Discussion about grinds

Noaani wrote: »

The fact that Ashes is taking some PvP aspects from L2 is great. The fact that it is not looking at L2 for anything to do with the economy, crafting, PvE, classes, races, lore, world design, or basically anything else - is even better.

Crafting window from alpha1 and the so far explained crafting system is really similar to L2's, except for the dials.

Classes function differently, but the separation of classes is quite close to L2's. I thought about making a video showing some potential similarities, or at least the ones I saw.

Humans/elves/orcs/dwarves - all in L2. Tulnar is the obvious outlier, with Py'Rai coming close second, but tulnar were a kickstarter stretch goal, right? So they would've probably came later in the game's life and not be the base race if Intrepid didn't reach that goal.

Copying lore/world design would be a big oof that would show that they have no idea how to make the game their own. Though open world dungeons and bosses in some rooms and at the very end in a semi-instance (like the volcano dragon from alpha1) is straight out of L2's design book. Now I'm sure that L2 wasn't the first game to use that design, but saying that L2 only inspired pvp is a bit weird imo.

Noaani wrote: »

Then they came to EQ2, and they had a literal jaw drop moment at the difference in terms of game economy. They didnt realize how dysfunctional the L2 economy had always been until they saw a properly functioning economy in a contemporary game.

Iirc L2's design took a lot of inspiration from EQ, but instead of improving on it as how, I imagine, EQ2 did NCsoft probably just copied it, as a ton of other mmos did with WoW's design later on.

Now I could be completely off base with that assumption, but we'd have to have someone here who has played both EQ1 and L2 to draw some parallels.

And as we've seen with WoW and its clones' example, anyone, who tries to copy another game's success and who's not the OG team that made that original game, is destined to fail. Once WoW got newer devs and control from above - it became shit, so you can even fuck up the original game by just changing the team. L2's lead designer left and the game went to shit after that (in the opinion of all the people who still play on the private servers), so even the small good parts that it had went out the window.

Also, I'm pretty sure that L2 took their pvp system from L1 (and added a few things I think), so this is just another parallel that taking mechanics from the previous installation in the series and making them better is the way to. L1 had huge success (still does) with its pvp system being one of the great things about it. L2 took that and made it its own and it was the best part about it. EQ1 had its own cool stuff and I'm sure that EQ2 took those things and made them better and changed for the better.

So your friends pretty much went from a copy with one redeeming point to the "original" with way more improvements to the OG formula. I'd assume people whose first game was some failed WoW clone would have a similar experience if they went to play WoW and saw all the systems that might've been in their first mmo now done much better. Though I dunno if current WoW would really have that effect, but I think you know what I mean.

L2 was a more advanced version of Neverwinter and Neverwinter was a more advanced version of DnD. Hence why we all love the versions even though we also played EQ.

Anyway, I agree that EQ was a better all round game for an MMO.

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

So, the people that I know best that played L2. They played from launch until 2006 when they moved to EQ2 (which was 2 years old at that point). I played top end with them for the next 8 years, so I am going to take thwirnword over yours, or anyone else's here (no offense to anyone).

Their comments were that the economy functioned in that you could make money by selling things, and you could sometimes find the things you wanted to buy for crafting. To them, at the time, it seemed fine - but it was the first MMO they had played.

Then they came to EQ2, and they had a literal jaw drop moment at the difference in terms of game economy. They didnt realize how dysfunctional the L2 economy had always been until they saw a properly functioning economy in a contemporary game.

The same can be said of their PvE experience, race choice, class design and combat complexity - but that is all stories for a different thread.

I will add that they laughed at EQ2's attempt at PvP, but then so did I.

Now, since I know these people well, I know when and where they are likely to exaggerate things or downplay things, and most importantly I know they are not simple fanboys for any one game (including EQ2), I am going to take what they have to say about the game back then more seriously than what anyone else has to say about that game back then.

When it comes to some George based posters on these forums, I am going to literally always assume everything they say about L2 is exaggerated to make L2 seem better than it was, because that is this posters history (they tried to tell me L2 had good PvE).

For anyone else, if they are saying something about L2 that doesnt mesh well with what I have been told from a source I trust completely, I am going to assume either they are along the same lines as George, they had a vastly different experience playing the game, they had no contemporary MMO experience to compare L2 to,or they are just outright lying.

In your specific case, my first assumption is that you had no contemporary MMO experience, but it may well be that you weren't attempting to play the fame at the top end like my trusted friends were, and so have a vastly difference from that game.

