Controversial: Augmentation might be a bad idea if set to 25 and later

First of all let me asure you that i personally think that augments are a nice idea. However, i fear for its design implementation if not done properly

What we currently know is that at lvl 25 you get to choose your secondary archtype, and then can augment your primary skills. While this sounds great at first glance their isa major drawback of this system: It changes the fundamental game mechanic of the game after dozens of hours or more of gameplay.

A game is designed around a certain concept. Ashes is designed around archtypes and augmenting the primary archtype with a secondary class, or racial / faith or other rare augments. And while that design is interesting, and comprehensive for those who have been following the game, its not comprehensive for the starting new player.

Most MMO's have a leveling curve that slows down the leveling experience as you level up. They unlock more abilities as you grow stronger. And everyone interesting in playing an mmo knows this. However Ashes is going to be one of the, (or to my knowledge the only) few exceptions to this. At mid level the entire class design, up till that point changes. No longer are you a tank, but your a Tank Fighter, or a Tank Tank, and unlock the Augment system. And this is where the augment system might fail enormously.

Switching a design philosophy at mid tier might result in a lot of player drop off at that point.

Example:
You love playing elves, and you want to be a bad ass fighter with a bow. But up until level 25 you cannot augment your skills to be workable with a bow. While you enjoy your fighter, something is missing so at lvl 20you reroll ranger. You've spend about 20 hours into the game, and being an average player this has taken you between one or 2 weeks of real time. You've rerolled Ranger, again an elf, and you are enjoying your archery lifestyle. your slightly faster in leveling this time and just before your monthly subscription is up you reach high enough level to gain access to your secondary archtype. You enjoy augmenting your skills but then realize something that basically made you abandon your first character. after lvl 25 you could finally augment your skills with skills appropriate to how you actually wanted to play. Upset you decide not to resub scribe for next month. because the "stupid game should have let you do it from the get go"

And this is where i think that Ashes augment system might fall short. It starts for the average player a week or 2 after creating your class, and fundamentally changes it. Your class becomes a total new class (literally) with new options and playstyles. And while this is in one way good, its also bad in a way. The average gamer decides in the first 2 hours if they like a game or not. Not after 20 or 40 hours of playing. The average gamer also tries out different classes, to get a feel of the playstyle. They don't appreciate that you can completely change a playstyle only after 20 + hours.

So what can Ashes do to prevent this?
There are numerous ways.
Allow players to immediately augment their skills, so they understand the interface and that your secondary archtype will gratly enhance this later on. Each player should have racial augments that affect their skills from th start. Maybe the race has 1 or 2 favorite weapons and can alter the skills to be used trough those weapons, or a favorite damage type and can augment to that damage type.. In short, let the '"new player experience|" EXPERIANCE augments and let them create elven fighters with bows from level 1, instead of having to wait till 25 and force it to Fighter / ranger archtype.

After much discussions i've included a list of what different people want augments to be able to do:
Augments should:
Retain the primary archetypes role
Offer a way to change playstyle while retaining the role
Might lead to having to use different gear
Some want augments to have major effects
Some want augments to have minor effects

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Kesthely wrote: »

After re-evaluating, i do stand by most of my opinions.

I still believe that lvl 25 might be to long for the secondary introduction.
I still believe that the introduction to Nodes should be on a timetable that you choose instead of a linear "you have to do this in this order"
I still believe that not everyone will need / wants to know everything about the node system, since for normal players a lot doesn't need to be known.

But i also agree that the node system is far more complex and requires a lot longer explanation then i previously assumed. I do believe that what should be told or known will be different for a lot of people, and that explaining the systems is going to be arduous. What information needs to be told deserves an entire topic of its own.

I agree that it should be optional - everything in Ashes should be.

However, it should still be available as the first thing players learn. Right from day 1, understanding the node system will assist in determining things like whether or not you want to attack a player. If they are active in your nodes area, and you understand the implications of this, you may well want to leave them be.

Since it is still something that needs to be conveyed early (even if only to those that want it), and since conflicts in trying to be shown too many things at once are still bad, the node system should still be available to players to learn as an option before sub-class specifics are.

Noaani I've redacted the 2 last 2 posts of mine, if your grieving about a specific comment earlier let me know, and i'll redact it if nessicary.

If I had an issue with a specific comment, I'd have mentioned it at the time. My issue was with a general lack of understanding of the system - which you are working on rectifying.

As such, I have no issue.

