Welcome to the Rise of Agon Community

Create an account today to engage in discussions and community events on the Rise of Agon forums.

Classfall inc with new dawn?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Nugsbunny, Sep 6, 2015.

  1. Nugsbunny

    Nugsbunny Windlord
    Loyal Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    264
    We do not want to have required roles to tackle any content. So no tanks or healers but still how it was back then with cross healing and chosing armor and blocking smartly for survivability.

    We will add titles to boost healing and survivability, but it really will be up to the players.

    These systems should lower the games overall skill floor by letting players be viable in one narrower playstyle sooner.

    It may even increase the skill ceiling by adding a "title scouting" phase to combat and accurately recognising what the enemy brought to the fight.

    Ahhhhhhhhh unholy wars 2.0
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
  2. Owyn Magnus

    Owyn Magnus Varangian Warthane

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Messages:
    890
    Likes Received:
    980
    DFO definitely needs some changes and tweaks with new roles in addition to Destro/indy etc etc.

    However, its walking a fine line between DFO and DFUW.

    Let's hope both parties successfully perform a balancing act.
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
  3. yewhatever

    yewhatever Stormgraive

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    5
    Titles wouldnt be horrible, perhaps even necessairy, but its a tricky thing to work out properly.

    Say you get a 5% boost in heal others, take a 5% nerf in rays.
    You basicly wouldnt use rays at that point (aside from maybe pungent mist for cc), so you wouldnt need to skill up 4-7 of them.
    Decreasing the grind, putting an accent on your fighting style to be more heal orientated, but not hard restricting you in any way.

    Its a concept thats not flawed by defenition, but make the % too big and it can/will get abused.
    If you give players the option to get extra melee damage then farming would become far more efficient, or any damage type really.
    Its a fine line to walk, and while it may help new players to have a playstyle in combat thats on par with others, they will still have a multidude of options against you. (IE, you have only 60 INT no intensify and only 50 skill, the % will make you adequate enough as a healer...but you will suck even worse at what you gimped).

    I donno, idea's like these are too vague to really shoot down or praise into heaven.
    Its nice they are trying to figure out ways for new players to become viable without a horrible grind.
    Meaning veteran players that want to max out will spend a long time playing the game. Continuously giving them reasons to go out farming/skilling. As i understand it they want to have meditation work off of points you get with (daily) quests or village caps.
    And skill/stat grind only works on mobs, with increased gains if more players are engaged in a mob spawn.

    They have some things in mind that would impact the game greatly, but how exactly it will be implemented and how it will be used by the community will decide if they went the right path (you can always tweak and add/remove, if you pay attention to what players are saying).

    That said, there's obviously some...questionable...choices made.
    A player is engaged in a spawn if he/she has done damage to a monster in a 30-sec window, or has healed/buffed/damaged a player who has done something to a monster (or is engaged by proxy again).
    Its entirely possible to have people do parry disables every 25~ seconds on each other in a conga line, only to have the first guy spam heal others into the air. (which the people in the spawn would have to catch at least once every 30 seconds to keep the spawn going)
    You could link up a huge ammount of people, super charging the spawn for people who are farming there.
    The scaling of monsters and loot isnt linear, meaning that 2 people will get more loot compared to the increase in effort required.
    Im not saying it will be abused, but its things players are going to have to figure out.
    They've said that there will be additional monsters spawning, or even stronger versions/increased abilities.
    This means that there's room to take along afk people just to boost your own skill ups, and setting it up wouldnt even be that demanding.
    Not to mention that it will become more profitable (the numbers stated were 50% more loot for a 15% increase in difficulty per person added).

    So lets say you are killing sentinels (1k gold drop almost), you go with 10 people, you get 450% more loot...and only a 135% increase in strenght. Obviously, its possible thats a flat scaling on their melee damage, so they'd wreck players in 3 hits. But at that point there would be loads of spawns you couldnt "really" kill anymore.
    Imagine doing a devil with 4 people, that thing is going to hit 45% harder then it would before. Thats scary.
    Add another person, welp...15% more damage.
    So like i said, players have to figure out how to use this, but i think its worth setting up on weaker spawns that swarm.
    You'd be getting so much more out of it, and only 1 person in the afk-conga line is risking reagents in casting.
    Add in a macro with pixel detection only to release spells when somebody is standing in front of him and its basicly a heal bot (which we already had going in 1.0).
    So there's just some risk involved with having a character standing there with a pretty big stack of reagents to heal, but for the people farming it great. People leave, just knock out a few people of the conga line by pulling 1 person out.
    Need more, just push him back in.

    There's ways to be creative and take advantage of the system, but only the rewards will determine if it gets used or not.
     
