That is what people mean when they say a game 'does not respect their time'.
But in the case of a completely safe upgrade, what would be the "respectful" length of time required for said upgrade? Would it be 1h or 20? Cause I feel like it's usually 20, or every achievement is instead super easy and fast which is its own problem.
And if it's closer to 20 for everyone, then you're fucking over all the people who can't spend that time for an upgrade (especially if it's extra content and not a necessary one). So imo having a range for those things is fairer.
Now you could say that the game could have some skill-dependent range of time instead of pure rng, but this too would cut off a part of the playerbase who don't have that amount of skill or the time to acquire it.
Obviously this opinion comes from a person who's super used to rng mechanics in their game, but I think it's important to have a different outlook in such discussions
I have not and never will actually advocate for a completely safe upgrade relative to getting exactly what the player wants across the whole item, in an Enhancing/Enchanting system.
My suggestion is entirely based on 'always get something, you can use it anyway, trade or sell the something to someone who is more suited to it, or you can spend the money, junk the 'failure' and do more stuff'.
That retains MOST of what you seem to enjoy while offering more agency than just 'well sucks to be you I got mine'. If I want Ice Resist gear and my Enchantment turns out to be Wind Resist, I can offer it to someone who wanted Wind Resist on the same gear (social), go out there looking for Wind using enemies to grind on for a new experience to get my money back and maybe find out that I like fighting them too/better (experiential) or continue trying the content I needed the Ice Resist for and hope I improve since my new stat is useless but I can keep improving (tenacity).
Any 'heavy item damage equivalent to destruction or destruction itself' system gives me only one of those options. It's the same thing I do now.
Step 1. Never enchant.
Step 2. Continue trying the content without the Ice Resist.
So here's the issue as the 'selfish person', let's assume I'm having a VERY toxic day. I go for my Ice Resist enchant right next to my 'rival'.
They get it first try. I get Wind Resist. I go 'aww FUCK her and her RNG'. Mostly because she's a terrible person who lords it over me and taunts me about it... yeah...
Then I go "I'm not spending 20x what she did, I'll go find some Wind using enemies to fight so I can keep up with her RNG-carried BS. Sheesh'.
OR it goes the other way. I get it first try, she doesn't. Now our cool rivalry is 'broken by RNG' until she can farm maybe 20x more. But I'd also farm 20x more. This just has to happen (or roughly happen) 3x in a row, and now I've lost a rival IF my Rival is a dumbass and doesn't take their 'failure' (-20% Damage Taken Under X Status) and figure out how to turn that into a strength so they can 'keep up'.
But I'm okay with THAT because that's them not seeing an opportunity. That's their failing. In a straight OE system, the only thing they 'failed at' was maybe 'not being cautious enough' or 'not being bold enough' and you know... you can't tell which beforehand anyway.
The people who can't spend 20h on an upgrade should be able to take whatever they GET and go on a new adventure to make what they GET useful. That's the goal of my suggestion.
That is what people mean when they say a game 'does not respect their time'.
But in the case of a completely safe upgrade, what would be the "respectful" length of time required for said upgrade? Would it be 1h or 20? Cause I feel like it's usually 20, or every achievement is instead super easy and fast which is its own problem.
And if it's closer to 20 for everyone, then you're fucking over all the people who can't spend that time for an upgrade (especially if it's extra content and not a necessary one). So imo having a range for those things is fairer.
Now you could say that the game could have some skill-dependent range of time instead of pure rng, but this too would cut off a part of the playerbase who don't have that amount of skill or the time to acquire it.
Obviously this opinion comes from a person who's super used to rng mechanics in their game, but I think it's important to have a different outlook in such discussions
I literately made a whole giant post on this with page 10 and can make it as long a grind or short as the developers would want to adjust their numbers. It is a full enhancement system and it uses a bit of reverse psychology in an attempt to reduce the negative memory.
That is what people mean when they say a game 'does not respect their time'.
Its a video game... i dont think gear destruction on enchanting. A decision you make as a player. Can mean your time was disrespected. (Within reason) like if you can play 95% of the game without needing a perfect OE weapon. Then its your decision how much you want to invest in making it that last 5%
Again i think alot of this is a very "solo player perspective" if you want a maxed out sword, and you dont want to spend your time trying to enchant it and it failing..... grind gold.... and buy one.... from a guild or something.... and then boom. Go play your game.
if you spend 6 months grinding, 27 hours a week (trying to not make it super high but a decent rate so about 4 hours a day) over 6 months. Which is 648 hours, and you end up with 0 or less gear. You will 100% feel your time has been disrespected over the months of time you have been playing and not getting any kind of progression. I won't even say that is the most extreme case, i feel those hours are low balled for a hardcore players for end game.
I've spent plenty of hours and i defiantly know the feeling of complete time and disrespect. It is one of the most disgusting things and it changes peoples mind sets in the worst of ways.
The people who can't spend 20h on an upgrade should be able to take whatever they GET and go on a new adventure to make what they GET useful. That's the goal of my suggestion.
