Githal wrote: » Azherae wrote: » To each their own. Therefore, opposed. Not really a discussion-worthy type of opposition. I understand your wish and won't be upset if it is changed to be done this way, but don't like it. Not that i dont respect your opinion, but would be more constructive to say why you dont like it.
Azherae wrote: » To each their own. Therefore, opposed. Not really a discussion-worthy type of opposition. I understand your wish and won't be upset if it is changed to be done this way, but don't like it.
The game should incentivize you to explore the world and do different activities all the time.
Githal wrote: » There will always be guides for everything no matter what it is. And if particular group of players want to follow a guided to min max thing - then thats fine. But those that dont follow this guide should not be with 15 out of 25 levels behind for the same time, just because they doing something they enjoy like crafting/pvp/developing nodes/caravan runs and ect.. The point is: i dont think just buffing the quests exp rewards will be enough to make the leveling system good, because AOC is supposed to have numerous activities that keep you involved in the world trough the leveling process.
Vhaeyne wrote: » @Dygz I don't think Steven has changed at all. It seems more likely that Jeff had a conflicting vision for ashes that was incompatible with the old school games Steven is inspired by: Eve, Lineage 2, Archage, Star Wars Galaxys.
Noaani wrote: » For better or worse, Steven wants the game Steven wants..
Noaani wrote: » @Githal Milestone leveling doesn't work in a game as open as Ashes. It works in a linear game, where players are going to hit the same milestones in the same order, or where a person can oversee the whole process for each individual player to decide if they have done enough to earn a level or not, but it absolutely does not work with a competitive open world MMORPG. I would wager that with a system like you are proposing, people would very quickly learn how to level to the cap in a day or two, leaving those wanting to play the game as they wish well behind. I see absolutely no benefit to it at all, and in fact see many drawbacks (dungeons being run exactly once, PvP kill trades etc).
Githal wrote: » When players hit the same milestone in same order is how you create the best guide that people can follow to min max. When you are in 1 part of the world and the guide is for some other region with different objectives available, you have to figure some stuff by yourself.
The point is that you dont need unification for every single person to have the same experience. And this system can work exactly because its open world.
Noaani wrote: » Githal wrote: » When players hit the same milestone in same order is how you create the best guide that people can follow to min max. When you are in 1 part of the world and the guide is for some other region with different objectives available, you have to figure some stuff by yourself. These two statements are contradictory. If there is that best leveing guide that people can follow you talk about in the first statement, people will not find themselves in some other region - they will follow the guide. The point is that you dont need unification for every single person to have the same experience. And this system can work exactly because its open world. No, it won't work, because it is an open world game. If players just chose what ever they like, then they will find themselves falling behind the people that do what is best even more. Even worse than that, if people just do what they like, many people may find that the activities they like are no longer providing them with any progression at all, because they have gained all the levels that are on offer from that content type. For example, if someone just finds that they love running dungeons, and just want to run dungeons, unless there is a dungeon for each level (unlikely), they will find themselves unable to do just do what they like before very long. You will end up in a situation where people are playing the game and just not progressing - and if they don't actually understand the different leveling system, they won't even understand why they aren't progressing. You need to have a VERY good reason to break away from a basic genre-wide system, and the replacement system needs to be more simple and more easy to understand until your new system becomes understood by players. It really isn't a system that could work in Ashes. Even if it could work, it is a system that would need to be a part of the games design from the very beginning - not something added to the game half way through development - this is because this system dictates many other aspects of the games design (Ashes would need to drop the notion of different node states opening up different parts of dungeons in order to facilitate this system, for example, otherwise the difference between getting a level of a dungeon that is only partially open vs one that is fully open would be drastic - and if you don't offer levels for partially opened dungeons you remove the ability for players to level up at all via that method).
Vhaeyne wrote: » @Lodrig Modern RPGs should abandon experience points is an very extremist position. To me leveling is not as much a learning process, but a earning process. No matter how hard you want to advocate for easy levels. I will advocate for a slower harder grind. It could take a month to hit level 10 and I still would want a slower grind.