  4. Scrapnotcrap

    Scrapnotcrap Eodrin
    Loyal Hero

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    2,340
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    I'm not gonna entertain the UW assumptions. It's clear that they don't want that. They got a whole site that you can read with a lot of info's so take your time.
     
  5. Fengor

    Fengor Eodrin

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    2,032
    Likes Received:
    6,089
    It really worries me that NewDawn are so focused on "tweaking" combat. Aside from a few QoL changes, (1h and shield on one key etc) there is a vast priority of tasks that should be worked on first.

    Quests, NPE, sand in the damn box. Lack of QUALITY content will drive people away faster than anything. Just look at the OG launch. how many things were missing that were promised?

    My biggest fear is they will receive the code and we will have a DFuW experience again. Leave combat alone for now, add content.

    You got this Andrew.
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Thank you Yewathever. We had to create an account here just to say it.
    You understood exactly where we are going with this system
    We are only at the why and how phase.

    The numbers will come later and will be play tested before launch in our balance betas. But our current idea is to have a titled mastery have double impact. It will be noticeable but shoud have enough drawbacks to be balanced.

    We also are adding utility and crafting titles that share the same slots. A fully hybrid character will be able to use more of these since it won't be using combat titles.

    On the engagement system. The duration only stacks beyond 30s when engaging players. For mobs it is a flat 30s and we'll clarify on that.
    But nice spotting of a potential exploit, that is the kind of feedback we're hoping for.

    Any reason you shared it here rather thab on our reddit posts?

    @Fengor
    We do not consider the title system as tweaking combat. The combat system will be exactly the same. We're not removing hotbars or limiting the amount of skills one could use at the same time.
    For that matter, we're actually adding more skills to use on top of what existed.

    To us this is solely a player progression tweak. And along some of the thing you have listed, player progression was one of the main issue for Darkfall. At the very least it was the one most perceived by the players and caused bad retention past a point.

    If we launch New Dawn without fixing player retention, we're headed towards failure.

    Aside from that, most of our changes are aimed towards adding daily content to the game. Specifically, reasons to fight. This is in line with what you seem to be expecting from a Darkfall relaunch. Our latest website update was actually dedicated towards the content we intend to add.

    To be honest, what worries us is how little we are hated. This "classfall" discussion is a weird missunderstanding and we're affraid it detracts from other potential issues.
    We posted a new discussion on reddit in order to see if our communication was at fault or if people were just fine with those points and kept radio silence.

    French are very verbose, so maybe we're posting too much at the same time?
     
  7. Action_Jackson

    Action_Jackson Deadeye
    Hero

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    38
    Dont worry about people being silent. Theres just no reason to write and participate in discussions, cause only Zad knows if were gonna get DF. Expect an exponential rise in interested people when there are results on the table...
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
  8. Leg enD

    Leg enD Ghost

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2015
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    101
    a million times over
     
  9. yewhatever

    yewhatever Stormgraive

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    5
    Im lazy.
    Right now it feels like i could spend a huge ammount of time writing out idea's and debate with other people, but if AV either refuses deals or makes the price too high it wont lead to anything.

    The second part is that a lot of idea's are not flawed by definition. The way you implement titles, how players will utilize them, will decide if it breaks the existing combat or not. (or fixes it, i can be positive)
    Im terrified of doubled impact though.
    Melee dps is really high, if you double that a destroyer will quite litterally 3 shot any player with a staff out.
    Give him a melee haste and thats something that can be done in 3 seconds, which means in a siege or large group fight there will be people dead before they even realise that they are getting hit.
    Now, that could be a lot of fun for some players, but im afraid the general preception of it will be different.

    Thats not even commenting on how broken PvE will be, given that its very easy to go as a duo and have 1 heal while the other does melee. The income gap will likely increase, the skill gap will likely increase.
    Income gap because veteran players, or "good" players that learn quickly, will find the "most" effective way/setup.
    the skill gap, because a warded up destroyer killing players in 7 hits was already a reality in 1.0
    Double their damage output, and they may just become unstoppable unless everybody responds properly.
    Only skilled players will be able to do so, which is why im worried.

    As for not tweaking combat...
    I understand that the idea is to have new players pick a title that suits their playstyle to boost them in effectiveness and progresion.
    But unless you put a hard "cap" as a maximum, its going to go WAY overboard for maxed out characters.
    At that point, it would alter the combat dramatically.(well, very likely)
    Imagine a hybrid with double magic damage, destroyers still would have a hard time getting into melee and they are taking twice the damage they were before. It feels like something that should be tweaked by tiny ammounts. Destroyers were at a disatvantage, very small and as the ammount of people involved in a fight went up their disatvantage became smaller.
    And vice versa, in a huge siege i'd hate to get killed in 3 hits by a destroyer who managed to get close to me.
    Its a wrecking ball to the end game combat.
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Good points. For us the project is so real that we forget that it is just a bunch of words on a website to others.
    Even if the deal doesn't pull through, we're making New Dawn as its own game, it will just take a longer time.

