hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. What name did I call you? So its only disccusion if someone agrees with you, and not when someone says it makes the game worse lmao. Liking ammo is not a reason to make a game worse without bringing up a valid reason for restriction while acknowledging the type of game and the gameplay loop. You have done neither in advocating your point. Well you didnt exactly call me a name, but you said that people were thinking something like "Guys, lets make this game bad for no reason." I'm also just raising a question, not giving any answers. I was just curious. Debate with ideas or intelligent thoughts is a good thing, even if you disagree, but don't just point fingers and say we're trying to make the game bad. I'm just wondering if anyone has any ideas about ammo and how if possible that implementation would be a good thing. I did raise a point about maybe ships having ammo an interesting concept. I'm trying to reach for the lore aspect of how is this believable that rangers and ships can keep shooting without ammo because I'm somewhat a realist or whatever when it come to games. I can make compromises and I thing no ammo in AoC is fine and I'm willing to compromise. I just expect more from these conversations than insults. Ideas, or reasons why ammo is bad are better than insults.
Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. What name did I call you? So its only disccusion if someone agrees with you, and not when someone says it makes the game worse lmao. Liking ammo is not a reason to make a game worse without bringing up a valid reason for restriction while acknowledging the type of game and the gameplay loop. You have done neither in advocating your point.
hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo.
Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason."
Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. What name did I call you? So its only disccusion if someone agrees with you, and not when someone says it makes the game worse lmao. Liking ammo is not a reason to make a game worse without bringing up a valid reason for restriction while acknowledging the type of game and the gameplay loop. You have done neither in advocating your point. Well you didnt exactly call me a name, but you said that people were thinking something like "Guys, lets make this game bad for no reason." I'm also just raising a question, not giving any answers. I was just curious. Debate with ideas or intelligent thoughts is a good thing, even if you disagree, but don't just point fingers and say we're trying to make the game bad. I'm just wondering if anyone has any ideas about ammo and how if possible that implementation would be a good thing. I did raise a point about maybe ships having ammo an interesting concept. I'm trying to reach for the lore aspect of how is this believable that rangers and ships can keep shooting without ammo because I'm somewhat a realist or whatever when it come to games. I can make compromises and I thing no ammo in AoC is fine and I'm willing to compromise. I just expect more from these conversations than insults. Ideas, or reasons why ammo is bad are better than insults. So now you are making things up by admitting I didn't call you a name in attempt to play victim. And i gave replies to the question, with my story comment and more feedback which can be an actual thing that happens in game. But You didn't choose to quote any of those more critical points. I have 0 reason to sugar coat things, if something is bad I will say it is bad. If you want to defend your point on why it isn't bad you are fully free to. If i have a bad idea and someone says it is bad that is tot heir credit to do so and for me to list my reasons for why it isn't bad, using reasoning of my own based on my understanding of the game and referencing it. Again it is a bad idea and it is bad to come up with idea force a bad idea to work within it. Similarly it be like wanting to ask how for a implement corrupted players being protected and able to pk freely as a bad idea (not that those 2 are the same just both bad takes) .Saying your idea is bad is not a insult we are not snowflakes here, it is up to you to defend your take. If you can't give reasoning and are looking for others to give reasoning for you it simply means your idea is weak. Ammo for ships sounds reasonable and helps with crafting, it will be a different gameplay loop and one that makes more sense. Ammo for players using arrows is not good because of kill times do to content. The game isn't designed around players buying items that limit what they can do like a survival game. Ie limited ammo, weapon durability, creature / player strength, etc. And i don't fee like explaining reason for limits in those types of games as that should be basic understanding on the differences between a mmorpg and survival game where you kill things in a few shots - where a mmorpg like AoC has a player kill time of like 30 seconds, or very tanky mobs.
Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. I came up with ammo for ranger weapons and reagents for casting spells. I can live with it, I can live without it. Probably won’t work for Ashes.
hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. What name did I call you? So its only disccusion if someone agrees with you, and not when someone says it makes the game worse lmao. Liking ammo is not a reason to make a game worse without bringing up a valid reason for restriction while acknowledging the type of game and the gameplay loop. You have done neither in advocating your point. Well you didnt exactly call me a name, but you said that people were thinking something like "Guys, lets make this game bad for no reason." I'm also just raising a question, not giving any answers. I was just curious. Debate with ideas or intelligent thoughts is a good thing, even if you disagree, but don't just point fingers and say we're trying to make the game bad. I'm just wondering if anyone has any ideas about ammo and how if possible that implementation would be a good thing. I did raise a point about maybe ships having ammo an interesting concept. I'm trying to reach for the lore aspect of how is this believable that rangers and ships can keep shooting without ammo because I'm somewhat a realist or whatever when it come to games. I can make compromises and I thing no ammo in AoC is fine and I'm willing to compromise. I just expect more from these conversations than insults. Ideas, or reasons why ammo is bad are better than insults. So now you are making things up by admitting I didn't call you a name in attempt to play victim. And i gave replies to the question, with my story comment and more feedback which can be an actual thing that happens in game. But You didn't choose to quote any of those more critical points. I have 0 reason to sugar coat things, if something is bad I will say it is bad. If you want to defend your point on why it isn't bad you are fully free to. If i have a bad idea and someone says it is bad that is tot heir credit to do so and for me to list my reasons for why it isn't bad, using reasoning of my own based on my understanding of the game and referencing it. Again it is a bad idea and it is bad to come up with idea force a bad idea to work within it. Similarly it be like wanting to ask how for a implement corrupted players being protected and able to pk freely as a bad idea (not that those 2 are the same just both bad takes) .Saying your idea is bad is not a insult we are not snowflakes here, it is up to you to defend your take. If you can't give reasoning and are looking for others to give reasoning for you it simply means your idea is weak. Ammo for ships sounds reasonable and helps with crafting, it will be a different gameplay loop and one that makes more sense. Ammo for players using arrows is not good because of kill times do to content. The game isn't designed around players buying items that limit what they can do like a survival game. Ie limited ammo, weapon durability, creature / player strength, etc. And i don't fee like explaining reason for limits in those types of games as that should be basic understanding on the differences between a mmorpg and survival game where you kill things in a few shots - where a mmorpg like AoC has a player kill time of like 30 seconds, or very tanky mobs. "So now you are making things up by admitting I didn't call you a name in attempt to play victim." You are failing to see you saying people just want to make the game bad as name calling, it's close enough. I didn't think we had to be so specific. You are nitpicking. You did give replies, and I did read those after the fact. That's the type of discussion I appreciate, jut not the insults. Again, I'm not trying to defend any point, I'm just saying insults are not welcome. Your summation of people discussing this matter in that quote was a over generalization. You should have stuck to your other well thought out points. I'm ok with my idea being weak, Im ok with it being tested against others and to get their ideas. I'm asking for you to break my idea if it is weak please and thank you. I'm just also asking you to assume I'm not here to make the game worse. I still need to think about the ammo for ships, and I appreciate the input. Is it worthwhile to build the system and test it say in Alpha2? maybe only after the non-ammo system is tested and only if there is left something wanting in crafting space related to naval game play. Test the different types of 'ammo' with a mechanic that implements the different types of shot (chain, grape, explosive, whatever) without having the ammo mechanic in the crafting side yet so we see how it plays out in battle. I honestly don't believe in ammo enough to make the argument for it, yet. But again, if done well, I think more is better.
Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. What name did I call you? So its only disccusion if someone agrees with you, and not when someone says it makes the game worse lmao. Liking ammo is not a reason to make a game worse without bringing up a valid reason for restriction while acknowledging the type of game and the gameplay loop. You have done neither in advocating your point. Well you didnt exactly call me a name, but you said that people were thinking something like "Guys, lets make this game bad for no reason." I'm also just raising a question, not giving any answers. I was just curious. Debate with ideas or intelligent thoughts is a good thing, even if you disagree, but don't just point fingers and say we're trying to make the game bad. I'm just wondering if anyone has any ideas about ammo and how if possible that implementation would be a good thing. I did raise a point about maybe ships having ammo an interesting concept. I'm trying to reach for the lore aspect of how is this believable that rangers and ships can keep shooting without ammo because I'm somewhat a realist or whatever when it come to games. I can make compromises and I thing no ammo in AoC is fine and I'm willing to compromise. I just expect more from these conversations than insults. Ideas, or reasons why ammo is bad are better than insults. So now you are making things up by admitting I didn't call you a name in attempt to play victim. And i gave replies to the question, with my story comment and more feedback which can be an actual thing that happens in game. But You didn't choose to quote any of those more critical points. I have 0 reason to sugar coat things, if something is bad I will say it is bad. If you want to defend your point on why it isn't bad you are fully free to. If i have a bad idea and someone says it is bad that is tot heir credit to do so and for me to list my reasons for why it isn't bad, using reasoning of my own based on my understanding of the game and referencing it. Again it is a bad idea and it is bad to come up with idea force a bad idea to work within it. Similarly it be like wanting to ask how for a implement corrupted players being protected and able to pk freely as a bad idea (not that those 2 are the same just both bad takes) .Saying your idea is bad is not a insult we are not snowflakes here, it is up to you to defend your take. If you can't give reasoning and are looking for others to give reasoning for you it simply means your idea is weak. Ammo for ships sounds reasonable and helps with crafting, it will be a different gameplay loop and one that makes more sense. Ammo for players using arrows is not good because of kill times do to content. The game isn't designed around players buying items that limit what they can do like a survival game. Ie limited ammo, weapon durability, creature / player strength, etc. And i don't fee like explaining reason for limits in those types of games as that should be basic understanding on the differences between a mmorpg and survival game where you kill things in a few shots - where a mmorpg like AoC has a player kill time of like 30 seconds, or very tanky mobs. "So now you are making things up by admitting I didn't call you a name in attempt to play victim." You are failing to see you saying people just want to make the game bad as name calling, it's close enough. I didn't think we had to be so specific. You are nitpicking. You did give replies, and I did read those after the fact. That's the type of discussion I appreciate, jut not the insults. Again, I'm not trying to defend any point, I'm just saying insults are not welcome. Your summation of people discussing this matter in that quote was a over generalization. You should have stuck to your other well thought out points. I'm ok with my idea being weak, Im ok with it being tested against others and to get their ideas. I'm asking for you to break my idea if it is weak please and thank you. I'm just also asking you to assume I'm not here to make the game worse. I still need to think about the ammo for ships, and I appreciate the input. Is it worthwhile to build the system and test it say in Alpha2? maybe only after the non-ammo system is tested and only if there is left something wanting in crafting space related to naval game play. Test the different types of 'ammo' with a mechanic that implements the different types of shot (chain, grape, explosive, whatever) without having the ammo mechanic in the crafting side yet so we see how it plays out in battle. I honestly don't believe in ammo enough to make the argument for it, yet. But again, if done well, I think more is better. You have already agreed there was no name calling, now you are saying you are being insulted where lol? Also the part in quotes " " from the other post were more comedic sarcasm with a half exaggeration. You personally don't want the game to be worse, but you might not understand as i pointed out earlier with the game that changes you want would lead to a worse game. You are more worried about saying the idea without backing the design of it based on the gameplay. And when faced with question that talk about it with the game design elements we know you ignore those points. We can start over though . Do you expect players to carry thousands of items around based on the current direction of combat in order to do content, Are you fine with range uses being at disadvantage without it, Are you fine even if the lost it low it amounts to spending a lot of money on gold to buy these items, Are the arrows going to be just basic materials or will there be more special arrow. If only basic arrows is the content of making these fun or pointlessly tedious, if special arrows how is balancing on the class going to be and price point to have to buy higher tier arrows when you need to buy hundreds per piece of content you are doing.
hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. I came up with ammo for ranger weapons and reagents for casting spells. I can live with it, I can live without it. Probably won’t work for Ashes. That brings me back to ultima online. man, yeah i actually liked that regent system. Like you said, might not work in ashes, we'd maybe need to think of it across the board. all classes, melee players included. But, I'm not sure i believe in this idea. I think its too advanced for newer players. They might give up on the game if a complicated regents system is implemented in my opinion. There might be a system like that for high level ritual like spells. I think that idea has some legs. Tell me what you think.
hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. What name did I call you? So its only disccusion if someone agrees with you, and not when someone says it makes the game worse lmao. Liking ammo is not a reason to make a game worse without bringing up a valid reason for restriction while acknowledging the type of game and the gameplay loop. You have done neither in advocating your point. Well you didnt exactly call me a name, but you said that people were thinking something like "Guys, lets make this game bad for no reason." I'm also just raising a question, not giving any answers. I was just curious. Debate with ideas or intelligent thoughts is a good thing, even if you disagree, but don't just point fingers and say we're trying to make the game bad. I'm just wondering if anyone has any ideas about ammo and how if possible that implementation would be a good thing. I did raise a point about maybe ships having ammo an interesting concept. I'm trying to reach for the lore aspect of how is this believable that rangers and ships can keep shooting without ammo because I'm somewhat a realist or whatever when it come to games. I can make compromises and I thing no ammo in AoC is fine and I'm willing to compromise. I just expect more from these conversations than insults. Ideas, or reasons why ammo is bad are better than insults. So now you are making things up by admitting I didn't call you a name in attempt to play victim. And i gave replies to the question, with my story comment and more feedback which can be an actual thing that happens in game. But You didn't choose to quote any of those more critical points. I have 0 reason to sugar coat things, if something is bad I will say it is bad. If you want to defend your point on why it isn't bad you are fully free to. If i have a bad idea and someone says it is bad that is tot heir credit to do so and for me to list my reasons for why it isn't bad, using reasoning of my own based on my understanding of the game and referencing it. Again it is a bad idea and it is bad to come up with idea force a bad idea to work within it. Similarly it be like wanting to ask how for a implement corrupted players being protected and able to pk freely as a bad idea (not that those 2 are the same just both bad takes) .Saying your idea is bad is not a insult we are not snowflakes here, it is up to you to defend your take. If you can't give reasoning and are looking for others to give reasoning for you it simply means your idea is weak. Ammo for ships sounds reasonable and helps with crafting, it will be a different gameplay loop and one that makes more sense. Ammo for players using arrows is not good because of kill times do to content. The game isn't designed around players buying items that limit what they can do like a survival game. Ie limited ammo, weapon durability, creature / player strength, etc. And i don't fee like explaining reason for limits in those types of games as that should be basic understanding on the differences between a mmorpg and survival game where you kill things in a few shots - where a mmorpg like AoC has a player kill time of like 30 seconds, or very tanky mobs. "So now you are making things up by admitting I didn't call you a name in attempt to play victim." You are failing to see you saying people just want to make the game bad as name calling, it's close enough. I didn't think we had to be so specific. You are nitpicking. You did give replies, and I did read those after the fact. That's the type of discussion I appreciate, jut not the insults. Again, I'm not trying to defend any point, I'm just saying insults are not welcome. Your summation of people discussing this matter in that quote was a over generalization. You should have stuck to your other well thought out points. I'm ok with my idea being weak, Im ok with it being tested against others and to get their ideas. I'm asking for you to break my idea if it is weak please and thank you. I'm just also asking you to assume I'm not here to make the game worse. I still need to think about the ammo for ships, and I appreciate the input. Is it worthwhile to build the system and test it say in Alpha2? maybe only after the non-ammo system is tested and only if there is left something wanting in crafting space related to naval game play. Test the different types of 'ammo' with a mechanic that implements the different types of shot (chain, grape, explosive, whatever) without having the ammo mechanic in the crafting side yet so we see how it plays out in battle. I honestly don't believe in ammo enough to make the argument for it, yet. But again, if done well, I think more is better. You have already agreed there was no name calling, now you are saying you are being insulted where lol? Also the part in quotes " " from the other post were more comedic sarcasm with a half exaggeration. You personally don't want the game to be worse, but you might not understand as i pointed out earlier with the game that changes you want would lead to a worse game. You are more worried about saying the idea without backing the design of it based on the gameplay. And when faced with question that talk about it with the game design elements we know you ignore those points. We can start over though . Do you expect players to carry thousands of items around based on the current direction of combat in order to do content, Are you fine with range uses being at disadvantage without it, Are you fine even if the lost it low it amounts to spending a lot of money on gold to buy these items, Are the arrows going to be just basic materials or will there be more special arrow. If only basic arrows is the content of making these fun or pointlessly tedious, if special arrows how is balancing on the class going to be and price point to have to buy higher tier arrows when you need to buy hundreds per piece of content you are doing. Sarcasm doesn't read well man.
