knowledge base for a more educated, strategic encounter.
Two groups that stumble upon each other and immediately clash swords wouldn't have time to gather this information, so it shouldn't be as readily available. You'll figure it out once they start using their skills.
Same goes for the group/ individual that gets ambushed.
It may be bothersome, but I believe this method makes sense.
I can see why it would be necessary for a character's level to be available upon inspection. I have to imagine in a real world scenario, there would be visible indicators of skill and experience including musculature, body language, the way they walk or talk, an aura of confidence. The characters level makes up for the games inability to display these indicators that may have someone second guessing their decision.
I would say I regards to having to hover over people to see what armour they have, that will likely be changedif it becomes an issue. It wouldn't be that hard to add in a indicator on the UI to show what your current targets armour type is.
Regardless this is one of the issues which can be solved with extensive testing.
I did not say no health bars. I said I don't like that everyone can see the numbers on the health bars. Seeing the health bar move is a partial indicator of how squishy they are relative to you.
You can also kind of tell if someone is squishy based on what moves that are using. What weapon they have in their hand. You can try to deduce parts of their build by seeing what they do. Combat experience is key to all of this.
I just have a preference for less information.
[quote="Biccus;c-282912"
How to do hover over people when you're trying to use an action combat skill?[/quote]
Very quickly? LOL
You can get that through how people move and play.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Yes, if your home is attacked by monsters you most likely want to defend it and hopefully you can put your differences aside to do so. If you don’t want to share a home with your opponent then leave. No one is forcing you to stay. There is no contradiction here.
I see now what you’re referring to regarding information being withheld. Still, that is no way contradicting anything.
Nitpicking on classes being changed and how the lore doesn’t 100% make sense can barely be considered a contradiction. They’re just letting the lore take a quick backseat for the sake of gameplay. That’s very common in games. You’re really reaching with this one.
Once again PvE content being put into a PvP environment is a clear design decision that many open world PvP sandbox games share. That is simply not a contradiction.
You really are confusing yourself and letting your bias affect you here. These aren’t contradictions. They’re just things you don’t like.
I know you didn't but my point is there are no health bars to look at, just nameplates that deteriorate through damage. Also moves aren't that reliable when everyone can wear any armour and hide it behind a cosmetic.
I'm open to less information but I would like to have an idea on how to approach the enemy that I'm coming up against. As an example I'll go back to being the mage. I want to target the enemy who's wearing plate gear. Currently, with cosmetics there could be literally no way to know that without hovering over the enemy 1 at a time.
Check out last months PvP video. There is clearly a health bar for the target. It is in the top center of the screen. What I have not seen is floating HP bars above characters heads. Which is not something I am against. It is a visual indicator of how hurt someone is. I have no problem with that.
If it bleeds we can kill it...
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Done and yes, it does look that way! But same time it also doesn't show info on their class/armour which is definitely not good to see. I'll have to assume that's just not implemented yet. Clearly combat interface is very much not finished..
To be fair the game hasn't been in true full development for more than 3 years. That first year they had a very small team and it felt like they were mostly just laying out some of the basics of the game. I wouldn't be surprised if we are a good 2 years from release. Games like WoW were in development for 5 years and that was a much older game.
Perhaps I didn't word my point well enough, but Albion is not a game with hard class choices.
Ashes is.
As such, the two shouldn't really be in the same discussion in regards to the trinity setup, just as WoW shouldnt be in the same conversation as AoC.
From what I have seen of Albion, the tanks in that game are more about crowd control than actual tanking anyway.
While many games put PvE content in PvP enabled areas, those games dont talk about how they will have top end PvE content that has progression built in to it. Steven has said he wants that for Ashes, and that is where the contradiction is.
It isn't just having PvE content in a PvP area,and I never said it was. It is about the desire to have top endive contention a PvP area - something to game has ever done. Yes, people like to cite Wildstar and Tera, that PvE content is not top end.
It is PvE content for PvP players.
It straight up is contradiction to think you can havetopend PvE contention a PvP enabled area. You may disagree,but that just speaks to your opinion of whattopend PvE content is.
