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
I did my part in telling Intrepid why I disagree with their current design direction, so I at least know that I did something to try and sway them towards, what I believe to be, a better design.
EDIT* Misread the comment and replied to better it further down the thread.
Well its the same as designing a mob grinding area with a 100 exp/hr rate max, and a questing loop that makes 80 exp/hr max but also provides advancement in other systems.
If the player that grinds the 100 exp/hr rate needs to do the quests after anyways, they have to go back and redo the content, making them slower to obtain the overall goal even if they are faster at it the second time.
We talk about the belief that if the castle sieges cannot be experienced within the first month players will migrate to other games.
I don't consider castle sieges an important core mechanic but more an escape valve to keep node sieges less frequent.
Players who want to see the sieges as soon as they pay the subscription, can wait 1-2 months after release.
It is not important to be the first guild to acquire a castle unless the game is balanced so that these guilds can also hold them easily.
It can also happen that players in a metropolis will have advantage over the other players. And you cannot control/predict which node becomes a metropolis.
Wanting good sieges before 2 months is a much better angle to come across, than saying you are worried about hardcores getting things first.
Have you played BDO, btw?
I misread this with my other comment and so my reply doesn't match your point.
A better rebuttal would be to just make it so that sieges require something like 1000 wood chips, 100 wooden poles, 10 hardwood boards, and 1 petrified wood.
The lower levels can collect the wood chips. Yes, the higher levels can collect wood chips too, but if they need to spend their time trying to get that 1 petrified wood, it would be a waste of their time to grind out the wood chips when they have lower level people gathering them all the time.
Basically, the higher level player can get the lower level resources faster, but there is an opportunity cost here to factor in.
I don't have the skill yet to explain the MMO economic principle that refutes this concept, to someone who holds this belief, so I'm sorry for that.
This is my way of letting you know that I am dismissing what you are saying as inaccurate but don't have the ability to explain why.
Sorry.
OK maybe, but this is how it works in real life workplaces. A senior designer can do everything that the junior can do. Faster, better and more efficiently. But their time is better spent in other areas and just guiding the junior designer. The opportunity cost isn't worth it for the company.
I GEEEET so many people are out of the loop, maybe even out of the loop since before RIFT but this is common in western mmorpgs. This is why my head hurts in some arguments because people are ignoring very obvious types of content that will be in the game lol. With how everything is tied together that also means gear as a big effect (unless they choose to do what they said they wouldn't and make it so thre is a special pve stat for killing mobs).
Personally we don't need to start taking the HIGH end pvp content and making it casual that is honestly very silly. You need to take it for what it is, the high end competitive pvp content. My only critique is it shouldnt be every 1month that is too long a wait.
AS I've said before 1 making sure pvp content is ZERG = win is one of the most important things (minus most forms of OWpvp content of course) But having loops in for smaller scale pvp content and pvp content that is more casual friendly sot hey have things to do and have fun in. Just like you have open seas, sieges, etc, you have to have loops for other types so they have have fun with it as well. And build their skills and confidence up to be ready for the big leagues.
I haven't.
When you write a whole paragraph and economy hours / time, advantages, and snowballs. And than my comment is about that you really shouldn't be surprised.
My reading comprehension is fine, its up to you to not bloat out your post and have me pick and choose the major elements of flaws. Imagine instead of typing a page response and you typed out that sentence to begin with that would have been great.
I'm glad i helped you open your eyes and realize you can't stop hardcore players though when it comes to a leveling game
L2 had fun pvp from lvl1. It had epic world boss contests from lvl40. And had sieges before max lvl. All because the game truly wanted people of all levels to experience the content that will also be present at max lvl.
Nowadays every damn game "starts" at max lvl. To me that's dumb as hell
This is why Azherae keeps saying "well, I could explain it, but I'd rather not". Because she knows that even if she did explain everything in proper detail, you'd either say "you're overthinking this too much" or you'd just completely disregard the explanation and shift attention to something else.
So no, I'd rather keep typing out huge paragraphs of my thought process, because the people who do care about my reasoning will read them and understand them.
At this point I believe you're trolling so, good for you
As long as the leveling experience is fun there is really not a issue. You a dynamic world, hard content, pvp, world bosses, etc.
I understand the point of only caring about end game, but the thing is if you play older mmorpgs it has content through all level not just end game. End game is added on as well and for good reason.
Now if AoC has node/ guild dec, tons of other pvp all locked behind high levels than ill agree it will start to be a issue. Butt hey have literally already shown world bosses and dungeons below lvl 50. I don't see a issue because it shows what their goal is and they have been following what they have been saying.
