Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
To me as long as the community, zones, and towns are active with people you can see...the lowbies will not feel isolated and alone as long as they can get party quest lines done.
There's also ways with having rewards/perks that have to be met by population numbers of unique players (account based)...so there is incentive for a guild or node to add unique legit people to its registrar and help them out.
Just my thoughts on it.
The more newbie churn there is in the game, the MMOey the game will feel. And with Ashes trying to go for the oldschool "you're having fun from lvl1 and not only at max lvl" design, they'd need to keep putting out good lowbie content so that after a few expansions the game doesn't just become very max lvl content heavy, as pretty much every other mmo does.
There's several ways to try making this kind of development feasible and I think that planning for max+lowbie content beforehand is one of the better ways.
Agreed that newbie churn is a bad thing and a system needs to support new players.
But this reply asserts the player would find themselves at max level amidst all this chaos without ever having encountered any of it. This shouldn't be a real scenario if the world is built for player interaction. But that's just speculation.
hasn't this reply setup a false dichotomy to solve?
either late arrivers to the game will choose to be solo 100% of the time or we need multi player support to entertain them 100% of the time.
My response was geared toward situations where there aren't enough players for a given quest / event at a certain time...
I do think incentives of some type whether it be guild or nodes should be introduced, but in lieu of that it seems the player has several choices:
pick a different quest/grind/skill/area temporarily
wait a bit until there are people to help
have AI/NCPs help.
the last option could be something to where if there isn't anyone in a queue / meeting stone for a certain amount of time, then the NPC/AI could be assigned...
There are ways that it could work. I think people are playing a mmorpg for the mmo experience...so bridging the gap with NPCs/AI when there's a small lull shouldn't be faux pas, at least to me.
And if the whole game is mainly aimed towards group gameplay and interplayer interactions, making those interactions a solo thing where the remainder of your party is just npcs would be counterproductive.
And while I can't speak for most players, I personally like games that have great gameplay all throughout the leveling process, especially when that gameplay remains the same. So if I, say, hadn't known about AoC's release and then months later heard that it's a good mmo not only at max lvl (that takes up to 200h to get to) but right from lvl1 - I'd be way more interested in trying it out.
And then if my gameplay consists of bosses/party quests/caravans/sieges right from the start (or within the first few hours) - I'd know for sure if I'm interested in playing the game further.
From everything I've seen in other mmos, the longer they go on for the shorter the path to max lvl becomes. And that path is usually quiiiite different from what you get at the top. Afaik LA had you just run from NPC to NPC for a few hours to reach max lvl and then the game opened up to you with a ton of other kinds of content. I find that quite silly.
FF14 doesn't quite have this problem because it's very story-based and that story continues all throughout your leveling (across all classes iirc). And alternative modes of gameplay come on quite early on too, so it's not like you're time gated from non-story stuff by a huge wall of content.
Ashes already plans on having low lvl veterans due to its separation of artisan and adventure lvls, so it'll probably be a bit easier to find a lowbie party. And I just think that reinforcing that by adding some cross-lvl interactions would make the game even better.
ahh different meaning for EQ
Trains werent intended to redict agro or anything like that.
Usually the closer to the entrance of a dungeon are lower level and the deeper you go, the higher level the mobs become and much more dangerous.
Usually a train occurs when someone goes to far deep and couldnt handle it, or a wandering mob enter a room you barely could have and are forced to retreat.
In EQ, we have zones - our leashing mechanics is - you need to run out of the zone - therefor to De-aggro, you need to run out of zone while being chased by the mobs you pulled. If by chance the rooms before you are now empty w/ no groups - you also begin to collect those mobs and any other wandering mobs - creating a large amount of NPC chasing you.
It was common etiquette to have a macro ready to say in Zone "INC TRAIN" or better ones "INC TRAIN FROM KING ROOM" so that everyone in the zone or will be affected from King's room needs to start exiting too. If not there will be tons of dead players from other rooms killed.