About zoi's i still wonder something, which i couldn't get a defining answer to; if anyone knows this please link the corresponding source.
Since every node has its own Zoi, if a parent nodes Zoi, encompasses the Vassal nodes Zoi entirely, does it actually effect the level of the mobs it spawns, and if so in what way. I would imagine if the Zoi of the parent node encompasses other nodes, the type of parent node changes the type of quests available, the node itself is primarily responsible for the overall level of the zone.

We don't have solid details on this, but there really is only one way it can work (from a high level perspective).

The only way this can work is if all content (type, level, etc) is dictated by the highest node that has extended it's influence to that location.

So, if you are in a level 3 node area, and that node is a vassal of a neighboring level 4 node, which in turn is a vassal of a level 6 node, then the content in your location is determined by that metropolis node.

This doesn't mean it will be level cap content. A metropolis node will need to have content within it's ZoI (among all it's vassals) for all levels.

There really isn't any other way it could work.

If content were specific to the local node, then the game would have almost half of it's content be for level 30 and under. This does not make for a long lasting game.

Kesthely

Noaani wrote: »

[
We don't have solid details on this, but there really is only one way it can work (from a high level perspective).

The only way this can work is if all content (type, level, etc) is dictated by the highest node that has extended it's influence to that location.

So, if you are in a level 3 node area, and that node is a vassal of a neighboring level 4 node, which in turn is a vassal of a level 6 node, then the content in your location is determined by that metropolis node.

This doesn't mean it will be level cap content. A metropolis node will need to have content within it's ZoI (among all it's vassals) for all levels.

There really isn't any other way it could work.

If content were specific to the local node, then the game would have almost half of it's content be for level 30 and under. This does not make for a long lasting game.

I don't know if that's a smart thing to do. If all of the content is (in)directly linked to the parent node, you would get that most or all of the content eventually will become high end content. With vassalizing different nodes in the area on a certain level, so they can't grow, you can shape the area around metropolis in a way that it has content from a wide range of level spread, since the nodes would be capped for a certain level.

Due to player time limitations, you will have a lot of "raid logging" at some point, having a stair case of transferable xp, and area's in your mains area to get the xp, would prevent the attrition of the nodes when content is at a drought.

I think that attrition warfare, where you are taking out the vassal nodes first so they have to relevel, and thus give less xp to the parent node will be a viable tactic, to delevel a metropolis so yours can rise to a metropolis instead. Smaller end game zones, will make the endgame zones more worthwhile, and thus instigate more change in the world, either by direct attacks or attrition warfare.

Noaani

Kesthely wrote: »

Smaller end game zones, will make the endgame zones more worthwhile, and thus instigate more change in the world, either by direct attacks or attrition warfare.

The issue with this is that it wouldn't just be smaller, it would be oppressively small.

Most MMO players will leave a game if they have no content to play. This is just a fact. If Ashes doesn't have content for people to play, then the game will not survive.

Telling people they have to fight in PvP for the right to have some PvE content to play is not the makings of a game that wants to call itself PvX.

While it is absolutely viable to fight over some content types, it is absolutely not viable to have to fight for access to just level appropriate content.

Even with that said, even just the discussion and possible ways that we each believe Intrepid could do just one aspect of the node system (the way the content is distributed), it should give you an idea of how important the node system as a whole is to the game.

Dolyem

JustVine wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

This discussion is all over the place...but at least the current system will also delay the min/max community for a bit to allow for the game to stay interesting for an even longer period(a fresh start) of time until the classes inevitably are broken down to a science

How does it delay min maxing exactly?

It will take far more time to delve into every archetype

How will it achieve that? And delay it as opposed to what system?

content creators having to delve through 64 class variants where they have to level to 25 before they even begin to test the secondary. As opposed to immediately delving into every archetype right from the start of the character. Makes it take longer to experiment with each class variant.

Kesthely

@Noaani With the node system, its always going to be different how much end game content each server has. in some servers there might not be any metropolis, due to node wars / or to little xp gain. while on a different server, the nodes might be very static. Regardless i think any server can be fun to play on, since, end game will be different on every server.

Noaani

It is VERY unlikely for a node to not have at least one metropolis at any given time from 3 months after launch.

Not saying it won't happen, but it is unlikely.

I mean, when you are sitting in your node, preparing materials for the siege you are expecting, whether you are attacking or defending, you are earning experience for your node.

In order to not have a metropolis, there would need to be successful sieges on every level 5 node, basically every month.

Even the notion of not enough population doesn't hold true, because Intrepid have said they will balance the experience needed for node advancement on a per server basis if it is needed.

Basically, Intrepid will ensure that every node maintains a number of metropolis level nodes.

Kesthely

We'll have to see post launch, just the idea that things like i described could happen on a sserver, makes the game that much more intresting.