What if the higher the OE step you failed on, the more resources you'd get back through the destruction system? So that you could either sell them or trade them to the people who need it to craft that same gear, or you could just use them to recraft the gear itself with only a 1-2h investment on top of what you've already done. It was kinda this way in L2, because failed OE gave you crystals that were used in a ton of crafting recipes, so you'd recoup at least some of your investment (though not too much, but that could be rebalanced however Intrepid wants).
I literately made a whole giant post on this with page 10 and can make it as long a grind or short as the developers would want to adjust their numbers. It is a full enhancement system and it uses a bit of reverse psychology in an attempt to reduce the negative memory.
Yes, I know your suggestions. I've made some of my own too and I know full well that the system can be completely changed by Intrepid if they feel like. What I'm trying to do is to justify the currently discussed system. And I know that you hate it with a passion and that's a totally valid opinion.
The people who can't spend 20h on an upgrade should be able to take whatever they GET and go on a new adventure to make what they GET useful. That's the goal of my suggestion.
What if the higher the OE step you failed on, the more resources you'd get back through the destruction system? So that you could either sell them or trade them to the people who need it to craft that same gear, or you could just use them to recraft the gear itself with only a 1-2h investment on top of what you've already done. It was kinda this way in L2, because failed OE gave you crystals that were used in a ton of crafting recipes, so you'd recoup at least some of your investment (though not too much, but that could be rebalanced however Intrepid wants).
I cannot say that this is flawed, exactly, I can only say that I consider it an inferior system. So I feel we're at a point where the discussion stalls. I give reasons why I don't think the solution you are on the side of is good ENOUGH and give reasons why I think the one I suggested achieves more positive things for players.
If your aim is to figure out 'is there a way to use a system other than mine, closer to the one you are defending', you haven't convinced me yet, and I can explain why if you consider it worth the time (tl;dr it achieves the same goals but weaker so why do it?)
If your aim is to 'defend that system' as a general matter, I don't have much more interest in engaging on it because:
You reached the point in the discussion where a stance you took boiled down to 'Well some people might not have the time to play so we should continue to reward players randomly instead', which I consider abhorrent (not you, nor you holding the stance, the stance itself).
What is it relying on? That the RNG will 'cripple' all the hardcore-time players and benefit all the casual-time ones? No, that won't happen. It will be random, it will cause some hardcore-time players to suffer despite their efforts and cause some casual-time players to literally never have any chance whatsoever (when choosing to interact with this system).
My verdict would remain: Never interact with this system.
I would rather have hard to find resources for high enchants than any element of RNG. Especially if a player is offering this as a service. Imagine paying a player to break your gear, no, not fun.
Much better to just make enchant resources scarce/expensive.
Could even make enchants decay over time so they need to be topped up, this way the demand for the resources offers something to farm for those sweaty powerfarmers.
Edit: if players can enchant for other player's, unlocking the ability to carry out a high level enchant should be a feat in itself e.g. charge a frost enchant scroll in the breath of a frost dragon. If both learning how to do the enchantment and the resources taken to carry out the enchantment are hard to accomplish, there is no need for RNG.
I would rather have hard to find resources for high enchants than any element of RNG. Especially if a player is offering this as a service. Imagine paying a player to break your gear, no, not fun.
Much better to just make enchant resources scarce/expensive.
Could even make enchants decay over time so they need to be topped up, this way the demand for the resources offers something to farm for those sweaty powerfarmers.
Edit: if players can enchant for other player's, unlocking the ability to carry out a high level enchant should be a feat in itself e.g. charge a frost enchant scroll in the breath of a frost dragon. If both learning how to do the enchantment and the resources taken to carry out the enchantment are hard to accomplish, there is no need for RNG.
Actually a great idea of enchantments getting weaker over time. Maybe not in a way that it works like that as a whole but it could be one of the risk that come up as a negative.
Well apparently there is no reason for argument to begin with. The wiki says weapon will always be repairable, even after enchantment distruction. Any "destroyed" weapon in ashes just isnt equiptable, and will be an item sink to repair
"There is durability in the game... It's not going to be a trivial durability. There is a potential to destroy gear (weapons and armor), but there is also an ability to reforge that destroyed gear using a portion of the materials necessary as well as finding an item creator who can reforge it.[2] – Steven Sharif"
The real question is if reforging the item causes the enchantment level to reset or not. Or delevel. If it resets or de-levels, it's a bullshit system that I don't want in Ashes. If the enchantment level stays as is after the reforge, it's still not my preferred system, but it's not a huge issue to me either.
I tried asking once for a dev stream, but it wasn't picked. I'll have to try again or hope someone else finds does.
Well apparently there is no reason for argument to begin with. The wiki says weapon will always be repairable, even after enchantment distruction. Any "destroyed" weapon in ashes just isnt equiptable, and will be an item sink to repair
"There is durability in the game... It's not going to be a trivial durability. There is a potential to destroy gear (weapons and armor), but there is also an ability to reforge that destroyed gear using a portion of the materials necessary as well as finding an item creator who can reforge it.[2] – Steven Sharif"
The real question is if reforging the item causes the enchantment level to reset or not. Or delevel. If it resets or de-levels, it's a bullshit system that I don't want in Ashes. If the enchantment level stays as is after the reforge, it's still not my preferred system, but it's not a huge issue to me either.