This is where low and high lvl players are needed to work with each other. To prevent larger trains forming. As long as the lowbies can keep the lowbie areas of the dungeon clear, another type of shout macro is said "Help, Small train incoming to entrance" and those waiting for groups are usually sitting in entrance and lowbies near the entrance also comes and assist and gauge their dps strength on these lvl mobs. Many times - the group who pulled it didnt have enough DPS to secure loot rights and random players at entrance did and won some nice XP and reward for eliminaitng small trains. If they are in danger of dying, one step back and you zoned out to safety.
These type of leash range made those dungeons incredible difficult and scary. Not only are you responsible for your group safety but for everyone in the zone the further you go in. Reputations mattered in EQ. 3k per server - everyone pretty much knew everyone. If you were someone who kept creating trains or kept getting people killed - you have tarnished your name. We have XP LOSS and many people Delevel cause of trains too. Cost of Ressurections to return some XP were expensive too. Clerics dont mind helping but when they are in there to level, casting a res spells takes 60% of their mana and 5 min sit down - they wont be ressing for free. Time is money.
it seems our definition of train differs
It would not be wasted. It would solve problems. It would give reason to create alts and keep them at a lower level. Also would allow pvp at lower levels too.
I don't like high level players coming and killing mobs which low level players should kill. Neither for mentorship nor for resources they may need. They should pay for those resources if they do not want to make an alt themselves. There would be enough veterans willing to collect them and new players who level up would collect them too.
What is described on the wiki sounds more like busy work quests to be done with a friend who started playing later than you. These quotes from the wiki describe what I mean. "Let's say you have a friend who joins later on and you still want to do things with them, there will be things to do." and there's "Will he be able to enter a dungeon of your level and participate? No, because we don't want to inflate or deflate characters" and finally "So these are like quests that are determined by either certain buildings and/or organizations or the mayor."
However, I think what would be a very fun implementation of this idea is the quests through social organizations. We know we'll be able to to join things like the Thieves' Guild, Scholar's Academy and Trader's Company. I think if the mentorship program existed only in the social organizations and participating in one as a mentor unlocks higher positions in them and more exclusive perks. The program would apply for anyone who has been a member for x long and has y reputation, and a brand new member, regardless of level.
The mentor would go on training missions with the mentee, maybe teach skills, show the ropes or whatever, until the point the mentee becomes a full member of the organization and the mentor gets recognized as a teacher. Builds a community within the social organization, making it more, well, social.
This sounds like exactly the sort of thing that high level players will have their friends make low level alts to cheese through.
We gotta give low level players their value as PLAYERS, not just as 'an existence that fulfills a mechanic'.
Their TIME has to convert to some benefit to someone, for this to reach the outcome that I think NiKr is suggesting. Because then, at least, a high level player who makes an alt is trading one 'time' for another.
(I'm startin' to feel bad about all these negative half-answers)
Location is also important.
A low level in an area with high level NPCs would complain if is killed? Or is the corruption mechanic interesting to be used and countered in such places?
Color Threat Level
Blue (or grey) indicates 4 or more levels below you
Green indicates 1-3 levels below you
White being of Equal Level as you are
Yellow will indicated 1-3 levels above you
Red indicates 4 or more levels above you
Both for PC and NPC
Fighting an npc that is 2 higher level has a low chance of killing it - so it's still dangerous attempting yellows.
As for PC vs PC using the color system - idk how that would look but atleast we are able to gauge potential level difference + potential visual que (weapon/armor) to assess and make an informed decision.
I think the corruption makes sense and was invented for a world where all have the same level and later was adjusted to take into account level difference.
Being flagged means or should mean one agrees to fight against an opponent which he thinks he could potentially defeat.
The game encourages to fight back because at max level all players should potentially have a chance, at least when the other is tired, overconfident and drunk at the same time.
But being in an area with much higher level mobs, where a low level has normally no business, makes no sense. In those areas I would auto flag that low level player.
And I find the corruption system falls apart for low levels in low level areas if a high level is present.
Seeing other's levels doesn't help if you see two low levels fighting each-other. They both agree to have a fair fight and you come as a high level and you kill both of them.
Basically this PvP game tells players to avoid PvP until they reach max level.