Vhaeyne wrote: » I don't think Steven has changed at all. It seems more likely that Jeff had a conflicting vision for ashes that was incompatible with the old school games Steven is inspired by: Eve, Lineage 2, Archeage, Star Wars Galaxys.
Azherae wrote: » Btw @Githal would your suggestion also be keeping Node EXP entirely separate, or somehow rebalancing it? I mean that if group A follows the most efficient path and reaches level 20 and then starts fighting mobs and getting 700 Node EXP per fight, then their Node will automatically 'win' against any Group B that takes their time and only reaches level 12 and only gets 478 Node EXP per fight. But if you do the opposite then Group B can get a challenge clamp, so which is it?
Githal wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Btw Githal would your suggestion also be keeping Node EXP entirely separate, or somehow rebalancing it? I mean that if group A follows the most efficient path and reaches level 20 and then starts fighting mobs and getting 700 Node EXP per fight, then their Node will automatically 'win' against any Group B that takes their time and only reaches level 12 and only gets 478 Node EXP per fight. But if you do the opposite then Group B can get a challenge clamp, so which is it? For me node exp should have nothing to do with players exp. I would even go as far as to say that doing regular quests in the node area should not increase the node level at all. Nor killing mobs, or clearing dungeons and ect. Node levels should be entirely from node commissions from the major, building structures in the node, winning node wars and sieges, also from the gold donations from taxes. In short: if you want to develop node - then dedicate yourself in developing it, even if it means you might fall behind in other areas. (but not fall behind on levels, I mean fall behind on professions for example) So node exp dont depend on player exp, but player exp does... or something like this Like whatever you do, you should be able to get levels, but If you focus on nodes - then you develop nodes you can focus on professions - where you get professions maxed while leveling with it if you focus on quests or grinding mobs - then you get quest rewards/ rewards from mob drops that can be- gold, mats, full items Caravans - primary gold + node commodities Bosses/ dungeons - Bigger risk from dying = better loot drops (but less quantity) I even like the idea of being able to level up from pvp, but maybe this will be abused too much, so probably better not.
Azherae wrote: » Btw Githal would your suggestion also be keeping Node EXP entirely separate, or somehow rebalancing it? I mean that if group A follows the most efficient path and reaches level 20 and then starts fighting mobs and getting 700 Node EXP per fight, then their Node will automatically 'win' against any Group B that takes their time and only reaches level 12 and only gets 478 Node EXP per fight. But if you do the opposite then Group B can get a challenge clamp, so which is it?
Azherae wrote: » Githal wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Btw Githal would your suggestion also be keeping Node EXP entirely separate, or somehow rebalancing it? I mean that if group A follows the most efficient path and reaches level 20 and then starts fighting mobs and getting 700 Node EXP per fight, then their Node will automatically 'win' against any Group B that takes their time and only reaches level 12 and only gets 478 Node EXP per fight. But if you do the opposite then Group B can get a challenge clamp, so which is it? For me node exp should have nothing to do with players exp. I would even go as far as to say that doing regular quests in the node area should not increase the node level at all. Nor killing mobs, or clearing dungeons and ect. Node levels should be entirely from node commissions from the major, building structures in the node, winning node wars and sieges, also from the gold donations from taxes. In short: if you want to develop node - then dedicate yourself in developing it, even if it means you might fall behind in other areas. (but not fall behind on levels, I mean fall behind on professions for example) So node exp dont depend on player exp, but player exp does... or something like this Like whatever you do, you should be able to get levels, but If you focus on nodes - then you develop nodes you can focus on professions - where you get professions maxed while leveling with it if you focus on quests or grinding mobs - then you get quest rewards/ rewards from mob drops that can be- gold, mats, full items Caravans - primary gold + node commodities Bosses/ dungeons - Bigger risk from dying = better loot drops (but less quantity) I even like the idea of being able to level up from pvp, but maybe this will be abused too much, so probably better not. Wouldn't this create a situation where one group is raising the Node, but another is gaining most of the benefits (in this case, assume both groups are Citizens)? Other games like this have multiple systems to handle this, but Ashes doesn't have any, are you suggesting that Intrepid change up the incentive structure too?