You trusting your faithful friends more than me James the AoC forum guy is more than reasonable,
it seems that even tho we started playing from launch(for a bit of context i played a bit earlier because had the opportunity of playing the KR launch which was a few months earlier and left the official servers around early 2012 not long after the release of Awakening version) we might have had extremely different experiences with the same game and i don't doubt them, because it was well known that there was a dramatic difference in the economy of the servers, therfore i would assume we most likely played different servers
(If you know the name of the official server they played, that can help alot with the context).

As for contemporary games at the time, sadly i didn't tried EQ2 so i can't make big assumptions about it, but convinced by a friend(that still plays it up till this day) i tried out WoW for about 1-2 months during its launch, was amazed by its PvE and its quests not so much so by its economy but wasn't captivated by the game like with Lineage 2, considering EQ2 was a more PvE focused game i would assume my reaction would've been probably the same to EQ2.

Not sure if your friends definition of "attempting to play the fame at the top end" would match mine, but i was near the top in one of the best clans, played in the majority of the biggest and most competitive sieges in the server and maintained Hero status of my Class for quite some months.

Noaani wrote: »

The fact that it is not looking at L2 for anything to do with the economy, crafting, PvE, classes, races, lore, world design, or basically anything else - is even better.

Thats quite the assumption, a assumption i would expect a Steven's quote on...
As we currently know Lineage 2 and Archeage are sources of Steven's inspirations for Ashes period, not limited expecificaly by pvp design even tho being the most obvious example with the corruption system.

George_Black

Noaani wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

From my experience with Lineage 2 big RNG loot tables there was never a "drop you didn't want" or that "didn't retained their actual value" even with basic materials, that were typically the most common drops in the loot tables due to Lineage 2's resource scarcity, this permanently maintained the game economy healthy and thriving..

If any resource in Ashes ever makes you feel that you don't want it and that it retains no actual value, i would consider it a system oversight and possible a design flaw.

The more consistent the drop of a material is, the more offer of that material is avaliable, unless demand is constant and high enough in comparison to the drop rate, it's price will go downhill to the dirty cheap realm.

Yeah, but that is because L2 was a shit game, objectively speaking.

I have literally never heard anyone say L2 had a "theiving" economy. I have heard people say they spend far more for an item than they should, just so they can avoid PvE, but not that the economy was ever thriving.

Barely functioning is the description of L2's economy I get from people I know who were playing it from 2003to 2006.

The reason every drop had a market was simply because there were so few drops, and people wanted to avoid PvE when they could. My suggestion is we dont label that as "good" in any form, so as to not mislead developers in to making a game with that poor of an economy or PvE content ever again.

Literally the only good thing about L2 was the PvP. Anyone that ever says anything else was good about the game has a series case of rose tinted glasses.

Noanni you keep calling a L2 a shitty game, just like unpopular kids at school would call a party that they didnt get invided to "a shitty party". Dont talk to us about rose glasses and grow up.

If L2 was half the game you like to claim it was, you would be playing it on a private server and wouldn't be interested in Ashes.

The fact that Ashes is taking some PvP aspects from L2 is great. The fact that it is not looking at L2 for anything to do with the economy, crafting, PvE, classes, races, lore, world design, or basically anything else - is even better.

The fact that almost all of the senior developers at Intrepid (including the environment lead, character art lead, and previous lead designer, among others) are all from EQ2 is even better still.

I was playing L2 in 2020. I often do from time to time. You dont know what you are talking about. It's economy was the best, it's crafting player to player services and stalls were mentioned numerous times and the material of L2 were "tasty" every time you interacted with them, from the moment you saw them on your feet and pick them up, to looking at them in your inventory and selling them, to making them into refind material and items.

You sound ridiculous every time you pretend to have an understanding of it even tho you admitted to never playing it. Why do you pretend? Why do you have to have an opinion on something you know shit about?
Do you see me talk crap about wow and all it's instanced content, repetitive raiding farm, ez quest leveling up and what not? No, I dont, because I dont know the game.
Just sit this one out. Sit quietly on the bench.

George_Black

Only people not well in their mind would play their fav game "on some private server", "not being interested in ashes" or any other game. I have played many mmos and I judged them all. L2 being hands down the best by far from the ones I know.

"ONLy My GAme iZ guD".
God, what kinda logic is this and how low of an IQ would you have to be to bring this as an argument of L2 being shit.

