PenguinPaladin wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » [. So you have the knowledge that the gear will be balanced around 8v8 PvP? I have knowledge about many things, yes.
Ferryman wrote: » [. So you have the knowledge that the gear will be balanced around 8v8 PvP?
Ferryman wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » [. So you have the knowledge that the gear will be balanced around 8v8 PvP? I have knowledge about many things, yes. Okay, as I thought, it was just your opinion.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Just to be clear here, you are saying you want to see top end gear all have set bonuses applied to it, which will either force or encourage (depending on how% good the bonuses are) players to use the same gear sets. The set will give some particular stats, which can be then dialed through crafting said set. The bonuses from having the set will also give some horizontal stats, which could be changed through crafting (though we'll have to see if crafting works like that). The only "top end" feature about the set would be that it has higher base stats - that is m/p def/mitigation. Noaani wrote: » I want players to be able to mix and match from the items they have, in order to come up with the setup they want. Except we all know that predominant majority will just look up a guide for "ThE bEsT aNd MoSt OpTiMaL gear combo" and go for that, because you simply cannot balance that kind of meta out. Noaani wrote: » Instead of having sets with great benefits and also downsides, you have individual items that have this. This means I can take my robe that has a mana proc so I won't run out of mana, or I can take my robe with a damage proc. Neither one of these is an obvious best choice, it depends on the situation. If one of them also has high fire resistance, and the other has high ice resistance, then all of a sudden I have a multi-dimensional decision to make. Or, you know, just slap on all the gear from X set because that is what the developers decided I should wear. I'm thinking more about how your character and gear would fit with the rest of the party. If the whole party is just wearing their best and optimal combo (with maybe a few backups for different situations) - your party is fully optimized and barely has any weak points. But if each party member has to sacrifice some stat "for the greater good" of the party, which then might lead to complications in pvp/pve - that's not only "risk vs reward", but a meaningful choice on the part of each member of the group instead of a selfish "I'm in my best gear so it doesn't matter what yalls are wearing". For me, the player choice comes at the stage of choosing my party. If I prefer one set benefits over the other - I'll pick it and find a party that I suit best. And as I see it, it's way easier to balance pros and cons of a full set of gear, rather than have pros and cons on each and every piece of gear and hope that there isn't some omega OP combination out there in the millions of possibilities. Also, I don't remember your stance on transmogs, but I hate them so I wanna wear well-designed cool-looking full sets of armor instead of having some random rags that give me the best stats and cover them up by some cheating mechanic. That's a yet another L2 echo in my preferences.
Noaani wrote: » Just to be clear here, you are saying you want to see top end gear all have set bonuses applied to it, which will either force or encourage (depending on how% good the bonuses are) players to use the same gear sets.
Noaani wrote: » I want players to be able to mix and match from the items they have, in order to come up with the setup they want.
Noaani wrote: » Instead of having sets with great benefits and also downsides, you have individual items that have this. This means I can take my robe that has a mana proc so I won't run out of mana, or I can take my robe with a damage proc. Neither one of these is an obvious best choice, it depends on the situation. If one of them also has high fire resistance, and the other has high ice resistance, then all of a sudden I have a multi-dimensional decision to make. Or, you know, just slap on all the gear from X set because that is what the developers decided I should wear.
Azherae wrote: » So do ME a huge favor and tell me why 'Tier of Gear changing the slots available' doesn't resolve all these problems. On the design side, gear is almost always just balanced by 'well how much is it allowed to have' anyway, right?
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » So do ME a huge favor and tell me why 'Tier of Gear changing the slots available' doesn't resolve all these problems. On the design side, gear is almost always just balanced by 'well how much is it allowed to have' anyway, right? I guess it does? That is if you don't just boost your gear w/o any drawbacks. And I hope that there's full sets across all tiers of gear just so I can continue with my transmog hate
CROW3 wrote: » What would you think about a time-spent attribute to impact gear power? The simplest form would be a progression bar (not thinking linear) that would result in increased power output at certain thresholds. Leans into the argument - which I agree with - that time spent with a sword would make me much more effective at dealing damage with that sword. Just a thought to find a blend between the camps here.
