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
Over enchanting could provide reduced benefits, say a weapon has a max stat increase it can experience. The first 5 enchantments can provide 90% of that, each additional enchantment can occupy 2.5% of the remaining vertical power. Each failed attempt can disable the weapon for a period of time while the enchantment "wears off". Or perhaps require a master enchanter to de enchant that enchantment which then refunds a portion of the resources used and allows for the use of the item again.
Enchanting for that first 90% of available power would be 100% likely to succeed as long as enchanter and materials where appropriate, then the enchantments for the remaining 10% of power would have a 50-25-12.5-6.25 percent chance, spit balling here though.
Is there a way an enchantment can mess with the player? Creating a battle of wills... just a thought, I know some would find this an insanely frustrating experience.
I'm all for an Economics Lead and an Enchanter Profession, but, who would foot the bill for losses? lol
So if all of this is accurate, from what I understand, the over-enchanting would work as follows :
This sounds like a very strong sink and grind incentive, very long term goal that takes a lot of time, with potentially different results for people investing the same amount of time and materials, since it's RNG based, with no guarantee that you will ever succeed a specific upgrade.
If this system is indeed like that, then... I see no problem with it, as long as your gear piece is not deleted but disabled, and repairs can be performed an unlimited number of times. This kind of system often comes in P2W games that also sell items in the cash shop that increase the chances of success, protect your item on failure or even restore the max durability of your gear piece, but the system itself, I have nothing against.
I just have one "concern", about unique legendary items. As you can't just farm multiple of them to try and get lucky, I assume you'd have an option to repair them as well, that would be particularly expensive or require very high skill in the profession. I'm just wondering if the enchant system wouldn't make regular weapons better than legendary weapons on average, because of the potential difficulty and cost to enchant it.
Other than that, I hope enchants will be interesting, both visually and in term of mechanics, and not only a "simple" power increase. Different enchants should be used for different archetypes, over one enchant being the best-in-slot for most if not all DPS builds.
There was no selling of weapons in the store, so, yes, grind was the answer. Steven claims to not have grinding mechanics in Ashes so I got 0 clue how he wants to realize the same item sink system w/o it.
edit: or I might've completely misunderstood what the L2 wiki quote was talking about. Maybe they meant not an in-game system but a player's way to OE gear? Then yeah, the "security" way is the thing I explained. But the "roulette" method usually ended up with a destroyed weapon so I dunno what "until you're happy with the result" part means.
I agree but I also don't like vertical enchanting at all. Horizontal is fine, but vertical enchanting is just a huge let down. You finally get this awesome piece of gear you worked so hard for but it's totally useless until you waste a ton of time and money on enchanting it, and hope RNG is on your side.
For players of all kinds this is frustrating and unfun and usually the thing that makes people want to quit (eventually many do, or don't play the game at all to begin with). But this method of enchanting creates huge gear and power gaps, because more hardcore players have more time and more gold to throw at the problem (with or without RNG) than casuals do, so what ends up happening is casuals lag behind in gear and power progression than they would already without such a system. In a PvP game, this worsens the problem and makes casuals quit fast.
Firstly, what I look for in an Enchanting profession is the ability to change and/or enhance items. I like the explanation of vertical and horizontal use in Intrepid's proposal for what enchanting should be used for. When it comes to this profession I also like to see Disenchanting as an option with resource gain or rather a transmutation of the object into something different.
A good example of a successful yet simple vertical power progression system was in the original Vanilla World of Warcraft. Other professions and/or world drops provided the items to be enchanted, but in order to get material for the profession first you had to deconstruct items for their inherit magical properties. This system created two "feel good" moments. You farm resources from otherwise wasted items and at the same time are adding vertical power gains to other items. The system was very simple, but it was extremely popular among players.
The excitement and concern I have for Intrepid's proposed Enchanting Profession comes from the same fact. Risk versus Reward in the form of items gaining power versus them getting destroyed. It being a player decision to choose to push the limits and odds in an attempt to gain more does seem exciting and when you are successful it will certainly create that "feel good" moment. For me though the concern is that this system resembles the "feel good" moments of gambling. In this case, it will create moments of disappointment.
Now, I'm not saying risk shouldn't be a part of the game, it really should be as that's what creates the rewarding experiences, but a system that will inheritably have the chance to disappoint people despite it being their own decision is to say the least dangerous to a good gaming experience. I like the core idea of what Intrepid is trying to do with this proposed system, but I think it has to be implemented in a way that it creates the same "feel good" moments without causing disappointment.
My suggestion for alleviating the disappointment in the proposed system is the other aspect of Enchanting that I enjoy, Disenchanting. The way this can be utilized is that when a failed overenchant occurs instead of the item being outright destroyed and materials are lost, the item itself is turned into something akin to a "dead item". These "dead items" can be disenchanted into a resource/resources only attainable from "dead items". The intended resource drain on the economy still occurs, but the player gains something in return through a transmutation effect.