If you want to watch how I am right, you will notice that Steven is alowing talking aboutinstanced content. He said they will instance it if they see a need, and one potential need is to limit the number of people present,and preserve the difficulty integrity of the content (ie, no PvP, among other things).
That is how they are going to deal with this contradiction- instance a good amount if the top end content. The fact that they are going to do this doesn't mean it is not a contradiction, as the contradiction was about the fact that any top end content will have to he instanced in a game that is focusing on open world.
If you want to keep arguing this, you know I'm up for it. My suggestion though is to sit back and watch as they start talking about PvE content (likely not until next year), and we see that most of the harder encounters are indeed instanced.
Top end PvE content is a very subjective thing. It can mean one thing to you, one thing to me, and another to Steven. It is no way a contradiction. Also, it's very clear that they do not plan to have WoW's M+ or raid level of PvE design. That was clear from the very beginning.
Slowly your many contradictions have been reduced to this top PvE content argument which is clearly very subjective and in no way a contradiction.
I'm really sorry, but all your "contradictions" are just things you don't like about the game.
Ashes most certainly does not have "Hard Classes".
To me the most prime example of "Hard classes" is FFXIV. There is in fact zero customization outside of what materia you socket. You play the class how the game tells you or you don't play very well at all. That is a example of hard classes.
In Ashes things are not so set in stone. If you want to sword and board as a bard, that is on you. Nothing stopping you from trying to be a tanky bard. Not what I would consider hard classes.
When to comes to your outlook on the holy trinity and PvP... It just depends on the game. You can't just sit back and say "This is how it is in PvP" when PvP is so different if every game. It just comes of as a prospective that is informed by a limited amount of PvP experience.
No doubt, if they want every role in the holy trinity to have its place in PvP. They will figure it out.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Steven has said that every tank/* class will be able to tank top end content.
This means that if any tank/* class is also able to be a DPS or some such easily soloed class, the notion of subclass individuality is kind of out the window - at least in relation to tank classes.
Will a tank/* player be able to spec for more DPS than a pure tank build? Most likely yes.
Will that spec still be mostly a tank? Most likely yes.
Just because a given player hasn't seen actual top end PvE and so thinks mid-range is actually top end, that does mean they are right, it just means they aren't well informed on the topic.
I mean, if someone recites Pi to the hundredth character, if they haven't seen it recited further they may well think that is impressive.
It isn't.
AoC's design is not full of contradictions like you had initially stated. Have a good one.
I ain't sayin it ain't...
From the wiki:
There will be "boobie sliders".
The scale is not going to be ridiculous.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
It does have many contradictions, the fact that you can't see them doesn't change this fact.
If you are familiar with WoW raids, you would know that attempting an encounter like Uu'Nat (one of the few raid bosses in WoW I have any respect for) in an open PvP situation would be literally impossible. One player getting to your raid during an attempt will end that attempt - this makes 1
Since that encounter is where I draw the line of top end PvE starting, so if encounter along those lines are not possible, Ashes can not have a top end PvE game.
Now, I'm going to assume you are familiar with the encounter above, and I am going to assume you agree on how futile it would be trying to take it on when others are able to attack you at will.
So, if such an encounter cant be in an open world PvP situation, and if such an encounter is the starting point of top end raiding, this means that a game either cant have top end raid content, or can have top end raid content in instances, or it can have not topend content in an open world setting.
These are the three viable options.
Intrepid have said they want top end raid content - and they absolutely have the developers on staff to make it.
They have also said they want to focus on open world content.
If you cant see the contradiction there, I cant help you.
That being said, I hope the outcomes of Ashe`s sandbox elements result in sufficient engagement, achievements /accomplishments and ensure player retention and a vibrant and long lived MMO and does not turn into the banal exchange of territory like ESO`s cyrodiil did and/or disenchantment from losing gains through pvp, territory wars akin to full loot games.
the game looks good so far. The recent update was a pleasant surprise with the combat, graphics, & server load. My hope is that this game is the MMO that really gets me to play more socially, instead of the solo stuff I usually go for.