Azherae wrote: » I believe I can briefly detail how even without boost drawbacks, it still works. In Ashes any Class can wear any gear, so if they spend a ton of time on Gear Itemization (which stats go on which gear) I expect a meta would evolve too quickly within Gear. People would lose most of that freedom. If they didn't, it would still be more work than doing something more like this: "Low level Green Robes have two slots for 'Magic' buffs and Two slots for Resistances." "Low level Medium Armor has one slot for 'Any' buff, one for Resistances, two for 'Physical'." :Low Level Plate Armor has one slot for 'Any', one for 'Defense' (like Physical but takes better/more specialized stuff), 2 Physical." "High Level Epic Plate Armor has Two Any, 2 Defense, 3 Resistance, 2 Physical." I'm explicitly leaving out a ton of other possible stats and slots. Imagine for UI convenience that these have shapes, you can tell at a glance. Circle, Hexagon, Diamond, Square, Triangle (I think this is the convention now). Your 'tradeoff' is in the slots themselves. If your Epic Level 50 Plate Armor already comes with high defense, you don't need to slot anything into it's Defense or Resistance slot to beat 'Tier 1 Content'. You slot it accordingly for Tier 2 content when you get that stuff (from running the Tier 1 content, I'd assume'). I'll stop here, if the rest isn't obvious lmk. Tradeoffs that aren't just 'option number limits' are never 'real', they're just shackles on player choices once the spreadsheets get involved.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I believe I can briefly detail how even without boost drawbacks, it still works. In Ashes any Class can wear any gear, so if they spend a ton of time on Gear Itemization (which stats go on which gear) I expect a meta would evolve too quickly within Gear. People would lose most of that freedom. If they didn't, it would still be more work than doing something more like this: "Low level Green Robes have two slots for 'Magic' buffs and Two slots for Resistances." "Low level Medium Armor has one slot for 'Any' buff, one for Resistances, two for 'Physical'." :Low Level Plate Armor has one slot for 'Any', one for 'Defense' (like Physical but takes better/more specialized stuff), 2 Physical." "High Level Epic Plate Armor has Two Any, 2 Defense, 3 Resistance, 2 Physical." I'm explicitly leaving out a ton of other possible stats and slots. Imagine for UI convenience that these have shapes, you can tell at a glance. Circle, Hexagon, Diamond, Square, Triangle (I think this is the convention now). Your 'tradeoff' is in the slots themselves. If your Epic Level 50 Plate Armor already comes with high defense, you don't need to slot anything into it's Defense or Resistance slot to beat 'Tier 1 Content'. You slot it accordingly for Tier 2 content when you get that stuff (from running the Tier 1 content, I'd assume'). I'll stop here, if the rest isn't obvious lmk. Tradeoffs that aren't just 'option number limits' are never 'real', they're just shackles on player choices once the spreadsheets get involved. This sounds a bit like my idea for enchantment, with slots in a gear piece getting their own effects/stats. Though I still would prefer some risks for those rewards. And you said "you don't need" when talking about def slots on a high def gear piece. Do you mean just freedom of choice or is the "tradeoff" the fact that you have a limited amount of usable slots (less than the available ones)? Cause I feel like I'd still slot the def boosts even if I already have a high def gear piece, cause why da hell would I not if I can?
Azherae wrote: » Overkill. Or maybe you're a Fighter who wears it because you need some survivability but want to use other stuff, mostly.
Azherae wrote: » Whereas for EXAMPLE high level 'Leather' wouldn't give enough defense options'.
PenguinPaladin wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » [. So you have the knowledge that the gear will be balanced around 8v8 PvP? I have knowledge about many things, yes. Okay, as I thought, it was just your opinion. Its not my opinion, "combat in ashes will be balanced with 8 vs 8 combat in mind" I guess ill go scoure the wiki for a quote. Ill let you know when i find it. Alright, the quote isnt 8 vs 8. The quote is now "group content." 8 vs x. Either way the game isnt being balanced so a 1v1 is balanced. Its based on a group of players vs whatever they are up against.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Overkill. Or maybe you're a Fighter who wears it because you need some survivability but want to use other stuff, mostly. Pfft, nothing's an overkill. If I can do it - I will. And I know quite a few people who have the same mindset, which is why I try to account for that thinking when I suggest drawbacks to mechanics. And the bigger the power boost - the bigger the drawback. Azherae wrote: » Whereas for EXAMPLE high level 'Leather' wouldn't give enough defense options'. Well that's just logical. Leather shouldn't give you too much def, if any really. Well either way, my main point in this particular discussion is - have drawbacks to gear bonuses. Imo it adds some flavor and decision-making to the process of picking out gear and it's a great balancing and meta-preventing tool. Be it done through pre-designed sets of gear or slotted enhancements, or just raw pieces of gear that you can mismatch to your hearts desire - I don't really care, as long as it's not just a "ooh, this piece gives me these buffs so I'm gonna use it 4Head"
Ferryman wrote: » I hope you noticed that I spoke about gear and not combat. 😅
Azherae wrote: » Drawbacks to gear are part of encounters, not gear.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Drawbacks to gear are part of encounters, not gear. Which is why I suggested pre-designed sets that make the entire party build around their encounters, cause I still feel that singular gear pieces with either their own stats or even manually allocated enhancement slots will just lead to peak optimization asap. Though I haven't played a game where both systems were present, to compare which one falls prey to meta builds faster.