Finally, to create the potential "feel good" moment in what could have been disappointment, invent a series of Enchantments that can only be applied through the use of resources you can only gain through disenchanting "dead items". Perhaps in an attempt to have a final "feel good" moment have these enchants as a part of the Horizontal progression so the player is guaranteed something that's powerful and useful at the end of the day.
Time put in game should = progress no matter what. Not RNG carried losers who think because they got lucky rolls on gear somehow = skill...
Yes it was about how players go about it. It is relevant as it shows how the system would/could be used, if it's similar enough.
I really like the idea of a short minigame to complete for any crafting-esque profession, enchanting included. That way you fail and succeed on your own terms, and you can feel accomplished when you make something good. Also, there was an old crafting game I used to play that, after successfully completing a recipe X amount of times, you had the option to automate it, which results would be rng based, but allowed you to bypass anything you felt was tedious or didn't care to control the results of. (mass-producing something) I often did the minigame anyway, because I knew I could outperform the rng, but the option was nice! Also, a good performance on creation of a usable material (like linen, coal, or dust) would create extra of the item. (You made "linen" so well, you made 3 extra, for a total of 7!) Which gave you a really good bang for you buck for material-cost if you could do the minigame well.
As for the minigame itself, it could be anything! A typical button mash game, alternating between tapping a key quickly, tapping a key at correct times, or letting go of a key at correct times. Or it could be hitting keys in order, like a simon says mini-game, where you try and repeat a series of colors or keys in order. Or maybe it's more like eye spy, where you like, cast this enchanting spell, and then a symbol appears somewhere onscreen and you have to click it/find it x amount of times before it disappears, with decoy symbols appearing at more difficult levels/spells, so it's testing your reaction time. Or maybe you trace a symbol and lose points for going outside the lines. Or maybe it's effectively minesweeper, wordle, or solving a maze.
I like the idea of over enchantment but world love to see it have more ideas than just destroy item. Maybe add curses to the item.
Reduced durability.
Unrepairable.
Slow mana drain
Reduced stealth by making you glow
Unusable by Tulnar
I know I know negative effects are blasphemy to most
WoW's enchanting is a horizontal enchantment system, where you add additional effects onto your gear. Vertical enchanting is like having a +10 Sword, where every +1 level adds additional attack to your sword, or every +1 on gear adds additional defense.
HOWEVER, the planned system for AoC seems like a lot of fun!
In Ashes - according to the Wiki - the system will be the opposite from SWG: You can always count on successfully crafting a guaranteed item, while the add-ons for the item will then feature some RNG. As long as there is some Risk vs Reward potential and always an element of danger, then it sounds like a good system.
I've seen some bemoaning in the thread from people who are concerned about "casuals". Honestly? If you're going to play casually? Expect to have casual-quality gear; The game shouldn't have to be dumbed-down and made more generic to cater to players for whom AoC is 1 of 10 games they're actively trying to play. It's really not our fault, if your lifestyle only permits you to play 2 hours/week. If that's the case, why not play WoW, instead? You'll be up-to-speed there, in no time. For a gamer's game, though? There should really be some deep, advanced systems that allow people who invest the time to go farther and farther up a ladder.
/Support, for the current plans.
3 parts horizontal and 1 part vertical makes a nice square. 3 parts horizontal makes a flat line.
I don't mind either option. I often reference star wars galaxies and horizontal progression was awesome before cu2.
Base stats would be adjusted to accommodate either expansion direction.
Also every weapon enchant should make it glow!
This reminds me, since I'm not sure what other posters mean when they use the term 'horizontal progression, that I should at least clarify what I mean.
"Horizontal progression" is when I want two of the same item, or similar items, for different reasons.
If the content provided doesn't incentivize me to always keep both versions, it's not horizontal.
e.g. if the most rewarding thing to fight or even just my preference is a Fire Bear and Ice enchants make me better against Fire Bears, then Ice enchants are 'progression' and everything else is 'a choice I could just make incorrectly'.
Similarly, 'changing it so that Fire Bears are no longer optimal to fight', is 'creating a timesink', not 'causing horizontal progression'. If I can dump my ice enchant gear and change to new gear, there's 'progression', but there's nothing 'horizontal' about it.
This is why I assume that when the term is used by designers, they mean 'a variety of content will require a variety of approaches', but the actual enchanting SYSTEM has nothing to do with this. Any GIVEN enchantment is either 'a power increase for content' or 'a waste, speaking purely in terms of the gear system, not any roleplay options.
Enchantments would be a multi disciplinary approach because the combat updates are under way and the enchanting system is now under discussion.
