@JamesSunderland - Sorry about that, gonna try to address these as succinctly as possible. Please don't feel the need to respond to all of these at once, I just didn't want to make five posts, whereas given what the points below are, you may not need 5 yourself.
1. I actually spent some time trying to get that wording right. I originally wrote:
"There are three" and then in the second paragraph - "There's a fourth but it doesn't apply to Ashes." and then changed it for clarity. Please let me know if that would have led to less misunderstanding. Also, similarly, let me know if asking about how to change my wordings annoys you or seems condescending, my data on you implies it does not, but you're not often quite as passionate as you seem to be in this thread.
So to 'correct the misunderstanding', the fourth thing is the 'Failstack' style system, the 'way to mitigate RNG on a single enhance', and I've seen no indication this applies to Ashes, but it's also true that I don't know, so I will 'assign' someone to ask this question in the upcoming LiveStream. I don't expect an answer, though, since if there was a rigid one, this entire topic would be much less meaningful.
tl:dr, the fourth system I am talking about is 'Failstacks' and the fact that players have to learn and make a system out of that, to the point of disengagement. Even if the game allows one rely on other people for enhancing, that just creates a more complex, possibly scam-filled environment if any form of RNG manipulation is involved, without additional systems meant to show the 'customer' that the 'reductions' have been applied.
2. As for the maintenance of power gaps, I don't believe I mentioned P2W.
I believe I was making the point that I don't like the feeling of the constant shifting Catchup mechanics. In BDO I benefit from them immensely, but it means there's never any incentive to play the game the way it was historically designed. As a relatively risk-averse calculating person, I simply wait until the company caves to their own data and metrics about other risk-averse calculating people.
BDO is my main point here, not Lineage, but most of my data indicates that older Lineage is more troublesome than even Historical BDO. I can bring a lot of BDO quotes from the devs themselves about why they do things, in order to manage player behaviour, satisfaction, and retention. I also can find some Lineage data but that takes much longer to establish a valid timeline for, and I expect that it would be a waste of your time, since if I missed just one datapoint that would force a different conclusion, you'd then have to 'show it in context' and it would get really long. For now, if you don't mind, let's just skip this whole bit. I can only go with what I've seen developers do recently, so I doubt we'll be able to agree, especially if I reference a game that is dear to you.
3. I think that was my point, developers constantly misunderstand player incentives because game developers don't usually study psychology to the required level.
MMO developers in general have been really, REALLY bad at this for the last 10 years. I know that's what they're missing because THEY say it. And most of the time, the 'average player' or the 'average psychologist' could have told them long before they even did something, that a system will not work as intended or will receive considerably less engagement. Forcing engagement as a way of making players deal with your system works until some equivalent game that does not force it, appears. I feel Ashes can do better than this.
And yes, I'm implicitly implying that I am that person that they need. Someone has to be, right? But of course, I only ask to be judged on that point by the content of my posts. Decide for yourself if I show the requisite skills or understanding for this in general.
4. I was not speaking in terms of an RNG-less system, this is not part of the scope of Ashes.
However, I was referring to 'deleveling' and 'item destruction' as RNG outcomes, which I think they could change at this stage. I stand by the perspective that we have enough item sinks and that RNG item destruction is a poor one in almost every design schema. As I said before, I can go on for a really long time about this, but if the requirement of the conversation is that there are studies that I have access to, I can't just ask Pearl Abyss or NCSoft for their internal metrics on behaviour to run my analysis tools on. I'm just a random forumer, I can't 'prove' that I have the experience or capacity to make these predictions in any way that an opposing opinion will believe. That happens even when one actually has the data anyway, though generally, not with you.
5. You are a gambler.
I have to be direct about this one. That thing you say 'provides you excitement' does so because you are a gambler. To me, the feeling is 'dread', 'disgust', 'aversion', and sometimes 'hate'. And this isn't because I actually enhance things much. It's just the sheer annoyance and disgust at the shitty system that makes me have to do this and then restructure my whole game around it.
Because in BDO at least, if you say 'just get a backup', you're talking about something like 'Ok I need to get my Gloves to TET, which could has a 5% chance of success, I can raise it to 10, but either way if I fail, I either used up 80 mil to prevent it from dropping to DUO or I did it without that, but had another TRI version of these gloves to use.
Where did I GET the SECOND TRI?
Numerically, the 'backup gear' is supposed to be a 'consequence'. Technically game design wise it's SUPPOSED to be a disincentive, to keep power curves flatter. Overenchanting failures are supposed to hurt the majority of players by design because that's the easy way the designers chose to control their economy. The argument from me is 'y'all can do better than adding a system whose purpose is to threaten players with a punishment'.
This is not a thing that a gambler's mind synchronizes with as far as I know. That, I can find any number of studies on. I am not trying to say that you should not be the way you are, but I do not want Ashes to use an unnecessary system, and certainly not to base their choices on whether or not to use that system on the gambler's mindset unless that is definitely their target audience.
I would hope that the game will be enjoyable to you if they do not apply as strong of a gambling system, but please understand that for many others (as you can see in this thread) it does not provide any excitement. And for me, this applies to mob drops as well, yes, at least boss ones, I have a thread on it. If you would like to discuss this fifth point in detail since it's just psychology, that might be the better thread for it.
Ok, that was an essay as usual... but as I said, that's what I do...
Numerically, the 'backup gear' is supposed to be a 'consequence'. Technically game design wise it's SUPPOSED to be a disincentive, to keep power curves flatter. Overenchanting failures are supposed to hurt the majority of players by design because that's the easy way the designers chose to control their economy. The argument from me is 'y'all can do better than adding a system whose purpose is to threaten players with a punishment'.
A lot of people suggest harsh upkeep mechanics as an alternative to "OE fail destruction". So let me ask this, how would a player feel if after every pvp he had to think to himself "oh, I'd rather not use this super cool weapon that I spent weeks grinding for in the next fight because I don't have resources to repair it rn", so they use weaker stuff and might now lose because of that, even though they've put in countless hours grinding for their powerup.
Imo these 2 systems are pretty much the same. Except in OE's case you're the one who decides to go EVEN FURTHER BEYOND the already powerful level, while in the case of pricey upkeep you're constantly punished for using the thing you spent a ton of time achieving. And at some point you might stop using the item completely exactly because upkeep is too difficult.
Yes, I might be a gambler, but in case of OE I only suffer from my own decisions, while in the expensive repairs system it's the system that punishes me for just using my hard-earned item.
Or at least RNG where the previous state will be saved.
No even a system like that sucks. No RNG at all please. TERA had a system like that and all you end up doing is wasting tons and tons of mats when you have bad RNG being stuck on the same enchant level forever. You're still frustrated and it still sucks. Sure it's better than Aion/L2/BDO systems where you lose a level upon failing, but a less poor system is still a poor system.
One concern I have about the over-enchanting feature/concept is that it further expands the gap between hardcore players and casuals. More hardcore players will be able to gather or buy all the extra mats/items to burn in trying to over-enchant. Casuals likely won’t.
This could be a potential problem in a PvP MMO- but I have faith that Intrepid can balance it well. If the difference between an over-enchanted item and a zero-risk max enchanted item is small enough, I don’t think it’ll be an issue. Obviously the problem at that point becomes making over-enchanting worth it.
This is my concern with not just over-enchanting but enchanting at all. I am worried about PvP balance and casual vs hardcore gear/power imbalances ruining gameplay and making people not want to play. There's going to be a gear and skill gap already so please Intrepid don't make it worse.
Not at all. I played both Aion and TERA when they were P2P sub based MMO's and their enchanting systems sucked just as much during their sub days as when they went F2P. The only change is that you could pay your way past some of the RNG when they went F2P, but the enchanting system sucked from day 1.
Alright, i already understood you personally dislike such enchantments systems even in games where P2W shop isn't entangled in it, but would you say the enchantment system killed/ruined Aion and TERA as mmorpgs overall as the main factor?
In sum, yes. Easily.
Aion's system was much worse than TERA and it did end up killing the game. People got tired quickly of the enchanting and manastone socketing grind (both super RNG and expensive/grindy) on top of an already super grindy path to earn the gear to begin with. The game's combat also had a fairly high skill ceiling, so players with a lot of time had much more powerful gear with ideal manastones and a higher skill level. The average player, if they didn't already quit due to the several months or more long grind to get a lesser but "decently competitive " set of gear, didn't last long after continually finding uneven PvP. Those that lasted often only did because they were able to hide behind a group or more zerg on the more powerful/more populated faction. The game died after about 2 years and the population declined earlier than that.