U.S. East
If the nodes are done right (e.g. a strong guild or alliance of smaller guilds making a push in a node makes a noticable impact), then I could see strong community development.
Making guilds highly rewarding is exciting to me. I don't want these to be optional clubs, but really something that is rewarding on multipe levels (e.g. it isn't in any game to my knowledge, but I'd love to see legendary weapons/armor earned and owned by the guild, not as much by individuals. The guild then loans them out for x days to the players).
Guild owned castles sound really exciting. Especially with the temporary mounts that can be used in combat (these mounts are in a way like a guild owned legendary weapon). I would expand this further and put in towers that can be claimed and fought over by guilds at a smaller scale (and perhaps each node dynamically spawn a certain number of towers depending on their size?) Towers could give buffs to the guild that owns them. They could be a good opportunity for smaller scale siege battles. Perhaps something that can only be attacked durring prime time hours for the server every other day so they can change hands frequently?
I like the idea if having a game that will have meaningful/fun content that is both world based and instance based. I think the ultimate MMO needs both and a variety of "end game" meaningful options.
I worry about a lot of the other aspects of the game.
The risk vs reward seems to be too high on the risk side and not as much on the reward side. This doesn't mean I'm a casual or a hard core player (I've been both over the years). Rather, I'd prefer to be challenged and rewarded for that challenge. Going out and doing some questing solo is risky, but it isn't hard. You either getting lucky and get the stuff done or you get steamrolled by some gankers and lose stuff....
The aversion to quality of life features is a bit concerning. Yes features that destroy community (e.g. raidfinder) should be avoided. However a well designed groupfinder can bring people together by connecting those with similar interests (but in a way that requires choice/collaboration in the formation of the group, not mindless auto-matching). I've made hundreds of friend online and met a few great guilds through WoW's groupfinder for premade groups. I've made zero through their raidfinder or guild recruiting tools. When there is not a good/balanced groupfinder tool, then people resort to chat channels/websites to make the connections and those are suboptimal to the community experience.
LImiting the roles your class can do is not good design IMO. (We tend to see a lack of tanks/healers to DPS ratio in MMOs and this can get worse when there is not the ability to swap between roles on a single character. This leads to a community where tanks/healers get elitist attitudes and DPS are disposable. I like to do all three roles and fill in where thr group needs me. I don't want to be locked in or "not viable" because all the hybrids are suboptimal).
@Noaani is spot on with the idea that you cannot have the most challenging PvE content be open world. If it is, you either zerg it too reduce difficulty or PvP messes it up (increasing difficulty by the number of people in proximity doesn't work either because people will show up and not contribute). I have no problem with some high end world bosses, but they have never been as difficult as instanced content can be. I think instanced content is fine for the high end so long as there is still a lot of fun/good reason to get out in the world. (The node system unlocking this content is interesting).
I do think there is a place for PvEvP combat and this is what AoC needs to master. WoW never mastered this (but they could have if they iterated better on pvp Island expeditions by making it 5v5 and putting in a ladder system. Sadly they just made it a gimmick system for a single expansion that didn't really match up players to similar levels of expertise or provide the motivation for the pvp).
I do hope that high end raiding won't be "required" to get the best gear. There can be multiple forms of challenging content and should be multiple ways to achieve a strong/competitive character.
@Noaani's definition of trinity is off. Current WoW is 100% a trinity game, you can literally play only one of the roles at a time and all of the high end content requires all three roles (often with a specific amount for each). However you can switch between roles outside of combat (which is a good quality of life thing... the game gets boring when you can't switch up your role. This doesn't degrade the game experience at all and greatly enhances it for hard-core and casual players as it adds more depth to gameplay on a single character).