We have discussed the old stats before and I've tried to remedy the issues with the old stats.
Ultimately, I only care about producing the best, balanced and beautiful mmo possible.
Quality gear isn't really a time factor. There are many ways for casual time players to acquire quality gear besides tiime investment - though, they will likely reach the time alotted time investment at some point.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Enchanting
Second, its risk versus reward, so, if the chances are shown, its down to the players if they wanna risk it or not.
Next, there could be some type of in-game achievable protection, maybe as a rare drop from some boss that protects an item during one enchant. Also, make them tradable!
Next, I would like there to be a hidden RNG system (stay with me here), that works for the player. Make it, idk, a 1.5% chance that when an item is enchanted from +8 to +9 a "hidden power" of the item is unlocked. Dosent need to be combat oriented. Actually, it would be even better if it isnt combat oriented, but rather builds upon the professions or something complete random. For example "While having this item equipped, your O2 drains 10% slower while underwater" or "While having this item equipped, you gather ore 10% faster". Random bonuses that aren't just more stats.
Not sure about the balance, but it would be fun to have weird effects on your PC.
Regarding the horizontal enchantment, what i read seems good and it also allows for players to have specific sets of gear depending what they expect to fight, which I approve. Great job with that.
Turning back to vertical, I would recommend that as items level increases, so does the max enchant. Maybe a level 1 item can only go up to +5, while a level 50 BiS item goes to +15.
However. I want to propose a system, instead of destroying an item.
Players love loot. And having a +14 sword break is an easy quit moment for many. So. instead of outright destroying an item, it gets a debuff, something along the lines of this:
The Enchantment failed on this item and it gains the "Raptured" debuff (name pulled out of thin air, feel free to change it:)) ). While Raptured, the item's magic is gone and it cannot be Enchanted. In order to remove the debuff, a new quest appears in the ledger. A hard quest. That the player has to do while wearing the item to "reawaken" it.
Make the quest brutal. And maybe it even has to be done solo. But doing it, returns to the item to where it was before the failed attempt.
A system like this shows that the time and effort put into getting a good piece of gear isn't ignored. Its a second chance. It shows the players that the game wants the to succeed (which is important in every game). Plus, its extra content. New content even. Instead of having to re-do everything the player did before again, they get to do something new. And again, you can make it as hard as you want. "Kill 25 ancient dragons with a sword that does normal slashing damage, to which the dragon is resistant". It seems insane, but after they kill 1 dragon, and see it is possible, they think "right, 24 more to go". Its something they have never done before and they hope never to do again, but its new.
Kinda started rambling a bit, hope its clear enough:))))
I understand.
That definition's wrong, like basic logic breakdown wrong, but I understand.
I'm not going to start using terms incorrectly just because Intrepid does, because that leads to designs being based on incorrect terms and concepts, often oversimplified ones.
I reference combat applications because it is in reference to horizontal vs vertical, it has nothing to do with the aforementioned economics.
We should all give whatever feedback we can in hopes that Ashes will be great.
My feedback is that the terminology used for progression relative to the enchanting system is misleading, and in order to make that clear, I referenced optimization.
The same applies for any gear that helps with Artisan professions, if that helps.
1. Systems with multiple steps that only increase the power of the weapon/armor with progressively higher chances to fail as the level of the enchant increases.
2. Systems were not only does the enchant have a chance to fail but there is a chance upon failing the weapon/armor breaks and you lose the item you were trying to enchant.
The first system is just boring and becomes more and more frustrating as materials are wasted with every new level of enchant. The Second system is even more frustrating, because you know in the back of your mind you could lose this really good item you spent however much time farming/crafting. And then if breaks you lose motivation to play or grind that item out again.
Personally, I would go with an enchanting system that doesn't need to be applied more than once. There should be enchants that increase the primary and or secondary enchants, but there should also be enchants that give unique effects. If you need to have multiple levels of enchants maybe as the level of the enchant increases, it gains additional effects rather than just increasing the power of the current effect.
In an RPG, it's not merely about which item provides the most power. It's also about, for some people primarily about, the role they choose to play. And the role a character chooses to play might change for a variety of reasons beyond making a wrong choice. The character may simply choose to play a different way.
Especially since we can change Secondary Archetypes.
Horizontal progression doesn't have to require a variety of approaches - people may simply choose to use a variety of different approaches because they enjoy variety.
And, good games will support that.
Yes. I understand and you know I love to theory craft.
In an ideal world you would just replicate star wars galaxies and not have enchantments at all.
In L2 you did not have the Force System. Instead, you had Champion like players and a lot of power from vertical progression.
It is difficult for me to advocate for the removal of enchantments to create a true horizontal system.
It is also difficult for me to outline an enchantment system that is horizontal in nature when I have yet to simulate or test every class.