TERA's gear system wasn't nearly as bad but still created major imbalances. But combat was more balanced, gear was slightly less OP/imbalanced, and players could get decent gear with less time because enchanting failure didn't result in lost enchant levels. Although the game still died after 1-2 years because they went F2P after a year and the P2W cash shop made the situation worse.
Let me put it another way. If a game's poor gearing system is made worse by a cash shop, it's a sign it was poor without the cash shop. All people are doing is spending money to avoid bad game design. If you need to bypass game design, the system is bad to begin with. The gearing/enchanting systems were poor when the games were P2P and people hated it but they couldn't do anything about it aside from quit. Some did, and even more saw how the F2P cash shop exacerbated the issue, and quit then.
What? I am speaking for myself obviously, just telling you you are wrong. The RNG aspect killed the game and made me stop playing. Source: Me. You are the one who made a claim about why people (that you don't know) think the game was ruined, making the assertion that: "Its interesting to see people mentioning BDO and AA RNG enchanting systems killing/ruining their respective games as if it was their ultimate executioner, while in reality it was mainly their P2W cash shop intertangled with the enchanting system literally selling power."
So why don't you start providing a source for your claim about what other people think, and how all their opinions and experiences are somehow wrong? You must have a good study to back that up, and I would love to read it.
Wait, what? You simple did not specified it was your personal opinion derived from your personal experience, in your post you literally just wrote: "it was definitely the RNG that killed it." in general, like a fact.
Without providing any sort of proof for that.
My claim is that people erroneously claimed that games like Archeage or Lineage 2 were MAINLY killed by RNG in GENERAL and not just personally for themselves, like you did!
Personal opinion/experience is personal opinion/experience i would never argue over something that is so far from being an actual valid argument and subjective.
Moving the goalpost them going straight to strawmanning, i wonder what kind of fallacy you will try next.
Ok, thank you for clarifying. As I also wrote in the same post you quoted from, I asked if we were talking past each other. We were doing that a little I guess. You weren't attacking people's opinions, but you are still making an unsourced claim about what killed those games in general. I would still like to see your source for that claim. No strawmanning from my end, just a genuine misunderstanding on my part, because you didn't clearly specify it was in general, so it wasn't clear to me you were talking about general reasons.
Since I read your comment as you attacking other people's personal reasons for quitting (instead of your unsourced general claim), I thought you would understand I was also talking about my personal opinion, because that was obvious from the context. This was partly my bad obviously. Written communication adds to misunderstandings, and I should have taken that into account and been more specific.
Generally speaking, everything I write on these forums is my personal opinion unless I specify otherwise. I don't add "in my opinion" or "for me" to every sentence, but I hope it's obvious from the context of the post. For example, @Dygz only took part of what I wrote and quoted me out of context. The entire paragraph is:
The most important part for me is that we don't see a reset or delevelling of progress in enchanting. Ever. For any reason. People WILL quit the game over that type of punishing system, and it doesn't add positively to the game overall. Please drop any idea of items breaking and having to be enchanted all over again from +0 after a reforge. It's not a good game design.
I bolded the pertinent part. To me it's perfectly clear it's my opinion. I know many people who quit over the RNG system in BDO for example, but that's just anecdotal. You want sources that people have quit over the RNG? Sure: 1, 2, 3, and there are many more. I even saw one or two comments in this thread that people might quit over it. I can find it for you if you really want.
Numerically, the 'backup gear' is supposed to be a 'consequence'. Technically game design wise it's SUPPOSED to be a disincentive, to keep power curves flatter. Overenchanting failures are supposed to hurt the majority of players by design because that's the easy way the designers chose to control their economy. The argument from me is 'y'all can do better than adding a system whose purpose is to threaten players with a punishment'.
A lot of people suggest harsh upkeep mechanics as an alternative to "OE fail destruction". So let me ask this, how would a player feel if after every pvp he had to think to himself "oh, I'd rather not use this super cool weapon that I spent weeks grinding for in the next fight because I don't have resources to repair it rn", so they use weaker stuff and might now lose because of that, even though they've put in countless hours grinding for their powerup.
Imo these 2 systems are pretty much the same. Except in OE's case you're the one who decides to go EVEN FURTHER BEYOND the already powerful level, while in the case of pricey upkeep you're constantly punished for using the thing you spent a ton of time achieving. And at some point you might stop using the item completely exactly because upkeep is too difficult.
Yes, I might be a gambler, but in case of OE I only suffer from my own decisions, while in the expensive repairs system it's the system that punishes me for just using my hard-earned item.
To me, a non-gambler, these systems are not the same. I am on the 'enjoyment' side in that case. Having to maintain my weapon, come up with different weapons, skills, and builds, feeling good when I happen to finally get an item to repair my 'favorite' weapon. Having the weapon and the option of when to use it to be optimal is part of the game, just as for you, being able to choose when to risk the OE Item Destruction is part of the game.
All of these to me contribute to enjoyment, RP, engagement, adaptation. It's a role-playing game. In a competitive game based on maintaining one's overall optimal function for general enjoyment, I would consider that system to be absolute trash and join you in arguing against it.
But if we speak ONLY in terms of economy design, I believe I can qualitatively prove why the 'having to upkeep' is better in any game with a similar economy.
So it's the combination of what Ashes is aiming to be, and the systems:
Roleplay/social focused with adaptable builds + catering to risk-averse players = No OE Item Destruction
Competitive focused with optimized builds + catering to risk-averse players = This is not usually an MMO?
Roleplay/social focused with adaptable builds + catering to risk-attuned players = OE Item Destruction valid
Competitive focused with optimized builds + catering to risk-attuned players = Upkeep is a punishment and invalid, if this is an MMO (the reason the other isn't, is probably that it lacks RNG in interactions of any kind)
Again, speaking only economically here in this last part.
If Steven is a gambler or wants the game to reward the mentality, we'll get the OE Item Destruction for sure, I doubt even a giant pile of feedback would change his mind. I just don't think it's necessary economically and we can do better, so IF he isn't one, I would hope to convince him (or whoever is in charge of this design) that it isn't necessary, because I'm the risk-averse player for whom it's a pain point.
This is a pretty weird opinion, I'm aware of that, but one of the types of enchantment that I love most are Minecraft and PSO2's. I'm all up for enchanting a weapon to increase its stats, and same thing for armors, nothing wrong with it and it's a timeless method of enchanting. However, I love the ability to cast specific enchantments onto a weapon to better apply to your playstyle, then have the ability to transfer them from one weapon to another (even if it is via some extra rough RNG).
For me that's the best form of enchantment, a mix of Minecraft's classic "I want Fire on my sword" and PSO2's "This stat is super convenient for me".
I feel like overenchantment is meant only for pushing the peak of character progress. You can get you BiS, you can get additional effects on its attack/defense functions, but if you want to go up in power - you gotta risk smth. Just putting more resources into the weapon is not a risk, it's an assured way up through time.
Imo enchantments for vertical progression of gear should be ultra rare. Someone over enchanting a weapon should be a damn event for the server. That one person will get 1-3% boost in power, but their reputation will be that of "someone at the peak of their progress". The whole guild should work for that kind of thing. And by the time that player gets to a chance to destroy their BiS weapon in an overenchant - they should already have a backup. And if they decide to risk a unique legendary - that'd be a great way for it to "change hands". But if they succeed to OE that legendary - they deserve the powerup, because their risk was gigantic.
You can't be a gambler if you don't have the means to gamble. But you can take risks when the opportunity presents itself.
I completely disagree with you.
Having OE breaking gear is just weird gate keeping imo.
Wouldn't it just make more sense to have enchants for unique legendaries and BiS gear locked behind some form of challenge? Like some really difficult questline that would involve the whole guild in raids or something.
In general OE sounds like a really bad mechanic that will take away players hard earned items arbitrarily just because "you have to risk it to earn it". If people need to earn their upgrades it makes so much more sense to instead make the items really difficult to craft and require lots of time instead.
A mechanic like OE just isn't fun. Even top level players won't think it is fun. It really just is grinding with more steps. The reward also has to be comparable with the risk.
Why would I risk OE my BiS item just to get a 1% power bonus? If it fails I lose all time and progress I put into that item + all the stats it gives me.
This will just lead to players not enchanting their gear. And what is the point of having a mechanic in game that the vast majority of players won't use? It's like adding content to the game but not wanting players to actually play it.
The idea of OE might sound interesting, but when you think about it, it's not a good mechanic.
Enchanting works fine in most other RPGs, so why try to re-invent the wheel?