Otr wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Otr wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » If devs want to make the game more casual friendly they should look at the open world PvP rules. I am not saying they should, but making gear less valueable does not help because they will be ganked anyway. Being ganked once in a while is bad? For that there is the corruption system and bounty hunters. If I join the game late, I will stick near more experienced players. I'll avoid traveling alone if I have valuable stuff on me. Veterans will not earn much looting a noob anyway. The Eve Online advice for everybody is: Don't fly ships you do not afford to lose. Even in HighSec you was not really safe but only the very rich had reason to be afraid. I think very rich AoC players should pay for protection. We should not worry about them I did not say it is bad, and I am personally fine with the planned system. However, I am just saying that IF the developers want the game to become more casual friendly, then open world PvP is the thing which pushes some casual players away. Some players do not want to PvP at all or they want it to be 100% consensual, and you cannot change that mindset to match with yours by thinking it from your perspective. 😉 I see. You are right. I cannot change some peoples's point of view. Sometime they even understand my pov but they like to debate
Ferryman wrote: » Otr wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » If devs want to make the game more casual friendly they should look at the open world PvP rules. I am not saying they should, but making gear less valueable does not help because they will be ganked anyway. Being ganked once in a while is bad? For that there is the corruption system and bounty hunters. If I join the game late, I will stick near more experienced players. I'll avoid traveling alone if I have valuable stuff on me. Veterans will not earn much looting a noob anyway. The Eve Online advice for everybody is: Don't fly ships you do not afford to lose. Even in HighSec you was not really safe but only the very rich had reason to be afraid. I think very rich AoC players should pay for protection. We should not worry about them I did not say it is bad, and I am personally fine with the planned system. However, I am just saying that IF the developers want the game to become more casual friendly, then open world PvP is the thing which pushes some casual players away. Some players do not want to PvP at all or they want it to be 100% consensual, and you cannot change that mindset to match with yours by thinking it from your perspective. 😉
Otr wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » If devs want to make the game more casual friendly they should look at the open world PvP rules. I am not saying they should, but making gear less valueable does not help because they will be ganked anyway. Being ganked once in a while is bad? For that there is the corruption system and bounty hunters. If I join the game late, I will stick near more experienced players. I'll avoid traveling alone if I have valuable stuff on me. Veterans will not earn much looting a noob anyway. The Eve Online advice for everybody is: Don't fly ships you do not afford to lose. Even in HighSec you was not really safe but only the very rich had reason to be afraid. I think very rich AoC players should pay for protection. We should not worry about them
Ferryman wrote: » If devs want to make the game more casual friendly they should look at the open world PvP rules. I am not saying they should, but making gear less valueable does not help because they will be ganked anyway.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » What I don't get is why you think gear sets would prevent this, but individual item choice wouldn't. That makes literally no sense. I might be wrong in this assumption, but I think it'll be harder to find the best and most optimal party+gear set composition than class+gear combo setup. And I can't even make a fact-based assumption on which side Ashes is leaning on, because we have 0 info about classes or gear or augments or anything else really.
Noaani wrote: » What I don't get is why you think gear sets would prevent this, but individual item choice wouldn't. That makes literally no sense.
Noaani wrote: » If a game is designed around the idea that set gear is the optimal, that means when you find the best gear, you are tied to that 3, 5 or 7 item set. As soon as you realize that set is the best, you have locked in half of your gear.
Noaani wrote: » If gear sets are marginal (or are slot based), then you need to consider each individual item. This leaves more room for variation, gives players more freedom to gear up to suit their specific conditions. As an example, perhaps you are in a group with a class that buffs crit chance to the point where diminishing returns kick in - youwould be best to remove items that grant crit chance in favor of other things. Perhaps that player has to leave, and now you have someone that buffs max damage to a high degree and triggers diminishing returns there - suddenly you want to drop max damage gear and re-equip crit chance gear. Maybe the group you are going up against a group with a bard that is buffing up spell reflect, you now need to either equip gear to reduce the chances ofnreflecr, or to buff yourself more against the damage type you are dealing. Perhaps you are up against people from a node with a relic that reduces crit chance on them. All of a sudden, gear that increases the additional damage that a crit does is far less effective, and so may need to be swapped out for gear that increases crit chance - even if you were otherwise above the point of diminishing returns. Perhaps you are coming up against a guild that has a passive that reduces chance to hit - either chance, max damage and crit damage all now take a back seat to increasing that chance to hit. Perhaps you take on a guild with that passive that also happens to be from that node above, and has that Bard buffing them - you now have to work out what gear is best suited to taking them on, and perhaps also need to factor in gear that most benefits the relic buffs, guild passives and group buffs you happen to have. The more complex a system, the less chance of there being any one right way to do it. Set bonus gear is great for games where player choice is limited. When players have multieple avenues to get stats and effects, and when not everything is available to players at all times, giving players full choice in regards to gear is key.
NiKr wrote: » Which is why I said that sets should have drawbacks so that there isn't one single "best one". Or at least it's not best in all situations, so your party has to support you when you set doesn't match up with the encounter.
Noaani wrote: » However, if we just outright ignore that fact, what you have so far neglected to show is why these setbacks you talk about need to be a part of gear sets, rather than just a part of gear.