I tried asking once for a dev stream, but it wasn't picked. I'll have to try again or hope someone else finds does.
Honestly don't think they should have disenchant. You should have to get a new weapon then be able to hold onto the same one forever. To ensure there is a reason to continue to find gear, trade, buy it off the market.
I appreciate the methodology that's described for enchanting, it allows anyone to do so.
I also appreciate that a variety of crafting professions are involved in making them.
One thing that would make enchanting intensely satisfying to me, is if it took something out of the character to perform the action. This could be anything from a 5 minute channel, to penalties/curses, or negative attributes on the item. It could be used as a sort of tradeoff system to reduce the chance of failure.
That, and big magic effects that make you feel like a god when you succeed.
What aspects of the Enchanting system are important to you?
Not losing an item for enchanting failure. I lost several high value wands in Asheron's Call because of trying the 10th level enchant. It felt bad every time. So much so, that here I am talking about it, 20 years later. Just don't do it ;-)
Are there Enchanting systems in other games that you feel are done well? If so, what makes Enchanting in those games good?
When enchanting in WoW first came out, you just had to find someone to enchant your stuff. Then they made it so that an enchanter could create an enchanted velum (of sorts) and sell that enchant on the AH. This was way better than standing around the capital city all night broadcasting an ISO for an enchanter to do a specific enchant. Please consider this method.
Is there anything, in particular, you’re excited or concerned about regarding the Enchanting system?
I'm excited to see what you come up with, and if it will vary to much from what we've already come to expect in other MMOs.
I would encourage you stay away from things like what happened in World of Warcraft with their corruption system in Battle for Azeroth. Specifically Twilight Devastation. Damage based off HP pool of character. All of a sudden tanks were out performing DPS. That was just silly.
In my opinion, enchants should be used to either more deeply specialize, or, conversely, offer access to something that build / class can't normally do.
I stopped to think for a moment and could someone explain to me why the regular, linear, safe enchanting from +1 to +X exists? If +X is what everyone will eventually have, why not just increase the base stats of the weapon to the equivalent of +X?
The safe enchanting system increases resistance to switching between gear. If my sword is +10 and I find a better base sword that is +0, I now have to spend resources to upgrade the new sword before it starts matching my current one. If the utility of the safe enchanting system is to drain resources, why not just make the base item more expensive to craft, so that we have less items floating around the economy to begin with? I also see the resistance to switching gear being detrimental to the economy, since players are less incentivized to make trades for smaller upgrades.
Here's a system proposal that I'd like to hear critique on. It builds on the existing ideas and tries to alleviate the concerns in this thread:
No safe enchanting from +0 to some arbitrary +X.
Horizontal enchanting allows for wide customization, but is locked after a certain number of enchants.
Vertical enchanting is very costly and should be an "end game" activity only.
Type A vertical enchanting would imbue the item with a certain trait, like "5% defence" or "10% fireball damage". This would also lock the item from further enchanting.
Type B vertical enchanting gives around 3-5% overall item power, and is around 95% to 99% chance to "break" the item. Can be repeated as long as the weapon is not broken.
Broken items (durability decay or type B fail) can be restored to the same level of power they were, but the repair cost should be higher than the expected cost of enchanting a base item to the level that the item was before it broke. If there are no enchants the base cost is the crafting materials plus some extra fee.
Enchanted items (both horizontal and vertical) begin to accumulate item xp when they are being used. The item xp is capped at around two weeks of active gameplay.
Enchanted items (broken or intact) are valuable to crafters and can be used in recipe production. The higher quality the item is, the bigger the recipe bonuses. Additionally, the value is also modified by the amount of item xp accumulated by the weapon.
The idea here is that you have a statistical material sink at the very highest power levels, but if people really want to keep their special gear they can spend extra to restore it. Every time an item breaks (whether by enchanting failure or durability) the player has a choice to sell it to a crafter for recycling instead of repairing. The item xp incentivizes the players at some point to start looking for the next set of gear because they are no longer accumulating recycling value, but they can keep using an item if they like it. The item xp also stops crafters from just endlessly crafting and enchanting their own items without the items ever entering the market, because base items don't contribute nearly as much to the recipe process.
The slot machine could be replaced with just the expected cost of the enchant, but I'm not sure if this would produce the wanted player behavior.
Additionally, with careful tuning, the process could be used to produce a natural feedback loop, where crafters slowly over time produce better recipies which produce higher quality enchanted items which in turn make even better recipes. This would result in a natural slow gear threadmill, where there is always slightly better gear that a player can chase as the economy evolves.
I would encourage you stay away from things like what happened in World of Warcraft with their corruption system in Battle for Azeroth. Specifically Twilight Devastation. Damage based off HP pool of character. All of a sudden tanks were out performing DPS. That was just silly.