AoC will have so much more amazing and innovative stuff, so there's no need to try and fix stuff that isn't broken.
I'm curious as to why or what purpose a mechanic like "enchanting items can break them" is supposed to serve?
Is it supposed to be a form of gold and or time sink?
Because to me this just sound really annoying and like an arbitrary gate keeping.
I would be very upset if I spent a month farming materials and gold to craft an epic sword, but when I try to enchant it to the max, it breaks and becomes degraded or even unusable. What purpose would this serve other than making players upset?
This sounds like a classic example of punishing players to force them to play a certain way instead of rewarding and incentivising a way to play the game. Rested EXP in WoW is a good example of this where in the beta of WoW, players were hit with an EXP reduction if they played too much in order to prevent players from just blasting through the game. This was of course faced with backlash and in the end Blizzard created the rested EXP system to allow players to play as much as they want, but at the same time rewarding players for logging out for extended periods of time.
So, if you want enchanting to serve as a time sink you might as well just lock the enchanting behind a reputation grind or material grind instead. At least this way players can make consistent progress towards their goals and plan accordingly instead of having to rely on RNG to get that BiS item + enchant.
Actually you might be on to something here. With current systems, they're pushing the same amount of gear/gold sink on all players when all players are not equal. Players with more time to play have more materials and more money, making the enchanting grind less of a hit to their time, money, and material stash compared to a casual player. That just increases a gear gap that will exist anyway.
What if we had an "Enchanting Rested XP" bar that accumulated in the same way and rate as a regular rested character xp bar and served as a temporary boost to enchanting rate (or maybe it makes enchanting require less mats if there's no RNG)? So it serves as a gearing catch up mechanic.
So let's say Player A plays on average from 7-11 pm 5 nights a week, and 0-5 hours on the weekends for a 20-25 hour a week playtime. Player B is more hardcore and plays maybe an average of 6 pm-2 am 5 nights a week and their weekend hours might be none or might be a ton, so let's say they game 40-60 hours a week. Sounds insane, but people with an easy job and nothing else in life have tons of free time.
Player A will have a ton of "Enchanting Rested XP" but not much in the way of enchanting materials due to lack of time to grind them out. So maybe they log in and their "Enchanting Rested XP" is only used up when they attempt to enchant, so maybe they get a few levels out of their current mat stash. Player B had little to no "Enchanting Rested XP" but tons of mats and gold to buy more, so maybe they finish all of their enchanting with no problem.
There's still a gear gap but a smaller one. The player with less time feels like their time is spent well and their time spent to materials lost ratio is more reasonable and closer to that of the player with more time, but they still have less gear/power to keep some balance. Instead of punishing players for failing and having RNG or grind to ensure an unbalanced gear/gold sink, you're encouraging players to enjoy participating in the system with the time they have.
I just got an idea that would have the scaling upkeep, would have a good gold sink, mats sink and a potential gear think in it w/o rng in the OE. Hear me out.
Let's say that each piece of gear consists of 4 part during a craft. Those parts have their own multiple parts too, but when you're about to press the button to "craft the Sword of Awesome" you need to have 4 particular items in your inventory that represent 4 parts of said gear.
Those parts would be linked to the crafting dials and would represent some stats of the full gear, which the dials would then control. Horizontal enchantment would add more effects on these parts. So let's assume we'll be able to horizontally enchant each piece of gear 4 times (once for each part).
Now let's assume that gear decay is not dmg-based, but instead time-based. The decay timer would tick only when you're wearing the gear. Intrepid would decide how long that timer is based on their own calculations of potential time-to-farm-for-repairs. And we could even prolong that timer by using high quality mats and services of a top tier crafter, so each part of the piece of gear could add some amount of time to the decay timer.
Let's say we only need mats for repairs when the timer runs out. But if you have just the base version of said gear, at the end of the timer only one part of that piece will break (at random). So to bring back the timer to full you'd just need to use the material that is used to craft that part of the gear. This would be our main mats sink.
Horizontal enchantment would remove some amount of that timer (the amount would probably depend on the power of the enchantment), because it's putting some burden on said part.
To represent ware and dmg to the gear we'd have some decrease in its power at certain intervals of the timer. And to bring the power back we'd buy "honing stones" (or whatever alternative for different pieces of gear) at the node stores (with tiers of those nodes relating to the lvl of the node). This would be our gold sink.
Now we come to vertical enchantment. I suggest having +8 as the max vertical enchant level. Here's why. When you vertically enchant a piece of gear for "+1", you pick a part of said piece and increase the stats that this part provides (enchantment included). By doing so you double the amount that horizontal enchantment removed from the timer (or if there was no HE, you just remove some fairly big amount). And on top of that you make this part always break at the end of the decay timer. So now you'll have 2 parts break and will have to use more mats to repair the gear.
Once you repeat this +1 on all parts, you'll have a way shorter decay timer and you'll have to pretty much recraft the whole piece of gear once it decays fully (but all your enchantments and power remains). This will be our main gear sink.
And after that step you can now OE that piece. OE is just a repeat of the first round of vertical enchantment and it puts "strain" on your gear parts so you now have to use double the mats to repair any +2 part. And this way at +8 you'll have to double the crafting mats to repair your gear. And if you're going for this kind of OE, you'll just HAVE TO use the best mats and craft at the best crafter, just to balance out the decrease of the decay counter. This would be our great gear sink, meant only for those at the very top of the game.
I think this kind of system would keep the RPGness that @Azherae talked about (because to keep the timer from ticking, you'd be switching to other sets of gear). This system would provide several resource sinks that, in theory, should keep the power creep from growing too much. The vertical enchantment resources should be even rarer in this system (because of the 100% success), so the power growth of the whole server would be fairly slow. There'd be no RNG involved, but OE would still be a huge hit to anyone who tries to play with it. Also, this kind of vertical enchantment would empower the horizontal one, so in a way it'd be DIAGONAL! And ain't that just super cool
This will just lead to players not enchanting their gear. And what is the point of having a mechanic in game that the vast majority of players won't use? It's like adding content to the game but not wanting players to actually play it.
Corruption is a system that'll only influence maaaybe 1% of people (if not less). Top lvl bosses with super hard mechanics and open world pvp for them will only reward 1% of the playerbase and maaaybe 10% will ever even come close to the farm itself. Castles are only meant for the big guilds or a big alliance of smaller guilds. Any casual/random player will never even enter a castle. Flying mounts are meant for only ~20 players out of the damn 10K on the server.
All of those are game mechanics in Ashes that are meant only for the very top of the food chain. All of those mechanics are deeply developed and have been shown the most in the dev streams. So this is not a good argument against the OE system that would only influence the top of the top.
The idea of OE might sound interesting, but when you think about it, it's not a good mechanic.
You might consider it a bad mechanic, but a lot of other people like it quite a lot. And a ton of top players in L2 gladly OEd their gear even though they knew the risks. You might say that literally everyone who played L2 was a damn gambling addict, but I somehow doubt it.
Enchanting works fine in most other RPGs, so why try to re-invent the wheel?
AoC will have so much more amazing and innovative stuff, so there's no need to try and fix stuff that isn't broken.
The only innovation AoC brings are the nodes. Everything else has been done before in other games. And the currently planned form of enchanting has been done in Lineage 2 almost 1 to 1. No one is reinventing the wheel with this system.
I'm all for any more systems, crafters love complex things anyway.
I definitely agree that I wouldn't really worry about 'this system is too complicated', because if there's no easy scam path for a crafter to use, it plays into Ashes' philosophies even more.
I've read your suggestion twice, @NiKr, and idk if you put any value on my opinion/design skill, but I can find no flaws in the system other than 'complexity', and as mentioned, 'complexity isn't a flaw'.
If anything, the 'recognition that your gear isn't in the state you want when you need to use it' would be the 'pain point', but if the timer only ticks down while you're wearing it, I feel like players would adapt to it quickly.
That said, I usually expect negative reactions to complex-seeming systems regardless, so, good luck with that aspect of it.
That said, I usually expect negative reactions to complex-seeming systems regardless, so, good luck with that aspect of it.
Oh I know that full well. Yesterday I came up with a system to encourage time-casual players to come back to the game, while hardcore players pay for their return (while getting their own reward for it) and got downvoted on reddit to all hell I thought of rewriting that post onto the forum, but was to tired to bother.
But as for this enchanting system, I was just trying to find a way to keep the gold sink that destruction-based OE brings, but leave out the RNG part of it, while also keeping the power creep contained to the maximum.
That said, I usually expect negative reactions to complex-seeming systems regardless, so, good luck with that aspect of it.