In low level areas the high level player should not be able to attack the low levels at all, no matter if they are flagged or not.
If areas overlap with all kind of NPC levels close to each-other, like in a tower, with low levels at entrance, it is still possible to determine that is a low level area. Makes no sense to place a level 25 npc near a level 50 npc.
But it could be that the transition is gradual, level by level. From PvE perspective such a place is fun and would become a PvE dungeon for lower levels. I find acceptable that the high levels would be able to kill the mini bosses and take the loot. Eventually the low levels will get their desired items too. But they will not fight each other as long as there is a random high level nearby.
If such a tower has mobs from level 20 to 35, I would still prevent access for players below 20 and above 35.
In cities there will be guards and many players around.
Nobody will fight there unless he wants to see if they can survive more than 3 minutes.
And then Intrepid would only need to separate <25lvl mobs from pretty much all the others, so that the true lowbies can pvp in piece, while everyone else has a chance to fight each other.
Also, slower gear acquisition on higher lvls would help with this too. Say at lvl25 you can get a good set of gear within a few days (even easier later on in the game), but pretty much any other gear from there upwards requires at least a week to get. So more high lvl players will still be wearing lower tiered gear, which would mean that only the char stats and the player skill would be the difference between them and a lowbie. And with gear comprising ~50% of character power, I'd say that the pvp between a high lvl player and a low lvl one would be way more fair than in most games.
This is roughly how it worked in L2, though the ability part was way different and if you were above a certain lvl you might've had a pretty OP skill that let you win way more pvp than you probably should've.
Good observation. My experiences, for the most part, are the same. ^_^
But then the progression would feel slow from 25 to 50
Or they could separate the PvP progression from the PvE ?
That would mean damage vs mobs and damage vs players to be different.
2-3 lvl 25 players could defeat a lvl 50 player but a level 50 NPC chould be unbeatable for them. Would that be ok?
But if you have an overall slow progression, it would not only give more time for people at the top to start farming bosses before the masses catch up to them, but would also feel much smoother to most players. Obviously the current generation of players will probably dislike slow progression, but the game literally requires 200+h of gameplay to get to max lvl. People who hate slowness are definitely not the target audience.
The time to level from 25 to 50 is not shown but vs NPCs the player would feel a progression while in PvP the progression would be small.
That would mean damage and defense to be calculated differently, depending on enemy type.
Would it be ok?
So while either of those players can kill the mob, there's no benefit in it so they wouldn't do it (well, most of the time of course).
Hey!
Rude...
Not sure why you say that a lvl 25 would be able to kill a lvl 50 mob. That would be the case if I would swap the PvP and PvE labels on the diagrams.
As it is now, the steep PvE power increase would ensure that you do not die from mobs which killed you when you was a level lower.
And the slight pvp increase would mean that a lvl 25 could pvp with s lvl 50, as you said. Basically the two graphs ensure your vision.
Going only by what Intrepid has told us so far about how they want to balance damage and scaling, this is going to be impossible.
Normally I don't like to make hard blanket statements like that, but I'd bet you a whole PS5 that they HAVE to change one or two of their tenets because what they want to do can't mathematically be done simply, and adding a certain amount of complexity is changing a game tenet (though I would accept 'losing such a bet' anyway if they did a particular one).
You cannot have 'Meaningful Waterfall Stats' + 'Gear being 50% of character power' + 'No damage scaling by level even in PvE' + '30-60s TTK' all in the same game and still have a good open world combat experience.
ONE of those is going to go, or become so complicated that it might as well be gone, particularly as you get near to max level. The real question is 'which one of them should go', I think.
My preference ofc is biased and I'd prefer the 'no damage scaling by level' to go. But analysis indicates that the best way to achieve what you imply as a wish in this thread is actually for the Waterfall Stats to go, and put the other 'half' of player/character power into skills (with a nice base progression on Main Weapon damage for gear reasons to maintain the 50% of character power part).
So that's what I'm expecting, based on what I understand of L2, since I bet Steven and the team will have a goal relative to new players that is more similar to yours.