In my opinion, enchants should be used to either more deeply specialize, or, conversely, offer access to something that build / class can't normally do.
"Dont let tanks dps" the next sentence "offer access to something that build/class cant normally do"
I've always been a big fan of mmo, but one mmo that spoiled my experience and one of the most frustrating mmos I played was Black Desert Online because rng, everything is rng, there are times when the player feels that for more effort and effort to dedicate to a goal that will never work, I played black desert for much more than a year, and I NEVER dropped or managed to buy a boss weapon, but a colleague of mine with 2 weeks of game dropped one, and this is ABSURDLY frustrating , the enchantment system and everything that rng represents spoils the experience and the feeling of reward that a player should have after his effort, I think I could have an enchantment system with safe enchant up to 70% of max enchantment, and after that having rng BUT some item in quests or something else that players would gather to gradually increase the chance until it is 100% safe, because the player spends a month farming and then nothing happens is the worst feeling a game can cause.
I do not know of a reasonable way to build challenging PvE Content where a player with the equivalent of a +3 gear piece is able to perform effectively compared to a +6 gear piece without either.
1. Giving the +6 Player a massive boost by simply improving their efficiency.
or
2. Having the +6 Player be BORED due to ease of content and therefore more willing to OE gear just for the chance of being returned to the state of having something interesting to do.
Is top lvl content in BDO in any way party-related? Or is it still solo farming spots?
Cause I feel like reliance on the trinity+buffers of L2 allowed OEing to not influence ease of pve too much. Yes, you'd kill mobs maybe 1-3 secs faster, but you could only do that because you had your full buffs, a tank/bard kiting them around and a healer behind you if you needed it. You super cool OE gear didn't contribute all that much.
So I think Intrepid just needs to properly design mobs around classes and their potential combinations (which is obviously a difficult task to pull off well enough). Give mobs some growing resistances against weapons that hit them the hardest in the party. Maybe do it in an "evolution" way, where, the more one party grinds the same group of mobs (if that is even viable) - the higher those mobs' resistance to the gear used would be. So you'd either have to change out DPS' weapons (at which point you lose your OE) or you'd have to move to some other place (which might not be optimal/desired farm).
Though obviously that's the plainest and easiest way to put a soft lock on OE powers. Ideally you'd have some cool mechanics and combat abilities for mobs that make it harder for parties to farm them and requires everyone to excel at their role and not just make the OE boi the star.
Right but then I ask, why do all this to protect a system that by the nature of what you are doing, you are TRYING to negate? Why not just... not add it?
I'm not even disagreeing with you. I would play that game, I DO play that game (FFXI does this in different ways in various places). But FFXI therefore doesn't HAVE much that can be considered 'OE' because there's no need to build a system of that type when your content is actively opposing it. Who are you building it for?
If the content is so enjoyable without the OE power, the point of the system would be entirely back to:
"Giving a rush to gamblers and bored people who want to throw away their money."
"Taking materials out of the economy via those gamblers and bored people."
Part of why I never actually enchant in BDO is exactly this. I don't CARE about the content, the only reason I'd have to care is because someone with better gear will PvP me and annoy me.
If you're not giving people power over others in PvP, efficiency, extra money, or even additional satisfaction in PvE encounters because they're so good without it... just don't add it?
Hey, I'm curious about this third "just don't add it" option - don't you think the exclusive "glow" effect on weapons adds a big incentive?
If OE gives:
+5% stat advantage compared to 0 OE
exclusive aesthetic glow
Do you think this is significant enough to make OE desireable to the population?
Without tipping the balance too far in OE's favour?
(As long as weapon glow cannot be attained by any other means)
OE in this case refers to 'A thing that is attained by pushing a limit through RNG'.
It being desirable is, in my perception, a negative.
"If you want that glow on your weapon you should make a backup, because this isn't intended for the average player, it's a way to reward those who take a risk. Go, Dice Roll!"
I think I'm not really following. Why add OE as 'the path to get a cosmetic glow'? The thing I'm addressing is never actually about the power gap the Enchanting system adds, that's just balance. I'm addressing 'why some players get to do it for much less effort than others with nothing to show for it and no alternate direction option. You play BDO, so you know how this goes.
If we assume that OE 11 requires rolling 60+ on a d100, and can be dropped to rolling 45+ by a $1hrFarm, OE12 is 75+, can be dropped to rolling 60+, we'll even be nice and say same $1hrFarm, and OE13 requires rolling 85+, can be dropped to rolling 70+ by the SAME nice $1hrFarm, the item is destroyed in all cases and an OE10 Item to start the attempt with is ANOTHER nice clean $1hrFarm...