Azherae wrote: » The real question here is the Durability value on Quivers.
Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. What name did I call you? So its only disccusion if someone agrees with you, and not when someone says it makes the game worse lmao. Liking ammo is not a reason to make a game worse without bringing up a valid reason for restriction while acknowledging the type of game and the gameplay loop. You have done neither in advocating your point. Well you didnt exactly call me a name, but you said that people were thinking something like "Guys, lets make this game bad for no reason." I'm also just raising a question, not giving any answers. I was just curious. Debate with ideas or intelligent thoughts is a good thing, even if you disagree, but don't just point fingers and say we're trying to make the game bad. I'm just wondering if anyone has any ideas about ammo and how if possible that implementation would be a good thing. I did raise a point about maybe ships having ammo an interesting concept. I'm trying to reach for the lore aspect of how is this believable that rangers and ships can keep shooting without ammo because I'm somewhat a realist or whatever when it come to games. I can make compromises and I thing no ammo in AoC is fine and I'm willing to compromise. I just expect more from these conversations than insults. Ideas, or reasons why ammo is bad are better than insults. So now you are making things up by admitting I didn't call you a name in attempt to play victim. And i gave replies to the question, with my story comment and more feedback which can be an actual thing that happens in game. But You didn't choose to quote any of those more critical points. I have 0 reason to sugar coat things, if something is bad I will say it is bad. If you want to defend your point on why it isn't bad you are fully free to. If i have a bad idea and someone says it is bad that is tot heir credit to do so and for me to list my reasons for why it isn't bad, using reasoning of my own based on my understanding of the game and referencing it. Again it is a bad idea and it is bad to come up with idea force a bad idea to work within it. Similarly it be like wanting to ask how for a implement corrupted players being protected and able to pk freely as a bad idea (not that those 2 are the same just both bad takes) .Saying your idea is bad is not a insult we are not snowflakes here, it is up to you to defend your take. If you can't give reasoning and are looking for others to give reasoning for you it simply means your idea is weak. Ammo for ships sounds reasonable and helps with crafting, it will be a different gameplay loop and one that makes more sense. Ammo for players using arrows is not good because of kill times do to content. The game isn't designed around players buying items that limit what they can do like a survival game. Ie limited ammo, weapon durability, creature / player strength, etc. And i don't fee like explaining reason for limits in those types of games as that should be basic understanding on the differences between a mmorpg and survival game where you kill things in a few shots - where a mmorpg like AoC has a player kill time of like 30 seconds, or very tanky mobs. "So now you are making things up by admitting I didn't call you a name in attempt to play victim." You are failing to see you saying people just want to make the game bad as name calling, it's close enough. I didn't think we had to be so specific. You are nitpicking. You did give replies, and I did read those after the fact. That's the type of discussion I appreciate, jut not the insults. Again, I'm not trying to defend any point, I'm just saying insults are not welcome. Your summation of people discussing this matter in that quote was a over generalization. You should have stuck to your other well thought out points. I'm ok with my idea being weak, Im ok with it being tested against others and to get their ideas. I'm asking for you to break my idea if it is weak please and thank you. I'm just also asking you to assume I'm not here to make the game worse. I still need to think about the ammo for ships, and I appreciate the input. Is it worthwhile to build the system and test it say in Alpha2? maybe only after the non-ammo system is tested and only if there is left something wanting in crafting space related to naval game play. Test the different types of 'ammo' with a mechanic that implements the different types of shot (chain, grape, explosive, whatever) without having the ammo mechanic in the crafting side yet so we see how it plays