NiKr wrote: »

Crafting window from alpha1 and the so far explained crafting system is really similar to L2's, except for the dials.

Literally every time Steven talks about crafting in Ashes, he talks about SWG.

Sure, the alpha may have had some resemblance to L2, but only because it was literally the easiest, most basic thing to throw together.

JamesSunderland wrote: »

You trusting your faithful friends more than me James the AoC forum guy is more than reasonable,
it seems that even tho we started playing from launch(for a bit of context i played a bit earlier because had the opportunity of playing the KR launch which was a few months earlier and left the official servers around early 2012 not long after the release of Awakening version) we might have had extremely different experiences with the same game and i don't doubt them, because it was well known that there was a dramatic difference in the economy of the servers, therfore i would assume we most likely played different servers
(If you know the name of the official server they played, that can help alot with the context).

My friends absolutely did only have experience of one server in L2. However, in order for a game to have what I would describe as a good economy, it would need to function well on all servers, even if the economy of those servers are somewhat different.

I do recall them talking about Hero status, but as I don't know enough about L2 to have a solid idea of what that entails, I didnt pay much attention to it (it means about as much to me as me saying I killed AoFire in EQ2 in 2009 would mean to you - I cant explain what that means to anyone that didn't play the game at that time). What I can say is that - like me - they only play games at the top end.

George_Black wrote: »

Why do you have to have an opinion on something you know shit about?

In the past, you have tried to tell me that L2 had some of the best PvE content of any MMO at the time. This immediately puts your opinions on that game in to the "suspicious" category.

I can listen to you - some random guy on the internet - or I can listen to people I have known well for over a decade.

I pick the people that I know well, who have opinions I value.

Now, I have said many, many times that L2 had good PvP. I can say this because people I know and trust that played it for years have told me so.

If you want to focus on me saying that the rest of the game was sub-par compared to it's contemporaries, rather than me saying what was good about the game, that does nothing more than speak volumes as to you and your character.

The above is even more true when - rather than attempting to convince me otherwise - you simply resort to attacks with randomized capitalization of points that you assume I am making, yet are not points that I am making.

Ok, so, if you think L2 had a good economy, tell me why it was better than EVE's. If you think it has good races, tell me why it is better than EQ2's. Both of those games are contemporary with L2. If you want to say L2 is not shit, then say it is not shit and talk about why.

The problem is, you can't. You can't because you can't understand the feelings or experiences others have had. You may know people that played WoW back in 2004 (more likely 2005 - EQ2 had a higher population than WoW at the end of 2004). The problem is, you can't relate to anything they may tell you about the game.

TheHiddenDaggerInn

For me it a good grind is always fun, but it shouldn't end with just the level grind games like DAoC would take years and I loved that if you invested the time in your char you truly felt rewarded for it.

Noaani wrote: »

Literally every time Steven talks about crafting in Ashes, he talks about SWG.

14th reference on this page says that it was Jeff who pushed for SWG's crafting mechanics for Ashes.

Outside of that, Ashes will have personal shops that will most likely be used to advertise crafting/processing - L2 had people sitting in towns, with small "billboards" over their heads, selling their crafting services directly.

Ashes will use all tiers of materials in the crafting process of all tiers of items (or at least close to that). L2 had this exact design.

Ashes will use recipes to craft items. They'll be rare and can be learned and traded. L2 had this exact design.

Ashes will have BiS be craftable, with mats for those items dropping from bosses together with full gear (iirc). L2 had this exact design.

All of those things are at the core of Ashes crafting system. And on top of that we have Jeff's great contributions of SWG's systems of dials and material-quality-based stats (if I understood it correctly).

So as I said in my previous comment, Ashes takes some great concepts from their "previous games" (those being L2 and AA) and then adds some good shit on top of it. The only variable between my example of EQ2 doing this is that Ashes is getting developed by a completely different team. So A LOT will depend on how well they can realize their design goals and inspirations.

L2 did not have decay. SWG is the base for the craft system. Enchant base was from l2.

SWG had crafted bis - we made our own lightsabers.

Anyway, while l2 has been referenced for some systems, it does not cover Ashes items because gear is secondary in Ashes. Not primary.

Neurath wrote: »

L2 did not have decay. SWG is the base for the craft system. Enchant base was from l2.

SWG had crafted bis - we made our own lightsabers.