Oh I know that full well. Yesterday I came up with a system to encourage time-casual players to come back to the game, while hardcore players pay for their return (while getting their own reward for it) and got downvoted on reddit to all hell I thought of rewriting that post onto the forum, but was to tired to bother.
But as for this enchanting system, I was just trying to find a way to keep the gold sink that destruction-based OE brings, but leave out the RNG part of it, while also keeping the power creep contained to the maximum.
It definitely comes out as a meaningfully stronger containment, with a much larger commitment to a specific personal weapon. It might be stressful in another way if Ashes doesn't deliver on its Classes and Builds vision (so that people need to change moreso than finding their identity) but that's just my 'designer auto-worry'.
Also, my 'head of Marketing' would never let 'us' use 'Diagonal' as a buzzword, so I don't expect Margaret would let Steven do it either, lol.
Has there been any talk about non-combat related enchanting? I would LOVE to see certain freehold/utility items be possible by enchanting items. For example, I just put up a post about food preservation. If Ashes had a food spoilage system enchanters could make "ice boxes" as refrigerators and freezers. Other examples are fire starters, ever-burning torches, or anyting you can think of from DnD, Pathfinder, Harry Potter, etc.
So for enchanting, I kinda like Lost Arks system. They limit the amount of mats you can obtain to upgrade a day/a week depending on what progression path your using, and there is no chance to fail on enhancements, it just takes time to get there.
I think as soon as you add the ability to have items break and such you have people want to leave the game when they break too many items. I'd like to see it the enchanting system be a matter of you play the game enough you'll reach max enchantments. Not based on rng oh you failed start over.
Enchantments also basically are just a way to level up after you have reached max level. You could flat out remove enchantments and make it more of a "set system" with various tiers. With various materials you need to grind to get enough currency to buy x set at tier 1. Then maybe you need the previous tier to buy or convert into tier 2.
But at the end of the day, I don't mind if things downgrade, but if they are destroyed I don't want to see it.
Intrepid's description of "destroyed" only seems to send the item down to 0 durability which will cost a higher amount of reagents used in the crafting of the item to repair. This does not seem to completely destroy the item from the game like BDO for instance. I can get on board with this. This would be an adequate gold sink without the complete destruction of progression for the item. Coming from an unforgiving game like BDO I would be very gun-shy to playing a game like that again even given all of BDO's success in certain areas (graphics, combat, player creator). I still have my complaints about progression being gated by RNG but we can only hope the over-enchanting process will not give a large increase in stats for the item but small increments. Small increases such as 3% to all stats per level may not guarantee the success of a fight but merely give an edge.
"Over-enchanting items comes with a potential risk that the item decays or is destroyed if a safety margin is exceeded. This system is subject to testing."
Item decays translates to just loss of durability. Similar to when we die. "Item durability (item decay) does not destroy items, but it acts as a materials sink. Zero percent durability will unequip an item, increasing its repair costs"
"Over-enchanting carries the risk of destroying that item[2], rendering it useless for use temporarily."
Temporarily meaning 0 durability. I'm not sure if there is included a timed duration lockout for the item.
If they implement this method of enchanting weapons you can have two options here. Enchant yourself and deal with the item decay or reduction of durability to 0 when you fail. Or you can simply wait for users that have done the enchanting themselves and if the price is right purchase their luck on the auction house. If you're more into gathering materials and processing them into the reagents used to repair items then I think business will be booming when we finally reach that point of over-enchanting.
"Over-enchanting items comes with a potential risk that the item decays or is destroyed if a safety margin is exceeded. This system is subject to testing."
One of the references mentions Lineage 2 by name and says that this system is similar. L2 destroyed your item completely if you failed OE. So unless Intrepid decides to listen to all the people who dislike that kind of system, there'll be item destruction within that system.
"Over-enchanting items comes with a potential risk that the item decays or is destroyed if a safety margin is exceeded. This system is subject to testing."
One of the references mentions Lineage 2 by name and says that this system is similar. L2 destroyed your item completely if you failed OE. So unless Intrepid decides to listen to all the people who dislike that kind of system, there'll be item destruction within that system.
The thing is, Steven sometimes doesn't use words in the commonly understood MMORPG ways. When he says destroyed, he doesn't mean the item is gone. It can be reforged using some of the materials that were used for crafting it in the first place.
The decay system is not going to be some worthless "Oh I'm just going to throw some gold into this and it's a simple gold sink". It's actually going to require some base materials in order to repair decayed items; and decay occurs from death and also the destruction and disable system. For the weapons over the over-enchanting will require those materials as well. So creating that dependency I think is healthy for the crafting economy.
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.
I've tried asking for a clarification on it, but the question wasn't chosen for the Q&A.
The thing is, Steven sometimes doesn't use words in the commonly understood MMORPG ways. When he says destroyed, he doesn't mean the item is gone. It can be reforged using some of the materials that were used for crafting it in the first place.
Guess we'll have to see how exactly it looks. You might be right and a big part of this whole thread is useless complaining because people screamed about not having any item removal through enchantment system. The rng problem remains, but if the item doesn't go away I see no problem in OE being rng. Especially if you need less resources to repair the item than you would've to re-craft it.
The thing is, Steven sometimes doesn't use words in the commonly understood MMORPG ways. When he says destroyed, he doesn't mean the item is gone. It can be reforged using some of the materials that were used for crafting it in the first place.
Guess we'll have to see how exactly it looks. You might be right and a big part of this whole thread is useless complaining because people screamed about not having any item removal through enchantment system. The rng problem remains, but if the item doesn't go away I see no problem in OE being rng. Especially if you need less resources to repair the item than you would've to re-craft it.
It certainly helps it doesn't disappear, if that's the case, but what I tried asking them was about the enchantment level on said item. If it gets reset, that's still bad. If the enchantment level stays +9 or whatever, then I am ok with having to repair or reforge the item. It's not my preferred system by any means, but I can accept it and move on.
If in order to enchant or improve a weapon/armor/jewel/etc. instead of just needing the materials and relying on luck, why shouldn't one rely on effort?
For example: If instead of needing to depend on the RNG to reach a weapon at +20 you should kill a specific boss, that boss should be a unique challenge, a challenge that only a % of people who strive to overcome it get it, that way instead of depending on the RNG would depend on the effort of the player or players.
Particularly I would like that at some point not everything would depend on the RNG, but also on the effort, skill and vivacity of the player.
It could be that in a certain level or levels, (for example to go from +20 to +21, from +30 to +31, etc) instead of depending on the RNG it would be to complete a VERY DIFFICULT mission that only a small % of people thanks to their effort, skill and vivacity would overcome.
That would seem to me an interesting challenge to be able to access a new level of enchantment.
Q:What aspects of the Enchanting system are important to you?
A: Being able to obtain resources for enchanting recipes which do not require extreme instances to obtain, such as killing raid bosses or tough high-end content. IF enchanting materials are tied to these high-end content situations, a type of currency or cost should exist which can help purchase the same enchanting materials. Everyone deserves a chance, and not everyone walks the same path in game.
Q: Are there Enchanting systems in other games that you feel are done well? If so, what makes Enchanting in those games good?
A: Yes, Final Fantasy XIV holds one of the best enchanting (and crafting in general) systems in the game. I firmly believe that each craft or trade skill should have an ebb and flow off of one another. Employing this type of system allows for further stimulation of the economy among crafters and players alike.
Q: Is there anything, in particular, you’re excited or concerned about regarding the Enchanting system?
A: For excitement, the cosmetic effects that some enchants provide visually. As far as concerns, making sure that there is no meta involved in enchanting, but rather a good balance betwixt the available enchantment recipes.
Outside of Enchanting, Alchemy is also one of my top favorites!
First of all, if there is planned to be vertical progression for enchantment, it shouldn't be overly extended. For example, 6 levels of progression should be more than enough (looks kinda suitable as we have 6 node lvls). So if some lucky ppl (in case it's going to be luck dependant) succed in it, i doubt 6 lvls of enchant will give them that high of the powerspike to easy facerolling others. 10-15+ is just a stupid timesink, esp if it's rng. And it either give at least double or triple power of base gear for someone with lvl 15 enchant (if some1 lucky enough to get it easy, it will be quite unfair to others, to have such a big advantage), or if it's less than 30-50% of base gear for lvl 15, then each lvl will give miniscule improvment which i'm not sure is good, to grind alot just for a little gains.
It could possibly be good, to bring in 2 different aproaches at once.
So first, to get lvl1 enchant for example, u need 1 piece of material.