Tanks in PvP can be tricky, but they can be done. I think DAoC did a better job at this than WoW. In WoW they are primarily gimmicky with flag carry/base spinning... not the right way IMO (I've played every role in WoW pvp). A well setup tank in PvP has tools to protect teammates (absorb/block hits, leaps/pulls that can be used on allies or enemies, etc. Maybe make the taunt ability cause the player target to not be able to target/damage any other enemies except the tank for x seconds?). The utility makes up for the reduced damage and is in alignment of the theme of a tank protecting the rest of the group. I'd avoid giving too much CC to tanks in PvP though as that can just get annoying.
There probably needs some more variety in tanking and healing options. Only one archetype that can tank and two that can heal seems like a miss. I think WoW did it right with all classes having at least one dps option, more than half having at least a tank/healing option, and some having all three. The requirement to switch between roles outside of combat makes the hybrid role work. Having a class just be hybrid all the time either makes it overpowered compared to other classes or subpar by necessity.
The summoner might be the go hybrid that can spam multipe roles that I'm looking for, but my guess is it will just do all roles sub-optimally because it's the only hybrid I see. Otherwise it will be too "overpowered" compared to other roles. Maybe the summoning of the pets is like the switching between specs in WoW to help ensure there can be proper balance?
There are multipe areas where I am still uncertain.
Combat is in a state of flux and not all the classes are done yet. Combat + class is the vehicle you use to explore the world. These have to be done very well or it doesn't really matter how nice any of the other game systems are.
Some of the character visuals look nice and some are off. The hair looks great. Helmets look too small though. Some of the animations are off a bit.... I'm not too worried about these things as it's alpha though. I do like the shiny armor and the weapon size looks about right (for low level items, I expect we may see some cool over the top stuff later on). Some of the shields look especially awesome.
I'm not sure yet on the corruption system. WoW nailed this issue really well with how they did war mode, but I don't think that concept works here (as this game is not faction vs faction, which is good). World pvp is more central to this game (and personally I'm the type of player with Warmode on 99% of the time in WoW, but I have many friends who don't like warmode). I can live with some minor losses with death, but I think major losses will turn away a lot of the casual players/discourage solo farming too much. I also worry that corruption might discourage the fun that is had when 2 players go one-on-one a few times. When someone ganks me I want to get them back, but if I'm at a disadvantage because I just lost some player power, I'm probably going to run off and get that power back instead (risk is too high vs reward). Corruption might be best if it only kicks in after initiating combat + killing the same person 3+ times. This gives the chance for a couple of matches vs the same player but prevents corpse camping (and of course no penalties if you are not the person that initiated the fight. Defending yourself should always be viable). Maybe if a player has been killed multiple times recently by other players (where they did not initiate the combat) they temporarily get flagged to cause corruption more quickly if ganked. This way other players are less likely to gank them.
The caravan system sound interesting and a bit risky/ambitious/innovative. It feel like they could lead to some fun world pvp, but they seem to put a lot of strain on the world logistics (i.e. lots of tradeoffs to travel options that introduce inconveniences for this feature to work per current design). I hope they pay off as intended, but could be a major flop. The caravan system could potentially be a good system if a player "bought" the caravan to initiate the event rather than putting their resources in it. You could probably still get a lot of the desired gameplay aspects without the downsides of the logistical hassles of minimizing fast travel, mailing resources, etc.
I look forward to learning more about the sea combat. I actually just started playing sea of thieves about a week ago and it's way better than I though it was going to be. Steven's passion in this area has me optimistic (consider your bar to be this game and I'd encourage everyone to give it a try. I don't think it will have the longevity of a MMO, but it's a great distraction while you wait for AoC).
I'm not sure how I'll feel about the exclusivity of non-combat flying mounts. Mount collecting can be more fun than gearing up or transmog collecting. I always hate it when WoW releases a new zone and you can't fly, but it's so rewarding when you can later on. I'm not sure if I'll like how it's done in this game, but I get the need to limit speed due to the caravan system and to minimize zergging world content. I'll probably miss the convenience of fast travel, but also understand the need behind this (I think summoning should be limited through cooldowns, not a family system). I think it'd good to be able to move quickly from point A to B with a mount, but a good game will give me lots of fun distractions on the way. GW2 did some of this well with dynamic world events.