out in battle. I honestly don't believe in ammo enough to make the argument for it, yet. But again, if done well, I think more is better. You have already agreed there was no name calling, now you are saying you are being insulted where lol? Also the part in quotes " " from the other post were more comedic sarcasm with a half exaggeration. You personally don't want the game to be worse, but you might not understand as i pointed out earlier with the game that changes you want would lead to a worse game. You are more worried about saying the idea without backing the design of it based on the gameplay. And when faced with question that talk about it with the game design elements we know you ignore those points. We can start over though . Do you expect players to carry thousands of items around based on the current direction of combat in order to do content, Are you fine with range uses being at disadvantage without it, Are you fine even if the lost it low it amounts to spending a lot of money on gold to buy these items, Are the arrows going to be just basic materials or will there be more special arrow. If only basic arrows is the content of making these fun or pointlessly tedious, if special arrows how is balancing on the class going to be and price point to have to buy higher tier arrows when you need to buy hundreds per piece of content you are doing. Sarcasm doesn't read well man. Avoiding that actual input and focusing on the quotes I see. Exactly why I stick to just saying it is bad since people don't want to actual have a valid discussion on defending their points.
Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. I came up with ammo for ranger weapons and reagents for casting spells. I can live with it, I can live without it. Probably won’t work for Ashes. That brings me back to ultima online. man, yeah i actually liked that regent system. Like you said, might not work in ashes, we'd maybe need to think of it across the board. all classes, melee players included. But, I'm not sure i believe in this idea. I think its too advanced for newer players. They might give up on the game if a complicated regents system is implemented in my opinion. There might be a system like that for high level ritual like spells. I think that idea has some legs. Tell me what you think. Thing about that level of logistics and discipline is most people aren't capable of it, they'll just say its unfun in their idea of what a game is and leave it at that, that's fine. Personally I think there's actually going to be too many abilities and spells for low end reagents to be viable, it's just not build with those things in mind. But high level summons and super spells, yeah they should require some economics and logistics. We'll see though, we're going into an A2 and the combat is no where near complete, we have no idea of what it'll look like.
hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. I came up with ammo for ranger weapons and reagents for casting spells. I can live with it, I can live without it. Probably won’t work for Ashes. That brings me back to ultima online. man, yeah i actually liked that regent system. Like you said, might not work in ashes, we'd maybe need to think of it across the board. all classes, melee players included. But, I'm not sure i believe in this idea. I think its too advanced for newer players. They might give up on the game if a complicated regents system is implemented in my opinion. There might be a system like that for high level ritual like spells. I think that idea has some legs. Tell me what you think. Thing about that level of logistics and discipline is most people aren't capable of it, they'll just say its unfun in their idea of what a game is and leave it at that, that's fine. Personally I think there's actually going to be too many abilities and spells for low end reagents to be viable, it's just not build with those things in mind. But high level summons and super spells, yeah they should require some economics and logistics. We'll see though, we're going into an A2 and the combat is no where near complete, we have no idea of what it'll look like. Yeah, all good points, and I agree. I'd love to have some ritual mini game for mages/summoners while they try and summon maybe a dragon and the party has to fight off mobs while the mage/summoner plays a complex mini game. Performance determines dragons DPS. Could be used during siege, 2-3 or some minute summon. must have destroyed a religious temple during siege already or something as a predict. I guess this topic is going off the rails but oh well.
Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. I came up with ammo for ranger weapons and reagents for casting spells. I can live with it, I can live without it. Probably won’t work for Ashes. That brings me back to ultima online. man, yeah i actually liked that regent system. Like you said, might not work in ashes, we'd maybe need to think of it across the board. all classes, melee players included. But, I'm not sure i believe in this idea. I think its too advanced for newer players. They might give up on the game if a complicated regents system is implemented in my opinion. There might be a system like that for high level ritual like spells. I think that idea has some legs. Tell me what you think. Thing about that level of logistics and discipline is most people aren't capable of it, they'll just say its unfun in their idea of what a game is and leave it at that, that's fine. Personally I think there's actually going to be too many abilities and spells for low end reagents to be viable, it's just not build with those things in mind. But high level summons and super spells, yeah they should require some economics and logistics. We'll see though, we're going into an A2 and the combat is no where near complete, we have no idea of what it'll look like. Yeah, all good points, and I agree. I'd love to have some ritual mini game for mages/summoners while they try and summon maybe a dragon and the party has to fight off mobs while the mage/summoner plays a complex mini game. Performance determines dragons DPS. Could be used during siege, 2-3 or some minute summon. must have destroyed a religious temple during siege already or something as a predict. I guess this topic is going off the rails but oh well. Ammo are apart of consumables, I don’t think it’s too off the rails. Anything immensely power shifting should have cost(s) attached to it. Now armaments for siege being limited is a conversation to have, just not bows/spells.
hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. I came up with ammo for ranger weapons and reagents for casting spells. I can live with it, I can live without it. Probably won’t work for Ashes. That brings me back to ultima online. man, yeah i actually liked that regent system. Like you said, might not work in ashes, we'd maybe need to think of it across the board. all classes, melee players included. But, I'm not sure i believe in this idea. I think its too advanced for newer players. They might give up on the game if a complicated regents system is implemented in my opinion. There might be a system like that for high level ritual like spells. I think that idea has some legs. Tell me what you think. Thing about that level of logistics and discipline is most people aren't capable of it, they'll just say its unfun in their idea of what a game is and leave it at that, that's fine. Personally I think there's actually going to be too many abilities and spells for low end reagents to be viable, it's just not build with those things in mind. But high level summons and super spells, yeah they should require some economics and logistics. We'll see though, we're going into an A2 and the combat is no where near complete, we have no idea of what it'll look like. Yeah, all good points, and I agree. I'd love to have some ritual mini game for mages/summoners while they try and summon maybe a dragon and the party has to fight off mobs while the mage/summoner plays a complex mini game. Performance determines dragons DPS. Could be used during siege, 2-3 or some minute summon. must have destroyed a religious temple during siege already or something as a predict. I guess this topic is going off the rails but oh well. Ammo are apart of consumables, I don’t think it’s too off the rails. Anything immensely power shifting should have cost(s) attached to it. Now armaments for siege being limited is a conversation to have, just not bows/spells. I haven't thought much about limited stuff for sieges. Is there a good video to watch to get caught up on the topic? Or whats the current game plan by Intrepid? Im not sure Id know where to begin other than the trebs or catapults being capped at so many so to speak.
Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. I came up with ammo for ranger weapons and reagents for casting spells. I can live with it, I can live without it. Probably won’t work for Ashes. That brings me back to ultima online. man, yeah i actually liked that regent system. Like you said, might not work in ashes, we'd maybe need to think of it across the board. all classes, melee players included. But, I'm not sure i believe in this idea. I think its too advanced for newer players. They might give up on the game if a complicated regents system is implemented in my opinion. There might be a system like that for high level ritual like spells. I think that idea has some legs. Tell me what you think. Thing about that level of logistics and discipline is most people aren't capable of it, they'll just say its unfun in their idea of what a game is and leave it at that, that's fine. Personally I think there's actually going to be too many abilities and spells for low end reagents to be viable, it's just not build with those things in mind. But high level summons and super spells, yeah they should require some economics and logistics. We'll see though, we're going into an A2 and the combat is no where near complete, we have no idea of what it'll look like. Yeah, all good points, and I agree. I'd love to have some ritual mini game for mages/summoners while they try and summon maybe a dragon and the party has to fight off mobs while the mage/summoner plays a complex mini game. Performance determines dragons DPS. Could be used during siege, 2-3 or some minute summon. must have destroyed a religious temple during siege already or something as a predict. I guess this topic is going off the rails but oh well. Ammo are apart of consumables, I don’t think it’s too off the rails. Anything immensely power shifting should have cost(s) attached to it. Now armaments for siege being limited is a conversation to have, just not bows/spells. I haven't thought much about limited stuff for sieges. Is there a good video to watch to get caught up on the topic? Or whats the current game plan by Intrepid? Im not sure Id know where to begin other than the trebs or catapults being capped at so many so to speak. Siegemasters will be a thing in Ashes, don’t know if the Sandal Lord and Intrepid worked out the details yet.
hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » hanoldbuddy wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I honestly don't understand why people want to layer random repetitive things that don't' enhance any kind of gameplay. Like they are out here being like "Guys lets make this game bad for no reason." Well I don't think its like that, just wondering. Also some people like ammo. Just asking a question to get input because if it could be implemented well, then its not boring. Its called a discussion man...add to it, think of something intelligent to say, don't just call people names, amigo. I came up with ammo for ranger weapons and reagents for casting spells. I can live with it, I can live without it. Probably won’t work for Ashes. That brings me back to ultima online. man, yeah i actually liked that regent system. Like you said, might not work in ashes, we'd maybe need to think of it across the board. all classes, melee players included. But, I'm not sure i believe in this idea. I think its too advanced for newer players. They might give up on the game if a complicated regents system is implemented in my opinion. There might be a system like that for high level ritual like spells. I think that idea has some legs. Tell me what you think. Thing about that level of logistics and discipline is most people aren't capable of it, they'll just say its unfun in their idea of what a game is and leave it at that, that's fine. Personally I think there's actually going to be too many abilities and spells for low end reagents to be viable, it's just not build with those things in mind. But high level summons and super spells, yeah they should require some economics and logistics. We'll see though, we're going into an A2 and the combat is no where near complete, we have no idea of what it'll look like. Yeah, all good points, and I agree. I'd love to have some ritual mini game for mages/summoners while they try and summon maybe a dragon and the party has to fight off mobs while the mage/summoner plays a complex mini game. Performance determines dragons DPS. Could be used during siege, 2-3 or some minute summon. must have destroyed a religious temple during siege already or something as a predict. I guess this topic is going off the rails but oh well. Ammo are apart of consumables, I don’t think it’s too off the rails. Anything immensely power shifting should have cost(s) attached to it. Now armaments for siege being limited is a conversation to have, just not bows/spells. I haven't thought much about limited stuff for sieges. Is there a good video to watch to get caught up on the topic? Or whats the current game plan by Intrepid? Im not sure Id know where to begin other than the trebs or catapults being capped at so many so to speak. Siegemasters will be a thing in Ashes, don’t know if the Sandal Lord and Intrepid worked out the details yet. Awesome. I like the sound of that. This game just keeps getting better and better. Is the Sandal Lord Steven S's handle?
Voeltz wrote: » I'm not against ammo for bows, but it would have to be done well to add any sort of value to the game. Typically I do not play the archer type classes in these sort of games, but the only MMORPG I remember that had ammo was New World and it was a pain in the ass to get. Still, doesn't mean it can't be done right in an MMO. Games that have done it right IMO would be Elder Scrolls or a Survival game like Valheim since arrows are plentiful, easy to obtain or craft. So that would be the key to having it in Ashes, easy to craft and cheap to buy. Also make it so arrows can be retrieved from the ground and dead enemies. On the positive side it would add to the economy, creates another gold sink and may limit ranged spam to an extent. I do like the idea of every obtainable item having a material cost to maintain or continue using. On the other hand, it could become annoying to run out of ammo consistently and during key moments. It would effect bow users disproportionately and give other weapon users the advantage of not needing ammo unless other comparable systems were created for them like melee weapons becoming dull after a while, casters needing an additional resource for spells like a spellstone or runes. Also, the time it would take IS to develop this system for negligible benefits could be better used on other aspects of the game. The positives and negatives of having ammo seem to be more negative, so that's likely why the decision was to leave it out of the game. I think most people would say it's a bad idea because it's a hassle for them to have to worry about it at all, which is understandable.