Dice> GM, 20d100: 55, 9, 41, 9, 69, 34, 29, 77, 94, 23, 34, 44, 34, 98, 63, 64, 44, 9, 24, 43 = 897
This person gets OE 11 immediately, then wants OE12 so they buy OE10 again and raise it to 11, then attempt OE12. After failing roll #1 (the 34), they buy another OE10, upgrade it to 11 on the 77 roll, get to OE12 on the 94 roll, get another OE10, try until OE11 on that (so that they have two OE 11), get it on a 98 (ooh so close on that 45), OE12 again on the next roll, so now there's a backup, roll for OE13 once... nothing. Final result after 20 attempts is OE12 and a leftover OE11 (give or take strategy).
Total Spent, assuming that their 'Adding 15% chance scroll' was not used every time once they started to get higher, is 18-20hrFarm depending on strategy.
I don't even need to calculate this person's outcomes. And I invoke my integrity to assure you that TODAY (I did this yesterday and got a relatively even spread over 11 separate 20d100 and explicitly 'cherry picked' the worst one on the curve because my point is that there IS ALWAYS A WORST ONE) these were back to back rolls from our DiceBot. The 'worst' outcome this player could possibly have is that they fail to use a scroll on that 83 roll and/or waste it on a new OE11.
You can just look at that and know the person is RNG-carried by comparison. Especially because of how human mentality to gambling goes. If you were a super careful person, within the first 3 rolls you have 3 OE11 and on the fourth you have your OE12 even if you ran out of ChanceBuffScroll. Total cost to that person $6hr Farm. If you were a 'crazy big bet' style player though, you could literally 'get OE12 in two rolls without a scroll' here. Total cost, $1hrFarm for the same RESULT as the first player, since they might just go 'ooh sweet a good day' and stop.
Good days do NOT even out across 'people', or bell curves wouldn't look like that.
So yeah, why make a system that randomly rewards players that is ALSO not going to give them ANYTHING of value if it fails? It may seem like other systems do this, but generally they don't, because if you 'take the risk' of attacking a Mob you don't know, you normally gain either exp and drops or just personal experience and a 'nice fight'/'interesting memory'.
In the case of OE, the player gets an explicitly negative memory. It's not 'an experience' that they benefit from or enjoy (masochistic gamblers REPRESENT! - if I'm wrong about that) as long as their goal was 'to get an OE weapon' and not 'to enjoy the rush of gambling'.
So if the OUTCOME of an RNG system with a LOSS and no personal experience/memory is DESIRABLE I would greatly prefer that less RNG was involved with it OR that a proper personal experience/ALTERNATE positive was the result.
Ah.
I get it.
Yep, raw RNG is a horrible experience.
Most enchanting systems are linear dice rolls - with little choice afforded to the player - this is your main enemy?
There is a cool system in Lost Ark worth discussion here: Faceting
Briefly:
Find "faceting stone" from killing stuff (rare)
stones have 2 positive abilties, 1 negative ability
If you like the abilities on the stone you can try to "facet" it to unlock its potential
select one of the stone's ability slots (12 slots per ability) to facet (consumes the slot to roll dice)
if successful, next facet is less likely to succeed
if unsuccessful, next facet is more likely to succeed
repeat on all abilities until no slots remaining
ability must be faceted successfully at least 5 times to "unlock" its effect (grade 2 effect at 10 facets, etc.)
equip if you are happy with the result
The tactic is to try to fail slots on the negative ability to negate its effect, and you'll have higher chances on the other ability slots that you want.
Positives: fail stacks are desireable on the negative ability (they have a use), player has agency with tactical significance, you have to have REALLY REALLY bad luck to end up with 0 abilities if you facet correctly, you also have to have REALLY REALLY good luck to facet a perfect stone.
Negatives: entire system is deterministic - lots of calculators on the internet for choosing optimal choices every step of the way. Too easy to produce good stones - hence clean stones have a one-time trade limit.
Key takeaways:
- a system that's partially deterministic (where a chain of enchantment choices affect each other) is more engaging than straight dice rolls
- overly deterministic systems become formulaic
- how often will players attempt enchanting? Will it cause excessive supply in the market?
Might be a bit unpopular but I quite enjoyed the upgrading in Blade and Soul, so maybe something similar for enchanting in AoC?
Levelling up with exp, then breakthrough with the material.
I'm not a fan of RNG so I would hate to keep failing to upgrade something (looking at you Lost Ark).
Also definitely against having the item breaking and starting all the way from scratch. I just think that's absolutely poor.
Might be a bit unpopular but I quite enjoyed the upgrading in Blade and Soul, so maybe something similar for enchanting in AoC?
Levelling up with exp, then breakthrough with the material.
I'm not a fan of RNG so I would hate to keep failing to upgrade something (looking at you Lost Ark).
Also definitely against having the item breaking and starting all the way from scratch. I just think that's absolutely poor.
I feel rng will always be apart of enchanting, generally its one of those systems that try to increase the time before players get a upgrade with a bit of rush is fine. I feel a lot of currency enchanting systems are bad because you are trying to hit like a 5% chance or lower for end game.
If they have enchanting as end game and you can do most content without having the best enhancements between hard and extremely hard, with some content that you need some enhancements and the rights build else it will be impossible. It should be fine. Part of the frustration with those other games is there is no fun of exploring and finding gear, your progression is only tied to rng gambling and you feel you are being held back at time and at the mercy of rng. It gives a bad taste in peoples mouths.