Yeah, that means that they added a ton of stuff to make the system even better. And I'm glad about that because I loved L2's crafting system already and AoC's seems even better.

Dygz

I think decay is more about Economy than Crafting "system".

In an mmo you have limited storage space. Even less if you have to pay for extra storage space. Because we have cosmetic skins, transmogs, augments and crafter personal choice, it is important to split the looks from the function.

The economy can have a plethora of gold sinks, but, the same economy can have no decay. In EQ, decay/Destruction was not about economy per say either.

If decay was about economy, you would have chance of drop on death and chance of destruction on death only.

In truth, you have reiterated an old wow trope where the pvp players wanted to smash the pve players by stumping the bis gear with durability and destruction under the guise of 'economy'. I understand your warlock reference now.

Decay definitely relates to economy though. Decay is a material sink which is a gold sink in a free market game. If you don't have a material sink, all your materials become super cheap because they're endless, and your gold inflates to all hell because everything is cheap. Decay influencing economy.

L2 had "decay" in the form of 60% chance to craft a piece of gear and then even lower chances when OEing it. That was their material/gold sink. On top of the materials themselves being super rare, but that's more of a speed-controlling tool rather than a preventive one.

But even with both of those tools, bots would outpace them in material production because the game wasn't balanced around 24/7 farming at industrial scale. Which is why Intrepid gotta do their best to ban any and all bots, cause they'll ruin the economy for sure.

There are material sinks. 1. We don't know the cost of resources from each item. 2. We lose portions of resources upon death. 3. We have construction and destruction of structures/nodes. 4. We have limited time mounts. 5. We have limited time summons. 6. We have attunements. 7. We have horizontal enchantments. 8. We have item destruction in the enchantment system and soul bind system.

At the end of the day, I will not remove decay. But, the economy would not face the great depression over the loss of long life decay.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Decay definitely relates to economy though. Decay is a material sink which is a gold sink in a free market game. If you don't have a material sink, all your materials become super cheap because they're endless, and your gold inflates to all hell because everything is cheap. Decay influencing economy.

L2 had "decay" in the form of 60% chance to craft a piece of gear and then even lower chances when OEing it. That was their material/gold sink. On top of the materials themselves being super rare, but that's more of a speed-controlling tool rather than a preventive one.

But even with both of those tools, bots would outpace them in material production because the game wasn't balanced around 24/7 farming at industrial scale. Which is why Intrepid gotta do their best to ban any and all bots, cause they'll ruin the economy for sure.

I'm not sure this is exactly true, though.

A Material Sink is not in any way directly equivalent to a Gold Sink, and it's BECAUSE they aren't equivalent that the problems arise. It's a common mistake to make, but you may be thinking of deflationary pressures which are a big problem in MMOs due to the oversupply of materials.

If you are used to games where NPCs buy materials, for 'reasonable prices' and not 'floor prices set equalized to the gold sinks' it can be this way, but in games where NPC prices for materials are much lower than standard player market price (related to time spent, not actual value) the only reason a Material sink appears to be a Gold sink is because people like me who hoard the materials also hoard the gold.

So the gold disappears from the economy at LARGE until that type of person needs something, then they spend it and it bursts back into the economy. After that, just wait 3-6 business days and start all the mechanisms to return the gold back to you, a-grindin'.

In short, decay may relate to the gold economy, but there's at least one, if not two, intermediate steps in there, and if the Econ designer doesn't tune or notice these, other things break instead.

Azherae wrote: »

word.

Right, I mistook personal money spending for server-wide gold sinks. Main gold sink would be taxes in city shops and I thiiiink player stalls too but don't remember for sure now.

So in a way L2's mat sink was more of a dispersal of wealth that would then be sunk by the taxes, rather than a direct gold sink, right.

In my mind, a crafter won't suffer decay at all. The professions aren't tied to level I believe. Also, a crafter does not supply the resources in Ashes - gatherers and processors do.

Therefore, you will not see a redistribution of wealth at all. Merely another mechanism to keep gatherers and processors with game mechanics to partake in for the long term.

Bear in mind, I am not econ lead and I must use the concepts I have access to for the econ on most cases.

The same applies in bdo with no resource sink for decay. The crafters still don't suffer much decay at all. Only the rng system in bdo equals the difference between crafter and warrior.

We can stop economic nodes from taking over servers by my proposed economic update elsewhere and the fact we can trash the crafters in their home territory.