Noaani

Kesthely wrote: »

We'll have to see post launch, just the idea that things like i described could happen on a sserver, makes the game that much more intresting.

It makes it interesting from a high level.

To the person logging on to the game after a shit day at work, it would be far from interesting.

Kesthely

Noaani wrote: »

Kesthely wrote: »

We'll have to see post launch, just the idea that things like i described could happen on a sserver, makes the game that much more intresting.

It makes it interesting from a high level.

To the person logging on to the game after a shit day at work, it would be far from interesting.

I disagree, i think that a server where nobody ever reaches max level, coud be an intresting server for a lot of people. Everyone's fun stems from something else, what might be boring to some, might be the most fun for others.

Noaani

Kesthely wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Kesthely wrote: »

We'll have to see post launch, just the idea that things like i described could happen on a sserver, makes the game that much more intresting.

It makes it interesting from a high level.

To the person logging on to the game after a shit day at work, it would be far from interesting.

I disagree, i think that a server where nobody ever reaches max level, coud be an intresting server for a lot of people. Everyone's fun stems from something else, what might be boring to some, might be the most fun for others.

I mean, you could use this as an argument to do anything in the game - it *might* be fun for some.

A game like Ashes needs to be fun for millions, not for some.

This is specifically why Intrepid said that if they needed to, they would set the experience rate on nodes on a per server basis.

Aerlana

"game could be fun if"

When we thing about it, we most of time forget one thing :
A good game is a global alchemy. it is a global system with lot of components, features. thought to fit together. there is only one way to complete a puzzle.

Also, not sure that no metropolis but only lvl5 node will avoid people to reach lvl 50. Would be slower yes but not impossible.
People with no metropolis in their server wouldnt have the content the other servers got. So because they have bad luck getting in the bad server in release, they can't enjoy the game like others... sad

Maybe what you say could be fun for some people, but it has to be intended and not "bad luck when you choose your server".

Kesthely

@Noaani due to server size limits, there might actually be enough places for everyones playstyle. Eventually a server will get a reputation for how its played, and what area's are developed. I think in the long run, people will start anew on different servers, just to see that servers content. Each server could play out as a different "expansion" like feeling to the game Ashes of Creation.

The thing your worrying about is most likely a short term or some servers problem. Because Ashes isn't a single shard entity, i think, it will be ok.

Kesthely

Aerlana wrote: »

"game could be fun if"

When we thing about it, we most of time forget one thing :
A good game is a global alchemy. it is a global system with lot of components, features. thought to fit together. there is only one way to complete a puzzle.

Also, not sure that no metropolis but only lvl5 node will avoid people to reach lvl 50. Would be slower yes but not impossible.
People with no metropolis in their server wouldnt have the content the other servers got. So because they have bad luck getting in the bad server in release, they can't enjoy the game like others... sad

Maybe what you say could be fun for some people, but it has to be intended and not "bad luck when you choose your server".

I think regardless of the server, if the server has enough concurrent players Those who are intrested in end game content will flock together to those area's of the highest level. People gather around conveniance. Higher nodes have more conveniance, be it xp, facilities, crafting oppertunities, auctionhouse etc. beause people will flock to that area's the area will gain more xp, and grow. IF the server has enough players to outpace its attrition.

It will be a lot harder to NOT have metropolises in the long run then having them

Noaani

Kesthely wrote: »

Noaani due to server size limits, there might actually be enough places for everyones playstyle. Eventually a server will get a reputation for how its played, and what area's are developed. I think in the long run, people will start anew on different servers, just to see that servers content. Each server could play out as a different "expansion" like feeling to the game Ashes of Creation.

The thing your worrying about is most likely a short term or some servers problem. Because Ashes isn't a single shard entity, i think, it will be ok.

Some people may reroll on a different server to see some content, but that is likely to only be lower level content, or lore relevant content.

It is unlikely people will reroll just to see a piece of level cap content, as in the time it takes to level up, there is likely to be two or three siege attempts on the metropolis affecting the content in question.

Sieging nodes in order to alter content, with a view to opening up specific things, is one of the early reasons Steven gave for why players may want to siege a metropolis on the other side of Verra from where they have made their home.

It is true that different servers will gain a reputation for things though. However, I see this playing out as more of an anarchy vs control thing.

Some servers will have many successful sieges on metropolis nodes, and will be known for this, and the minor anarchy it creates. Other servers will have very dominant factions controlling all metropolis node clusters, and successful sieges on high level nodes will be rare. However, these players will still see the need for metropolis nodes changing in order to (among other things) open up content, and so are likely to orchestrate sieges on their own nodes themselves - as needed.

Child Item