For lvl 2 it would be 3 pieces (and it should be materials of higher grade), then next will be 5, 10, 20, 30. At lvl 6 it will take 30 materials of highest lvl6 grade (which could be possibly obtained only of the end raid bosses/dungeons and to be soulbound, so ppl won't just buy it). There also can be added some additional achievements for the highest enchant lvl, like killing some strongest monsters and drenching gear in their blood (1 piece of gear at once), so it will be hardened enough to withstand end lvl enchants w/o breaking. It will be a harder and a longer way, but give u 100% result.
And the second will be way for rng lovers, with the risk of losing not only materials, but gear as well (breaking down because ain't hardened), and it will have much lower chance of succeding. Like lvl1 is 100%, lvl2 - 80%, 3 - 50%, 4 - 20%, 5 - 10%, 6 - 3/5% of succeding with stable 2-5% chance of losing item. It'll demand same grade (as node lvl) materials, but these ones would be obtanable in outside world, and it should take a larger number for each lvl of enchantment, cause these ones will be tradable.
The most important part of an enchanting system to me is accessible and reliability. By far the biggest thing Intrepid can do for AoC is to limit the amount of rng that plagues every other MMORPG. The last thing I want is to have to be gated from enchanting gear because equipment breaks from failed enchantments or there's only a certain amount of enchantments per equipment like Elyon. Another aspect of enchanting I dislike is rng upgrades such as stats that require you to discard high level gear just because the rng stats applied during enchanting. Even though I dislike RNG, I'm even ok with a decreasing success rate chance for enchanting something like +1->+10 has 100% to 10% chance to succeed.
I think depending on how other systems are planned determines how enchanting should happen. If the game's economy doesn't revolve around anything particular playstyle and compensates pvpers, pve players, and crafters of various types for their gameplay then I think having enchantment being gated by requirements that only dedicated crafters have access to is fair game. Something like an item crafters can sell that allows you to enchant equipment rather than it being an item you can just farm or be directly rewarded with for example.
I can't say I've played a game where I felt the enchantment system was done well. The vast majority of MMORPGs are heavily rng p2w cash grabs by nature and it's usually the most pronounced in areas of the game that allow you to get stronger late game. I hope Ashes of Creation changes this since it's a universally loathed way to go about games and only pushes players away from the game. I've quit MMORPGs in the past due to an important item never upgrading or even breaking after a huge time sink just to attempt it. Only thing I'd say is I love enchantment effects like Fiesta Online where every enchantment level creates a cooler looking effect.
Ideally I'd love to see Ashes be more unique and instead of enchanting being focused on stat checking where the equipment just becomes stronger, it'd be nice to see enchantments be more bonus focused. Something like if you have 2/4 or 4/4 equipment with this enchantment you get x effect. As well as standalone effects from rarer enchantments. The focus would be on augmenting a weapon to fit your playstyle/build rather than just doing more dps, healing more, or being tankier.
0
Options
prymortalMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Up to rank 10 enchantment level should be protected. No bdo rng. Rng is fine from rank 10 to rank 15.
Cheers,
Neurath.
I dislike enchanting, its a cheap time sink system, BDO enchanting while I had near full pen gear earlier than most when it was full P2W, it gave me pure cancer & the reason why i left. So i agree with Neurath this use the BLESS online system as he states.
@Azherae I'm not sure how "player retention" used on the original post would correlate with "Failstack" , but it was probably a misundestanding and the comment is in good faith as its usually your pattern.
Not condesending at all and doesn't annoy me in the least, changing some words with the purpose of better clarification is always validy and can drastically improve the effectiveness of communication, i do it all the time.
1° "failstack" system as you mentioned, isn't something the community is currently expecting as there is no known mention of it, but considering both Lineage 2 and Archeage which are well known as the main sources of inspiration for Ashes had system to mitigate RNG(Sadly mainly bound to their cash shops) who knows it might be a thing.
2° Even tho i would consider L2 to be more relevant to this context for Ashes than BDO(not sure if you would agree with that), i will take your advice of skipping this part as it isn't necessarily or directly related to RNG nor enchanting systems.
3° I see, it seem like we agree a lot in this point, Devs have a really hard time with the whole process of understanding the players needs, motivations and desires may it be due to a lack of psychological knowledge or simple not "being in the shoes of the players", but alot of time its is just corporate greed murking their vision and meddling with thei designs decisions.
As for you "Being the person they need"? maybe?
But you "Being the person they need" in the context of Ashes, i would honestly be quite sceptical, since RNG aversed nature would mostly likely conflic a lot with the "Risk vs Reward" Ashes ideal.
4° Sure, i do believe they can change it, i'm not a advocate of item destruction due to RNG or for the sake of it, RNG without the chance of destruction can play a role specially if the risks of enchanting are low, and i would expect the rewards of enchanting to also be low in this example and therefore less meaningful/incentivised,
But if Ashes goes for a very meaningful/incentivised enchanting system i would expect a risk of very harsh punishments for over-enchanting aswell as expect over enchanting to be very very rewarding.
In the end there is always a middle of the road and i have faith Steven and the intrepid team can nail it, even tho what one person might find very/little punishing or rewarding can vary wildly..
In this regard i would like to ask you a question: Other than destruction, what other harsh outcome of a very rewarding RNG enchanting gamble could have?
5° Yes, i'm a gambler, as long as there isn't IRL cash involved, i love gambling(specially in games) as many other people do it exists from ancient times up till this day for a reason, and i certainly do comprehend your personal aversion to it aswell as the stigma it has both irl and in games because of the well known predatory money grabbing methods used by many games.
It's clear that BDO didn't treated you and many others well in this regard.
But, more than a game gambler, i above all else, despise the all carrot no stick mentality, all glee and no hardship, boring cookie cutter all expected results according to the spreadsheet reasoning,
As long as a reasonable level of RNG is maintained to sustain the "Risk vs Reward" Ashes ideal i will certainly see it as enjoyable, and hope others compreehend that RNGless Risk vs Reward simple cannot be a thing, and that "luck will always play a role".
I'm pretty much always an advocate of giving players choices, the more the better, i hope that the Intrepid team can make a system that can appeal to both crowds, like a RNGless resource heavy over enchanting route and RNG resource light Over enchanting route.
Anyway, thank you for your essay as always, here have mine.
Comments
1. I actually spent some time trying to get that wording right. I originally wrote:
"There are three" and then in the second paragraph - "There's a fourth but it doesn't apply to Ashes." and then changed it for clarity. Please let me know if that would have led to less misunderstanding. Also, similarly, let me know if asking about how to change my wordings annoys you or seems condescending, my data on you implies it does not, but you're not often quite as passionate as you seem to be in this thread.
So to 'correct the misunderstanding', the fourth thing is the 'Failstack' style system, the 'way to mitigate RNG on a single enhance', and I've seen no indication this applies to Ashes, but it's also true that I don't know, so I will 'assign' someone to ask this question in the upcoming LiveStream. I don't expect an answer, though, since if there was a rigid one, this entire topic would be much less meaningful.
tl:dr, the fourth system I am talking about is 'Failstacks' and the fact that players have to learn and make a system out of that, to the point of disengagement. Even if the game allows one rely on other people for enhancing, that just creates a more complex, possibly scam-filled environment if any form of RNG manipulation is involved, without additional systems meant to show the 'customer' that the 'reductions' have been applied.
2. As for the maintenance of power gaps, I don't believe I mentioned P2W.
I believe I was making the point that I don't like the feeling of the constant shifting Catchup mechanics. In BDO I benefit from them immensely, but it means there's never any incentive to play the game the way it was historically designed. As a relatively risk-averse calculating person, I simply wait until the company caves to their own data and metrics about other risk-averse calculating people.
BDO is my main point here, not Lineage, but most of my data indicates that older Lineage is more troublesome than even Historical BDO. I can bring a lot of BDO quotes from the devs themselves about why they do things, in order to manage player behaviour, satisfaction, and retention. I also can find some Lineage data but that takes much longer to establish a valid timeline for, and I expect that it would be a waste of your time, since if I missed just one datapoint that would force a different conclusion, you'd then have to 'show it in context' and it would get really long. For now, if you don't mind, let's just skip this whole bit. I can only go with what I've seen developers do recently, so I doubt we'll be able to agree, especially if I reference a game that is dear to you.
3. I think that was my point, developers constantly misunderstand player incentives because game developers don't usually study psychology to the required level.