I enjoyed the crafting/enchanting in EverQuest 2. There was a mini-game applied to crafting that gave an ok chance at ok product if the game was ignored (but also gave a chance of injury or death from fires and other accidents). However, skillful manipulation and a bit of luck gave a shot at a product beyond normal quality/your skill level (in other words real life skill augmenting your character's skill). This slowed the production down for both safety and quality and (I feel) added actual value to any items crafted because a part of you was invested in it.
I played many MMOs and honestly the only one that I like enchanting for was Everquest 1 (first 4 expansions)/ Shards of Dalaya. I will go a little off the subject, but it will all come together, follow along. When EQ first came out, finding magical equipment was VERY rare, so when you finally got one it got me really excited and it was all worth it, and because of their rarity and scarcity the items were more memorable. I remember I saved up gold for my paladin for a ghoulbane a weapon that did extra damage to undead and it took me from lvl 15 to lvl 50s. Also there were many items that because of clicky effects (like fish-bone earring with unlimited charges of enduring breath) or worn in buffs lasted the whole game or a very LONG time. So where I am getting at, I will recommend to keep magical items rare and scarce, IF you are going to create enchantments make sure that they enhance that weapons ability but very limited, like maybe 5 tiers of enchantments for armor that each provides +1 to ac or other saves and scales up to +5. Same thing with weapons elemental damage+1 up to +5, but no more than that. Those are for craft- able enchantments, raid bosses can drop a higher tier enchantments. Again I seen many games with a crap ton of weapons and armor that are not memorable, get replaced within 5 levels and usually those games are garbage. Keep magical item rare so people get excited when they finally get them, and keep enchantments limited. Because the items were rare, it had a player base economy. Lots of new MMOS also lack a good player market
would rather not have RNG for enchantments at all, but if we must have one, can we at least not having breaking our equipment completely when failing please?
maybe a regress in enchantment level instead, when failing?
would rather not have RNG for enchantments at all, but if we must have one, can we at least not having breaking our equipment completely when failing please?
maybe a regress in enchantment level instead, when failing?
If you go to page 10 i had an idea for a system No regression or weapon breaking, feel free to critique it.
What I have read about enchanting from wiki, sounds mainly great. I like how you have planned a good amount of depth for the system and making selling of enchanting services easy for the players.
It is a reasonable approach that enchants can be bind on scrolls or stones/runes/gems which can be then socket to the gear.
Utilizing disenchanting as an item sink is also reasonable from economy point of view. This process could provide players new enchanting recipes (or parts of them) and perhaps some special ingredients used in enchanting as well.
In general WoW handles enchanting and disenchanting well even in my opinion professions have not got enough attention for long time. Enchanting there reminds me a lot what you have planned for Ashes. I would still say that in WoW the enchanting feels sometimes bad because you need to disenchant so much gear to get enough materials only to level up the profession. Therefore, perhaps this is something what could be keep in mind when creating disenchanting feature for Ashes.
Enchanting can be a profession which utilizes various different kind of resources and materials for the enchants. For example, smithing uses mainly metals, alchemy herbs, leatherworking skins, but enchanting could potentially utilize almost anything if wanted or needed. Therefore, recipes can contain enchanting specific materials combined with various different resources. This also helps designers to utilize less needed resources and make them more meaningful via enchanting.
Comments
I have not and never will actually advocate for a completely safe upgrade relative to getting exactly what the player wants across the whole item, in an Enhancing/Enchanting system.
My suggestion is entirely based on 'always get something, you can use it anyway, trade or sell the something to someone who is more suited to it, or you can spend the money, junk the 'failure' and do more stuff'.
That retains MOST of what you seem to enjoy while offering more agency than just 'well sucks to be you I got mine'. If I want Ice Resist gear and my Enchantment turns out to be Wind Resist, I can offer it to someone who wanted Wind Resist on the same gear (social), go out there looking for Wind using enemies to grind on for a new experience to get my money back and maybe find out that I like fighting them too/better (experiential) or continue trying the content I needed the Ice Resist for and hope I improve since my new stat is useless but I can keep improving (tenacity).
Any 'heavy item damage equivalent to destruction or destruction itself' system gives me only one of those options. It's the same thing I do now.
Step 1. Never enchant.
Step 2. Continue trying the content without the Ice Resist.
So here's the issue as the 'selfish person', let's assume I'm having a VERY toxic day. I go for my Ice Resist enchant right next to my 'rival'.
They get it first try. I get Wind Resist. I go 'aww FUCK her and her RNG'. Mostly because she's a terrible person who lords it over me and taunts me about it... yeah...
Then I go "I'm not spending 20x what she did, I'll go find some Wind using enemies to fight so I can keep up with her RNG-carried BS. Sheesh'.