You will have your content as you level, fun PvX content, but you also are going to have your end game loops and really challenging content at lvl 50. If you want to have really challenging content at a lower level there is no reason to not challenge a higher level mob. You can have any difficulty you want that that point.
Yes there should be some harder content at lower levels but the most challenging and time consuming part should be a max level. Where people can not choose to over level and come back and kill something easy. That would be a huge waste of resources time wise on content.
That matches my experience, yes.
Unfortunately it has nothing to do with MMO economy incentives.
I say this as a person who is a professional senior designer, and an amateur (in that no one has yet seriously paid me to do it) MMO economy designer.
I'll give it a try, but as noted, don't expect much, I still feel like I don't have the skill for explaining this to non-peers yet.
I'm glad you agree that lower lvls should have difficult content. And I agree that, obviously, stuff at max lvl will be the hardest in the game.
I also think that "overleveling" shouldn't work. Either by removing rewards to some extent or adding mechanics that work against overleveled people, or any other solution that prevents people from thinking "oh this lvl30 mobs is too difficult? Let me get to lvl40 and one-shot it for its reward".
K we can do this then, first quote from you
Your main point talks nothing of wanting sieges to happen earlier and more about people rushing to level fast
Again your main point of the conversation is talking about people rushing verticals levels and worry of that. There is no indication of you talking about wanting sieges to be happening earlier to the heath of the game so players can see it. (even if it did happen earlier as my point no one is beating a hardcore guidl but they can watch people try).
You go on to talk about they won't be able to siege because they are weaker which is pretty obvious. Which is why i said in the following post it wouldn't change if it was set to a lower level as people will still be weaker.
Right there you are talking about snowballing between taxes they are getting (based on what u want L2 style on being able to pocket taxes etc unless you have changed your mind) and building defenses up. Instantly that post there is not about not waiting months for sieges but targeting that hardcore players have an advantage.
You are saying I'm a troll when there again is no indication of you saying I want sieges to happen earlier because i want people to be able to view the epic fights between the competitive guilds. Your post seems to linger on worry of power of hardcore players and people that are not as hardcore having a difficult time competing.
So you say i have reading comprehension and I'm trolling because I'm in disagreement of your original premises on the thread and explained why?
They will lose xp but I really don't think people are going to enjoy getting 0 loot because they are over leveled. The general rule is that potential gear related stuff won't be as good so its not worth killing it as much depending though.
Does it matter if a level 40 comes and one shots it, we have a free economy nothing really changes. For that to matter you need to make it so not everything is freely traded. A lvl 40 will be able to give them or buy them a decent weapon so its all the same in the end.
I understand you want gates to prevent them from getting as much help but I'd rather people just be social and do what they want at the end of the day. Over trying to stop them, which could be done by instances and level gating and/or equalization to be fair.
I expounded on reasons for this preference in response to other replies, yes. But the core principle in both cases is still "I want sieges to happen at earlier lvls".
Both things will be true: people will get to see sieges sooner and it'll be harder for hardcore guilds to snowball.
Yes, because that is the current design, as I've linked you quotes previously. Guilds will be able to use a part of the castle taxes for their own means. I know you want that changed and you're completely free to make a thread promoting that idea, just as I did with this thread.
Several things can coexist for the same reason. My first and main reason (thing) for disliking the current design is the higher potential for hardcore guilds to snowball. My secondary reason (thing) is that seeing sieges sooner would provide other benefits for the game as well.
The main reason (catalyst) behind those two things is "sieges happening at lower lvls, which means sooner in the game's life".
You personally like the secondary reason more, and good for you. I care more about the snowballing, which is why I added that explanation to the OP. And I'm only happy that you (and potentially other people) will agree more with my idea if they agree with other benefits that it provides. I'm all for that.
This not only makes the lvl30 player's life more miserable for no good reason, but also reinforces the idea that it's only good to be at max lvl, because you're free to one-shot any lowbie content and get full rewards for it.
To me, that's shitty design.
Yes earlier for different reasoning this is why i go on to explained your reasoning had NEVER matched the fact about having more people seeing it. Your concern was hardcore players getting there first and a level race as outlined. You concern is very clearly outlined in your post in the elements you had issue with.
I've already explained my thought on that tax element enough, when their is a more open dev disccusion that is when I'd say something around that. This comes down to you thinking L2 and using that to fill in the blanks. For me hearing your guild can use a portion of it is very open ended, until they say you can pull from your guild bank and take the money. They can easily have that money be put in and not be able to pulled out so you have to use that to pay for whatever guild things. Or it might not even go into the guild bank and you can just use a portion for decing for example. With this kind of stuff I'm not going to fill in the blanks because this can go in any direction until we know more about something they have really not talked about.