MMO developers in general have been really, REALLY bad at this for the last 10 years. I know that's what they're missing because THEY say it. And most of the time, the 'average player' or the 'average psychologist' could have told them long before they even did something, that a system will not work as intended or will receive considerably less engagement. Forcing engagement as a way of making players deal with your system works until some equivalent game that does not force it, appears. I feel Ashes can do better than this.
And yes, I'm implicitly implying that I am that person that they need. Someone has to be, right? But of course, I only ask to be judged on that point by the content of my posts. Decide for yourself if I show the requisite skills or understanding for this in general.
4. I was not speaking in terms of an RNG-less system, this is not part of the scope of Ashes.
However, I was referring to 'deleveling' and 'item destruction' as RNG outcomes, which I think they could change at this stage. I stand by the perspective that we have enough item sinks and that RNG item destruction is a poor one in almost every design schema. As I said before, I can go on for a really long time about this, but if the requirement of the conversation is that there are studies that I have access to, I can't just ask Pearl Abyss or NCSoft for their internal metrics on behaviour to run my analysis tools on. I'm just a random forumer, I can't 'prove' that I have the experience or capacity to make these predictions in any way that an opposing opinion will believe. That happens even when one actually has the data anyway, though generally, not with you.
5. You are a gambler.
I have to be direct about this one. That thing you say 'provides you excitement' does so because you are a gambler. To me, the feeling is 'dread', 'disgust', 'aversion', and sometimes 'hate'. And this isn't because I actually enhance things much. It's just the sheer annoyance and disgust at the shitty system that makes me have to do this and then restructure my whole game around it.
Because in BDO at least, if you say 'just get a backup', you're talking about something like 'Ok I need to get my Gloves to TET, which could has a 5% chance of success, I can raise it to 10, but either way if I fail, I either used up 80 mil to prevent it from dropping to DUO or I did it without that, but had another TRI version of these gloves to use.
Where did I GET the SECOND TRI?
Numerically, the 'backup gear' is supposed to be a 'consequence'. Technically game design wise it's SUPPOSED to be a disincentive, to keep power curves flatter. Overenchanting failures are supposed to hurt the majority of players by design because that's the easy way the designers chose to control their economy. The argument from me is 'y'all can do better than adding a system whose purpose is to threaten players with a punishment'.
This is not a thing that a gambler's mind synchronizes with as far as I know. That, I can find any number of studies on. I am not trying to say that you should not be the way you are, but I do not want Ashes to use an unnecessary system, and certainly not to base their choices on whether or not to use that system on the gambler's mindset unless that is definitely their target audience.
I would hope that the game will be enjoyable to you if they do not apply as strong of a gambling system, but please understand that for many others (as you can see in this thread) it does not provide any excitement. And for me, this applies to mob drops as well, yes, at least boss ones, I have a thread on it. If you would like to discuss this fifth point in detail since it's just psychology, that might be the better thread for it.
Ok, that was an essay as usual... but as I said, that's what I do...
Imo these 2 systems are pretty much the same. Except in OE's case you're the one who decides to go EVEN FURTHER BEYOND the already powerful level, while in the case of pricey upkeep you're constantly punished for using the thing you spent a ton of time achieving. And at some point you might stop using the item completely exactly because upkeep is too difficult.
Yes, I might be a gambler, but in case of OE I only suffer from my own decisions, while in the expensive repairs system it's the system that punishes me for just using my hard-earned item.
No even a system like that sucks. No RNG at all please. TERA had a system like that and all you end up doing is wasting tons and tons of mats when you have bad RNG being stuck on the same enchant level forever. You're still frustrated and it still sucks. Sure it's better than Aion/L2/BDO systems where you lose a level upon failing, but a less poor system is still a poor system.
This is my concern with not just over-enchanting but enchanting at all. I am worried about PvP balance and casual vs hardcore gear/power imbalances ruining gameplay and making people not want to play. There's going to be a gear and skill gap already so please Intrepid don't make it worse.
In sum, yes. Easily.
Aion's system was much worse than TERA and it did end up killing the game. People got tired quickly of the enchanting and manastone socketing grind (both super RNG and expensive/grindy) on top of an already super grindy path to earn the gear to begin with. The game's combat also had a fairly high skill ceiling, so players with a lot of time had much more powerful gear with ideal manastones and a higher skill level. The average player, if they didn't already quit due to the several months or more long grind to get a lesser but "decently competitive " set of gear, didn't last long after continually finding uneven PvP. Those that lasted often only did because they were able to hide behind a group or more zerg on the more powerful/more populated faction. The game died after about 2 years and the population declined earlier than that.
TERA's gear system wasn't nearly as bad but still created major imbalances. But combat was more balanced, gear was slightly less OP/imbalanced, and players could get decent gear with less time because enchanting failure didn't result in lost enchant levels. Although the game still died after 1-2 years because they went F2P after a year and the P2W cash shop made the situation worse.
Let me put it another way. If a game's poor gearing system is made worse by a cash shop, it's a sign it was poor without the cash shop. All people are doing is spending money to avoid bad game design. If you need to bypass game design, the system is bad to begin with. The gearing/enchanting systems were poor when the games were P2P and people hated it but they couldn't do anything about it aside from quit. Some did, and even more saw how the F2P cash shop exacerbated the issue, and quit then.
Ok, thank you for clarifying. As I also wrote in the same post you quoted from, I asked if we were talking past each other. We were doing that a little I guess. You weren't attacking people's opinions, but you are still making an unsourced claim about what killed those games in general. I would still like to see your source for that claim. No strawmanning from my end, just a genuine misunderstanding on my part, because you didn't clearly specify it was in general, so it wasn't clear to me you were talking about general reasons.
Since I read your comment as you attacking other people's personal reasons for quitting (instead of your unsourced general claim), I thought you would understand I was also talking about my personal opinion, because that was obvious from the context. This was partly my bad obviously. Written communication adds to misunderstandings, and I should have taken that into account and been more specific.
Generally speaking, everything I write on these forums is my personal opinion unless I specify otherwise. I don't add "in my opinion" or "for me" to every sentence, but I hope it's obvious from the context of the post. For example, @Dygz only took part of what I wrote and quoted me out of context. The entire paragraph is:
I bolded the pertinent part. To me it's perfectly clear it's my opinion. I know many people who quit over the RNG system in BDO for example, but that's just anecdotal. You want sources that people have quit over the RNG? Sure: 1, 2, 3, and there are many more. I even saw one or two comments in this thread that people might quit over it. I can find it for you if you really want.
Looking forward to seeing your sources!
To me, a non-gambler, these systems are not the same. I am on the 'enjoyment' side in that case. Having to maintain my weapon, come up with different weapons, skills, and builds, feeling good when I happen to finally get an item to repair my 'favorite' weapon. Having the weapon and the option of when to use it to be optimal is part of the game, just as for you, being able to choose when to risk the OE Item Destruction is part of the game.
All of these to me contribute to enjoyment, RP, engagement, adaptation. It's a role-playing game. In a competitive game based on maintaining one's overall optimal function for general enjoyment, I would consider that system to be absolute trash and join you in arguing against it.
But if we speak ONLY in terms of economy design, I believe I can qualitatively prove why the 'having to upkeep' is better in any game with a similar economy.
So it's the combination of what Ashes is aiming to be, and the systems:
Roleplay/social focused with adaptable builds + catering to risk-averse players = No OE Item Destruction
Competitive focused with optimized builds + catering to risk-averse players = This is not usually an MMO?
Roleplay/social focused with adaptable builds + catering to risk-attuned players = OE Item Destruction valid
Competitive focused with optimized builds + catering to risk-attuned players = Upkeep is a punishment and invalid, if this is an MMO (the reason the other isn't, is probably that it lacks RNG in interactions of any kind)
Again, speaking only economically here in this last part.
If Steven is a gambler or wants the game to reward the mentality, we'll get the OE Item Destruction for sure, I doubt even a giant pile of feedback would change his mind. I just don't think it's necessary economically and we can do better, so IF he isn't one, I would hope to convince him (or whoever is in charge of this design) that it isn't necessary, because I'm the risk-averse player for whom it's a pain point.
For me that's the best form of enchantment, a mix of Minecraft's classic "I want Fire on my sword" and PSO2's "This stat is super convenient for me".
I completely disagree with you.
Having OE breaking gear is just weird gate keeping imo.
Wouldn't it just make more sense to have enchants for unique legendaries and BiS gear locked behind some form of challenge? Like some really difficult questline that would involve the whole guild in raids or something.
In general OE sounds like a really bad mechanic that will take away players hard earned items arbitrarily just because "you have to risk it to earn it". If people need to earn their upgrades it makes so much more sense to instead make the items really difficult to craft and require lots of time instead.