OR it goes the other way. I get it first try, she doesn't. Now our cool rivalry is 'broken by RNG' until she can farm maybe 20x more. But I'd also farm 20x more. This just has to happen (or roughly happen) 3x in a row, and now I've lost a rival IF my Rival is a dumbass and doesn't take their 'failure' (-20% Damage Taken Under X Status) and figure out how to turn that into a strength so they can 'keep up'.
But I'm okay with THAT because that's them not seeing an opportunity. That's their failing. In a straight OE system, the only thing they 'failed at' was maybe 'not being cautious enough' or 'not being bold enough' and you know... you can't tell which beforehand anyway.
The people who can't spend 20h on an upgrade should be able to take whatever they GET and go on a new adventure to make what they GET useful. That's the goal of my suggestion.
I literately made a whole giant post on this with page 10 and can make it as long a grind or short as the developers would want to adjust their numbers. It is a full enhancement system and it uses a bit of reverse psychology in an attempt to reduce the negative memory.
if you spend 6 months grinding, 27 hours a week (trying to not make it super high but a decent rate so about 4 hours a day) over 6 months. Which is 648 hours, and you end up with 0 or less gear. You will 100% feel your time has been disrespected over the months of time you have been playing and not getting any kind of progression. I won't even say that is the most extreme case, i feel those hours are low balled for a hardcore players for end game.
I've spent plenty of hours and i defiantly know the feeling of complete time and disrespect. It is one of the most disgusting things and it changes peoples mind sets in the worst of ways.
I cannot say that this is flawed, exactly, I can only say that I consider it an inferior system. So I feel we're at a point where the discussion stalls. I give reasons why I don't think the solution you are on the side of is good ENOUGH and give reasons why I think the one I suggested achieves more positive things for players.
If your aim is to figure out 'is there a way to use a system other than mine, closer to the one you are defending', you haven't convinced me yet, and I can explain why if you consider it worth the time (tl;dr it achieves the same goals but weaker so why do it?)
If your aim is to 'defend that system' as a general matter, I don't have much more interest in engaging on it because:
You reached the point in the discussion where a stance you took boiled down to 'Well some people might not have the time to play so we should continue to reward players randomly instead', which I consider abhorrent (not you, nor you holding the stance, the stance itself).
What is it relying on? That the RNG will 'cripple' all the hardcore-time players and benefit all the casual-time ones? No, that won't happen. It will be random, it will cause some hardcore-time players to suffer despite their efforts and cause some casual-time players to literally never have any chance whatsoever (when choosing to interact with this system).
My verdict would remain: Never interact with this system.
Much better to just make enchant resources scarce/expensive.
Could even make enchants decay over time so they need to be topped up, this way the demand for the resources offers something to farm for those sweaty powerfarmers.
Edit: if players can enchant for other player's, unlocking the ability to carry out a high level enchant should be a feat in itself e.g. charge a frost enchant scroll in the breath of a frost dragon. If both learning how to do the enchantment and the resources taken to carry out the enchantment are hard to accomplish, there is no need for RNG.
Actually a great idea of enchantments getting weaker over time. Maybe not in a way that it works like that as a whole but it could be one of the risk that come up as a negative.
The real question is if reforging the item causes the enchantment level to reset or not. Or delevel. If it resets or de-levels, it's a bullshit system that I don't want in Ashes. If the enchantment level stays as is after the reforge, it's still not my preferred system, but it's not a huge issue to me either.
I tried asking once for a dev stream, but it wasn't picked.
Honestly don't think they should have disenchant. You should have to get a new weapon then be able to hold onto the same one forever. To ensure there is a reason to continue to find gear, trade, buy it off the market.
I also appreciate that a variety of crafting professions are involved in making them.
One thing that would make enchanting intensely satisfying to me, is if it took something out of the character to perform the action. This could be anything from a 5 minute channel, to penalties/curses, or negative attributes on the item. It could be used as a sort of tradeoff system to reduce the chance of failure.
That, and big magic effects that make you feel like a god when you succeed.
Not losing an item for enchanting failure. I lost several high value wands in Asheron's Call because of trying the 10th level enchant. It felt bad every time. So much so, that here I am talking about it, 20 years later. Just don't do it ;-)
When enchanting in WoW first came out, you just had to find someone to enchant your stuff. Then they made it so that an enchanter could create an enchanted velum (of sorts) and sell that enchant on the AH. This was way better than standing around the capital city all night broadcasting an ISO for an enchanter to do a specific enchant. Please consider this method.
I'm excited to see what you come up with, and if it will vary to much from what we've already come to expect in other MMOs.
I would encourage you stay away from things like what happened in World of Warcraft with their corruption system in Battle for Azeroth. Specifically Twilight Devastation. Damage based off HP pool of character. All of a sudden tanks were out performing DPS. That was just silly.
In my opinion, enchants should be used to either more deeply specialize, or, conversely, offer access to something that build / class can't normally do.
thank you!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP31ixSBO7GHKLBefWVcJaA
I stopped to think for a moment and could someone explain to me why the regular, linear, safe enchanting from +1 to +X exists? If +X is what everyone will eventually have, why not just increase the base stats of the weapon to the equivalent of +X?