Don't think much more needs to be said, because by default if you are saying you have 2 reasons, again its not a reading comprehension thing, as i was clearly talking about your snowballing issue. Its a completely bad take imo as for the points I outline in my post you can not stop hardcore players when you are talking about pvp reduced level does not stop them from snowballing.
Like you really tried to say i have reading comprehension then admitting you have 2 reasons with one I disagree with and have debunked. -fp-
That is why you have a corruption system in place if he kills him for no reason unless there is a node / guild dec.
ITs not crappy design which makes me ask the question if we are following the same game? One of the major things they have talked about for ages is zones are not divided by levels (though id imagine there might be some higher level areas). But there will be high and lower level mobs in places so a reason for a high levle to come back to that node and do content in it. ie small area int he node could ahve higher level mobs so you will pass though lower level ones to get there, Or as you go deeper in a dungeon you past the level 30 mobs to get to lvl 40 mobs.
All is fair in pvp if they are follow the rule sets if i see a enemy I'm going to kill them regardless of level. This is the nature of a game that has PvP, your life isn't hell you are just playing the game. Do to how Aoc is being designed for it to not be lvl 1-10, 10-20, 20-30 You have have a bit more mixing and see players of different levels and of course encounter higher levels near you that could be a threat.
Though this ties back into the whole kingdom thing which makes certain places more safe for people with less decs and they tie together. Something we disagreed on with free decs vrs kingdom style that aoc is going for. Things all tie together to control levels of chaotic pvp and making things not as dangerous for certain lower levels. Long story short, less pvp as you live near your node (most of the time)
I can agree that my initial post itself is weak on explaining my position of "I don't want a strong snowball effect". Which is why I added the more in-depth explanation. I'm not worried about strong people getting things for being strong. I'm worried about the consequences of them getting those things at a later time (in this particular context).
Your first comment in this thread was valid, which is why I responded with a better explanation of my point.
I brought up reading comprehension in the response to the quote that I used in this comment, because by the point in time when you made this comment, you should've already understood that I'm completely fine with hardcores getting the thing first, and you should've already known that I've wanted "sieges before 2 months" because the first sentence of my opinion in the OP implies this (and deeper explanation fully lays this out).
You could've just said "I'd prefer if you just used the "people will see sieges earlier" argument in the first place", and it'd be a valid response. And you probably even meant that exact thing with that comment, but it sure as hell didn't come off like that.
But ok, under the assumption that you did in fact meant that instead, I'll change my "you have bad reading comprehension" to "you have a bad way with words"
We follow the same thing, but view it differently, as been evident since forever. I see merging of mob lvls as something positive, because high lvls will be farming high lvl mobs near to lowbies farming their stuff. This provides protection from any potential enemies (PKers or enemy nodes), while also promoting cross-lvl socialization.
But you seem to think that a lvl40 should be able to just genocid any mob they see and their literal node-mates should be fine with that and stay silent about it.
And if you say "the lowbie should just ask the lvl40 not to do that", I'd have to ask, how many people have you met who would deny themselves the easiest reward by listening to someone who's way weaker than them? Cause I might've met a few, but they'd be a few out of thousands and thousands of people who wouldn't deny themselves that reward.
Kickstarter stated that Ashes doesn't have an Endgame - which is the primary reason I was interested in Nodes.
Castles being Level 50-55 and Freeholds being Level 50 means that Ashes very clearly has Endgame.
The Castles that exist at Launch will be occuoied by an NPC adversary. These are the primary antagonists in the storyline. The Guids will obviously have to level up a period of time in order to Siege. And it will be very difficult to take these out of the NPCs hands.
---Steven Ashes of Creation | From The Ashes | Episode 42: Steven Returns
No indication that the NPCs are Level 50 -55.
Well, it is just the 1st day of the month. You have to use what you have well, to keep the forum alive until next stream
Why would I be going out of my way to genocide weaker mobs and get less stuff. Sounds like a waste of time to me unless those mobs give more rewards for some reason. Not saying some people might nor farm weaker mobs to relax time to time. This will be more of a issue if there is no content for people, which can be the only valid argument to be concerned.
Which to me is a different disccusion than talking about a lvl 40 killing a 30 mob cause they get some mats from it. Overall people should get full rewards from anything they kill, else to start to ask the question if you are going to put limits on content why not just scale all mobs to players at this point.