A mechanic like OE just isn't fun. Even top level players won't think it is fun. It really just is grinding with more steps. The reward also has to be comparable with the risk.
Why would I risk OE my BiS item just to get a 1% power bonus? If it fails I lose all time and progress I put into that item + all the stats it gives me.
This will just lead to players not enchanting their gear. And what is the point of having a mechanic in game that the vast majority of players won't use? It's like adding content to the game but not wanting players to actually play it.
The idea of OE might sound interesting, but when you think about it, it's not a good mechanic.
Enchanting works fine in most other RPGs, so why try to re-invent the wheel?
AoC will have so much more amazing and innovative stuff, so there's no need to try and fix stuff that isn't broken.
Actually you might be on to something here. With current systems, they're pushing the same amount of gear/gold sink on all players when all players are not equal. Players with more time to play have more materials and more money, making the enchanting grind less of a hit to their time, money, and material stash compared to a casual player. That just increases a gear gap that will exist anyway.
What if we had an "Enchanting Rested XP" bar that accumulated in the same way and rate as a regular rested character xp bar and served as a temporary boost to enchanting rate (or maybe it makes enchanting require less mats if there's no RNG)? So it serves as a gearing catch up mechanic.
So let's say Player A plays on average from 7-11 pm 5 nights a week, and 0-5 hours on the weekends for a 20-25 hour a week playtime. Player B is more hardcore and plays maybe an average of 6 pm-2 am 5 nights a week and their weekend hours might be none or might be a ton, so let's say they game 40-60 hours a week. Sounds insane, but people with an easy job and nothing else in life have tons of free time.
Player A will have a ton of "Enchanting Rested XP" but not much in the way of enchanting materials due to lack of time to grind them out. So maybe they log in and their "Enchanting Rested XP" is only used up when they attempt to enchant, so maybe they get a few levels out of their current mat stash. Player B had little to no "Enchanting Rested XP" but tons of mats and gold to buy more, so maybe they finish all of their enchanting with no problem.
There's still a gear gap but a smaller one. The player with less time feels like their time is spent well and their time spent to materials lost ratio is more reasonable and closer to that of the player with more time, but they still have less gear/power to keep some balance. Instead of punishing players for failing and having RNG or grind to ensure an unbalanced gear/gold sink, you're encouraging players to enjoy participating in the system with the time they have.
Let's say that each piece of gear consists of 4 part during a craft. Those parts have their own multiple parts too, but when you're about to press the button to "craft the Sword of Awesome" you need to have 4 particular items in your inventory that represent 4 parts of said gear.
Those parts would be linked to the crafting dials and would represent some stats of the full gear, which the dials would then control. Horizontal enchantment would add more effects on these parts. So let's assume we'll be able to horizontally enchant each piece of gear 4 times (once for each part).
Now let's assume that gear decay is not dmg-based, but instead time-based. The decay timer would tick only when you're wearing the gear. Intrepid would decide how long that timer is based on their own calculations of potential time-to-farm-for-repairs. And we could even prolong that timer by using high quality mats and services of a top tier crafter, so each part of the piece of gear could add some amount of time to the decay timer.
Let's say we only need mats for repairs when the timer runs out. But if you have just the base version of said gear, at the end of the timer only one part of that piece will break (at random). So to bring back the timer to full you'd just need to use the material that is used to craft that part of the gear. This would be our main mats sink.
Horizontal enchantment would remove some amount of that timer (the amount would probably depend on the power of the enchantment), because it's putting some burden on said part.
To represent ware and dmg to the gear we'd have some decrease in its power at certain intervals of the timer. And to bring the power back we'd buy "honing stones" (or whatever alternative for different pieces of gear) at the node stores (with tiers of those nodes relating to the lvl of the node). This would be our gold sink.
Now we come to vertical enchantment. I suggest having +8 as the max vertical enchant level. Here's why. When you vertically enchant a piece of gear for "+1", you pick a part of said piece and increase the stats that this part provides (enchantment included). By doing so you double the amount that horizontal enchantment removed from the timer (or if there was no HE, you just remove some fairly big amount). And on top of that you make this part always break at the end of the decay timer. So now you'll have 2 parts break and will have to use more mats to repair the gear.
Once you repeat this +1 on all parts, you'll have a way shorter decay timer and you'll have to pretty much recraft the whole piece of gear once it decays fully (but all your enchantments and power remains). This will be our main gear sink.
And after that step you can now OE that piece. OE is just a repeat of the first round of vertical enchantment and it puts "strain" on your gear parts so you now have to use double the mats to repair any +2 part. And this way at +8 you'll have to double the crafting mats to repair your gear. And if you're going for this kind of OE, you'll just HAVE TO use the best mats and craft at the best crafter, just to balance out the decrease of the decay counter. This would be our great gear sink, meant only for those at the very top of the game.
I think this kind of system would keep the RPGness that @Azherae talked about (because to keep the timer from ticking, you'd be switching to other sets of gear). This system would provide several resource sinks that, in theory, should keep the power creep from growing too much. The vertical enchantment resources should be even rarer in this system (because of the 100% success), so the power growth of the whole server would be fairly slow. There'd be no RNG involved, but OE would still be a huge hit to anyone who tries to play with it. Also, this kind of vertical enchantment would empower the horizontal one, so in a way it'd be DIAGONAL! And ain't that just super cool
All of those are game mechanics in Ashes that are meant only for the very top of the food chain. All of those mechanics are deeply developed and have been shown the most in the dev streams. So this is not a good argument against the OE system that would only influence the top of the top. You might consider it a bad mechanic, but a lot of other people like it quite a lot. And a ton of top players in L2 gladly OEd their gear even though they knew the risks. You might say that literally everyone who played L2 was a damn gambling addict, but I somehow doubt it. The only innovation AoC brings are the nodes. Everything else has been done before in other games. And the currently planned form of enchanting has been done in Lineage 2 almost 1 to 1. No one is reinventing the wheel with this system.
I definitely agree that I wouldn't really worry about 'this system is too complicated', because if there's no easy scam path for a crafter to use, it plays into Ashes' philosophies even more.
I've read your suggestion twice, @NiKr, and idk if you put any value on my opinion/design skill, but I can find no flaws in the system other than 'complexity', and as mentioned, 'complexity isn't a flaw'.
If anything, the 'recognition that your gear isn't in the state you want when you need to use it' would be the 'pain point', but if the timer only ticks down while you're wearing it, I feel like players would adapt to it quickly.
That said, I usually expect negative reactions to complex-seeming systems regardless, so, good luck with that aspect of it.
But as for this enchanting system, I was just trying to find a way to keep the gold sink that destruction-based OE brings, but leave out the RNG part of it, while also keeping the power creep contained to the maximum.
It definitely comes out as a meaningfully stronger containment, with a much larger commitment to a specific personal weapon. It might be stressful in another way if Ashes doesn't deliver on its Classes and Builds vision (so that people need to change moreso than finding their identity) but that's just my 'designer auto-worry'.
Also, my 'head of Marketing' would never let 'us' use 'Diagonal' as a buzzword, so I don't expect Margaret would let Steven do it either, lol.
And that's why I wouldn't let you use it lol
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I think as soon as you add the ability to have items break and such you have people want to leave the game when they break too many items. I'd like to see it the enchanting system be a matter of you play the game enough you'll reach max enchantments. Not based on rng oh you failed start over.
Enchantments also basically are just a way to level up after you have reached max level. You could flat out remove enchantments and make it more of a "set system" with various tiers. With various materials you need to grind to get enough currency to buy x set at tier 1. Then maybe you need the previous tier to buy or convert into tier 2.
But at the end of the day, I don't mind if things downgrade, but if they are destroyed I don't want to see it.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Progression
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Enchanting
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_stalls
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Item_sinks
Intrepid's description of "destroyed" only seems to send the item down to 0 durability which will cost a higher amount of reagents used in the crafting of the item to repair. This does not seem to completely destroy the item from the game like BDO for instance. I can get on board with this. This would be an adequate gold sink without the complete destruction of progression for the item. Coming from an unforgiving game like BDO I would be very gun-shy to playing a game like that again even given all of BDO's success in certain areas (graphics, combat, player creator). I still have my complaints about progression being gated by RNG but we can only hope the over-enchanting process will not give a large increase in stats for the item but small increments. Small increases such as 3% to all stats per level may not guarantee the success of a fight but merely give an edge.
"Over-enchanting items comes with a potential risk that the item decays or is destroyed if a safety margin is exceeded. This system is subject to testing."