The safe enchanting system increases resistance to switching between gear. If my sword is +10 and I find a better base sword that is +0, I now have to spend resources to upgrade the new sword before it starts matching my current one. If the utility of the safe enchanting system is to drain resources, why not just make the base item more expensive to craft, so that we have less items floating around the economy to begin with? I also see the resistance to switching gear being detrimental to the economy, since players are less incentivized to make trades for smaller upgrades.
Here's a system proposal that I'd like to hear critique on. It builds on the existing ideas and tries to alleviate the concerns in this thread:
The idea here is that you have a statistical material sink at the very highest power levels, but if people really want to keep their special gear they can spend extra to restore it. Every time an item breaks (whether by enchanting failure or durability) the player has a choice to sell it to a crafter for recycling instead of repairing. The item xp incentivizes the players at some point to start looking for the next set of gear because they are no longer accumulating recycling value, but they can keep using an item if they like it. The item xp also stops crafters from just endlessly crafting and enchanting their own items without the items ever entering the market, because base items don't contribute nearly as much to the recipe process.
The slot machine could be replaced with just the expected cost of the enchant, but I'm not sure if this would produce the wanted player behavior.
Additionally, with careful tuning, the process could be used to produce a natural feedback loop, where crafters slowly over time produce better recipies which produce higher quality enchanted items which in turn make even better recipes. This would result in a natural slow gear threadmill, where there is always slightly better gear that a player can chase as the economy evolves.
"Dont let tanks dps" the next sentence "offer access to something that build/class cant normally do"
Ah.
I get it.
Yep, raw RNG is a horrible experience.
Most enchanting systems are linear dice rolls - with little choice afforded to the player - this is your main enemy?
There is a cool system in Lost Ark worth discussion here: Faceting
Briefly:
- Find "faceting stone" from killing stuff (rare)
- stones have 2 positive abilties, 1 negative ability
- If you like the abilities on the stone you can try to "facet" it to unlock its potential
- select one of the stone's ability slots (12 slots per ability) to facet (consumes the slot to roll dice)
- if successful, next facet is less likely to succeed
- if unsuccessful, next facet is more likely to succeed
- repeat on all abilities until no slots remaining
- ability must be faceted successfully at least 5 times to "unlock" its effect (grade 2 effect at 10 facets, etc.)
- equip if you are happy with the result
The tactic is to try to fail slots on the negative ability to negate its effect, and you'll have higher chances on the other ability slots that you want.Positives: fail stacks are desireable on the negative ability (they have a use), player has agency with tactical significance, you have to have REALLY REALLY bad luck to end up with 0 abilities if you facet correctly, you also have to have REALLY REALLY good luck to facet a perfect stone.
Negatives: entire system is deterministic - lots of calculators on the internet for choosing optimal choices every step of the way. Too easy to produce good stones - hence clean stones have a one-time trade limit.
Key takeaways:
- a system that's partially deterministic (where a chain of enchantment choices affect each other) is more engaging than straight dice rolls
- overly deterministic systems become formulaic
- how often will players attempt enchanting? Will it cause excessive supply in the market?
Levelling up with exp, then breakthrough with the material.
I'm not a fan of RNG so I would hate to keep failing to upgrade something (looking at you Lost Ark).
Also definitely against having the item breaking and starting all the way from scratch. I just think that's absolutely poor.
I feel rng will always be apart of enchanting, generally its one of those systems that try to increase the time before players get a upgrade with a bit of rush is fine. I feel a lot of currency enchanting systems are bad because you are trying to hit like a 5% chance or lower for end game.
If they have enchanting as end game and you can do most content without having the best enhancements between hard and extremely hard, with some content that you need some enhancements and the rights build else it will be impossible. It should be fine. Part of the frustration with those other games is there is no fun of exploring and finding gear, your progression is only tied to rng gambling and you feel you are being held back at time and at the mercy of rng. It gives a bad taste in peoples mouths.
maybe a regress in enchantment level instead, when failing?
If you go to page 10 i had an idea for a system
It is a reasonable approach that enchants can be bind on scrolls or stones/runes/gems which can be then socket to the gear.
Utilizing disenchanting as an item sink is also reasonable from economy point of view. This process could provide players new enchanting recipes (or parts of them) and perhaps some special ingredients used in enchanting as well.
In general WoW handles enchanting and disenchanting well even in my opinion professions have not got enough attention for long time. Enchanting there reminds me a lot what you have planned for Ashes. I would still say that in WoW the enchanting feels sometimes bad because you need to disenchant so much gear to get enough materials only to level up the profession. Therefore, perhaps this is something what could be keep in mind when creating disenchanting feature for Ashes.
Enchanting can be a profession which utilizes various different kind of resources and materials for the enchants. For example, smithing uses mainly metals, alchemy herbs, leatherworking skins, but enchanting could potentially utilize almost anything if wanted or needed. Therefore, recipes can contain enchanting specific materials combined with various different resources. This also helps designers to utilize less needed resources and make them more meaningful via enchanting.