Item decays translates to just loss of durability. Similar to when we die. "Item durability (item decay) does not destroy items, but it acts as a materials sink. Zero percent durability will unequip an item, increasing its repair costs"
"Over-enchanting carries the risk of destroying that item[2], rendering it useless for use temporarily."
Temporarily meaning 0 durability. I'm not sure if there is included a timed duration lockout for the item.
If they implement this method of enchanting weapons you can have two options here. Enchant yourself and deal with the item decay or reduction of durability to 0 when you fail. Or you can simply wait for users that have done the enchanting themselves and if the price is right purchase their luck on the auction house. If you're more into gathering materials and processing them into the reagents used to repair items then I think business will be booming when we finally reach that point of over-enchanting.
The thing is, Steven sometimes doesn't use words in the commonly understood MMORPG ways. When he says destroyed, he doesn't mean the item is gone. It can be reforged using some of the materials that were used for crafting it in the first place.
Sources:
And from the wiki: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Item_repair#Item_durability
I've tried asking for a clarification on it, but the question wasn't chosen for the Q&A.
I think we're safe there at least. I really doubt they would go back on their word in this regard.
It certainly helps it doesn't disappear, if that's the case, but what I tried asking them was about the enchantment level on said item. If it gets reset, that's still bad. If the enchantment level stays +9 or whatever, then I am ok with having to repair or reforge the item. It's not my preferred system by any means, but I can accept it and move on.
For example: If instead of needing to depend on the RNG to reach a weapon at +20 you should kill a specific boss, that boss should be a unique challenge, a challenge that only a % of people who strive to overcome it get it, that way instead of depending on the RNG would depend on the effort of the player or players.
Particularly I would like that at some point not everything would depend on the RNG, but also on the effort, skill and vivacity of the player.
It could be that in a certain level or levels, (for example to go from +20 to +21, from +30 to +31, etc) instead of depending on the RNG it would be to complete a VERY DIFFICULT mission that only a small % of people thanks to their effort, skill and vivacity would overcome.
That would seem to me an interesting challenge to be able to access a new level of enchantment.
A: Being able to obtain resources for enchanting recipes which do not require extreme instances to obtain, such as killing raid bosses or tough high-end content. IF enchanting materials are tied to these high-end content situations, a type of currency or cost should exist which can help purchase the same enchanting materials. Everyone deserves a chance, and not everyone walks the same path in game.
Q: Are there Enchanting systems in other games that you feel are done well? If so, what makes Enchanting in those games good?
A: Yes, Final Fantasy XIV holds one of the best enchanting (and crafting in general) systems in the game. I firmly believe that each craft or trade skill should have an ebb and flow off of one another. Employing this type of system allows for further stimulation of the economy among crafters and players alike.
Q: Is there anything, in particular, you’re excited or concerned about regarding the Enchanting system?
A: For excitement, the cosmetic effects that some enchants provide visually. As far as concerns, making sure that there is no meta involved in enchanting, but rather a good balance betwixt the available enchantment recipes.
Outside of Enchanting, Alchemy is also one of my top favorites!
It could possibly be good, to bring in 2 different aproaches at once.
So first, to get lvl1 enchant for example, u need 1 piece of material.
For lvl 2 it would be 3 pieces (and it should be materials of higher grade), then next will be 5, 10, 20, 30. At lvl 6 it will take 30 materials of highest lvl6 grade (which could be possibly obtained only of the end raid bosses/dungeons and to be soulbound, so ppl won't just buy it). There also can be added some additional achievements for the highest enchant lvl, like killing some strongest monsters and drenching gear in their blood (1 piece of gear at once), so it will be hardened enough to withstand end lvl enchants w/o breaking. It will be a harder and a longer way, but give u 100% result.
And the second will be way for rng lovers, with the risk of losing not only materials, but gear as well (breaking down because ain't hardened), and it will have much lower chance of succeding. Like lvl1 is 100%, lvl2 - 80%, 3 - 50%, 4 - 20%, 5 - 10%, 6 - 3/5% of succeding with stable 2-5% chance of losing item. It'll demand same grade (as node lvl) materials, but these ones would be obtanable in outside world, and it should take a larger number for each lvl of enchantment, cause these ones will be tradable.
That's my take on this
I think depending on how other systems are planned determines how enchanting should happen. If the game's economy doesn't revolve around anything particular playstyle and compensates pvpers, pve players, and crafters of various types for their gameplay then I think having enchantment being gated by requirements that only dedicated crafters have access to is fair game. Something like an item crafters can sell that allows you to enchant equipment rather than it being an item you can just farm or be directly rewarded with for example.
I can't say I've played a game where I felt the enchantment system was done well. The vast majority of MMORPGs are heavily rng p2w cash grabs by nature and it's usually the most pronounced in areas of the game that allow you to get stronger late game. I hope Ashes of Creation changes this since it's a universally loathed way to go about games and only pushes players away from the game. I've quit MMORPGs in the past due to an important item never upgrading or even breaking after a huge time sink just to attempt it. Only thing I'd say is I love enchantment effects like Fiesta Online where every enchantment level creates a cooler looking effect.
Ideally I'd love to see Ashes be more unique and instead of enchanting being focused on stat checking where the equipment just becomes stronger, it'd be nice to see enchantments be more bonus focused. Something like if you have 2/4 or 4/4 equipment with this enchantment you get x effect. As well as standalone effects from rarer enchantments. The focus would be on augmenting a weapon to fit your playstyle/build rather than just doing more dps, healing more, or being tankier.
I dislike enchanting, its a cheap time sink system, BDO enchanting while I had near full pen gear earlier than most when it was full P2W, it gave me pure cancer & the reason why i left. So i agree with Neurath this use the BLESS online system as he states.
Not condesending at all and doesn't annoy me in the least, changing some words with the purpose of better clarification is always validy and can drastically improve the effectiveness of communication, i do it all the time.
1° "failstack" system as you mentioned, isn't something the community is currently expecting as there is no known mention of it, but considering both Lineage 2 and Archeage which are well known as the main sources of inspiration for Ashes had system to mitigate RNG(Sadly mainly bound to their cash shops) who knows it might be a thing.
2° Even tho i would consider L2 to be more relevant to this context for Ashes than BDO(not sure if you would agree with that), i will take your advice of skipping this part as it isn't necessarily or directly related to RNG nor enchanting systems.
3° I see, it seem like we agree a lot in this point, Devs have a really hard time with the whole process of understanding the players needs, motivations and desires may it be due to a lack of psychological knowledge or simple not "being in the shoes of the players", but alot of time its is just corporate greed murking their vision and meddling with thei designs decisions.
As for you "Being the person they need"? maybe?
But you "Being the person they need" in the context of Ashes, i would honestly be quite sceptical, since RNG aversed nature would mostly likely conflic a lot with the "Risk vs Reward" Ashes ideal.
4° Sure, i do believe they can change it, i'm not a advocate of item destruction due to RNG or for the sake of it, RNG without the chance of destruction can play a role specially if the risks of enchanting are low, and i would expect the rewards of enchanting to also be low in this example and therefore less meaningful/incentivised,
But if Ashes goes for a very meaningful/incentivised enchanting system i would expect a risk of very harsh punishments for over-enchanting aswell as expect over enchanting to be very very rewarding.
In the end there is always a middle of the road and i have faith Steven and the intrepid team can nail it, even tho what one person might find very/little punishing or rewarding can vary wildly..
In this regard i would like to ask you a question:
Other than destruction, what other harsh outcome of a very rewarding RNG enchanting gamble could have?
5° Yes, i'm a gambler, as long as there isn't IRL cash involved, i love gambling(specially in games) as many other people do it exists from ancient times up till this day for a reason, and i certainly do comprehend your personal aversion to it aswell as the stigma it has both irl and in games because of the well known predatory money grabbing methods used by many games.
It's clear that BDO didn't treated you and many others well in this regard.
But, more than a game gambler, i above all else, despise the all carrot no stick mentality, all glee and no hardship, boring cookie cutter all expected results according to the spreadsheet reasoning,
As long as a reasonable level of RNG is maintained to sustain the "Risk vs Reward" Ashes ideal i will certainly see it as enjoyable, and hope others compreehend that RNGless Risk vs Reward simple cannot be a thing, and that "luck will always play a role".
I'm pretty much always an advocate of giving players choices, the more the better, i hope that the Intrepid team can make a system that can appeal to both crowds, like a RNGless resource heavy over enchanting route and RNG resource light Over enchanting route.
Anyway, thank you for your essay as always, here have mine.
Aren't we all sinners?