    As for the titles, it will not double damage, it will double what masteries were giving. So 20% instead of 10%.
    Doubling would be, as you said, insane.
    Of course that is our initial idea, and we will play test it first. The somewhat slower time to kill in Darkfall was essential to make it what it was. The fights were thrilling because we had time to realize and think about the stakes. We're also changing the way stats scale for newer players for that purpose, and we try to reduce the daily viable gear bag as well, so that they can understand that thrill much sooner. So if we see kills are too fast, we'll consider doing other changes to compensate, or even keep the advantage from titles to be unique spells only.

    For PvE, even though your points were regarding the double damage, we want monster spawns to also become stronger. Individual monsters can't become unbearably strong, so we're staying at only a 15% increase per players engaged, but we'll increase the amount of monsters spawned. Or the way their AI works for them to work better as a team, have formation, or have special spawns like healers to mimic the way players play together.
    yes loot will be increased, but what is more important to us is that people have fun together.

    So in short, no it won't double the damage, just add 10% more and the numbers are not set in stone at all.
     
  11. yewhatever

    yewhatever Stormgraive

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    5
    So thats a relief, but even "just" 10% can impact things quite a bit.
    As for PvE, i get the reason for the changes.
    You dont want people to Kill on Sight against everybody, unless there's a green tag above their heads.

    Its just that i like to think about all the things that could go wrong, so the exact way you implement it.
    And how players are going to interact with it is what will decide if it works or not.

    As much as i can hate on the AI in DFO, compared to any other game it is amazing.
    But you can take advantage of the AI, and that requires practice and coordination.
    You cant expect random players to team up on higher end spawns and have it work out the same way.
    On like goblins, kobolds and low tier stuff like that its not a real issue.
    But menhirs, khamsets, hillgiants ect you dont want idiots running around.

    I guess for now ill just wait untill either of these groups actually gets to close a deal with AV, at which point it becomes far more interesting to follow and debate things. And i hope both groups have the common sense to have a test server to actually try things out and make sure everything is working properly. So maybe when the time comes the community can give concrete advice on the actual way it gets implemented.
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Yes we know. Darkfall is typically the kind of game where every percent matters.
    But our +10% in one thing come at the expense of -10% in many other things. So we think it may work out.
    Of course, the balance betas will decide that for us.

    PvE in Darkfall was great thanks to the combat system. We want to make people want to have other people at low level, to improve the culture. But at high level we want clans to make play session together, not with randoms, but just bring a lot of people like a raid.
    To that end, we want to improve the ai and mob scaling to make it a challenge, and improve the loot too so that it is desirable to have as many people as possible and be inclusive.
    The issue at high end was that it was more efficient to be 1 or 2 than it was to play with your friends. We aim to fix that.

    Any adjustment can come as players get their hand on the systems, and that of course is all about our reactivity and our "hotfix" speed.

    I guess that at this point ,we can just wait and see.
     
  13. Nugsbunny

    Nugsbunny Windlord
    Loyal Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2015
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    264
    Only thing that mainly worries me about their project is the changes they want to make before they even have the game. Nobody has played dfo since 2012 (not counting the single player emulator). But the game shouldn't have big changes to it before people even play it. Everyone wants darkfall online back because we all loved it we don't want a completely altered game that plays completely different. If your going to make big changes first let the players play the game get input from them don't be so set in your own direction to not take some advice or criticism from the player base.
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
  14. Scrapnotcrap

    Scrapnotcrap Eodrin
    Loyal Hero

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    2,340
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    We got 2 project. We certainly don't want both of them to follow the same philosophy or they might as-well unite.
     
  15. Aristos Giannes

    Aristos Giannes Cairn Giant
    Hero

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    2,828
    Likes Received:
    1,933
    I REALLY don't like the idea of forced classes and specializations...it reeks of UW. In fact I thought all the specializations like destroyer and mage killer were all extremely silly and made the game worse in my opinion. It led it down the path towards UW.

    Not to mention how incredibly ridiculous it was to make things like 'jump shot' and 'aqua shot' choices. It didn't add real diversification or depth to combat. It was a sorry excuse for encouraging true diversity. All of those mini specializations should have been available to everyone as regular mechanics. It just created awkward situations when a group chased another group into water and they didn't choose aqua shot before leaving their city.

    Main point I want to make is this: encourage diversity through armor and weapons, not character choices. I don't think you should be limited to what you can or can't do in combat depending on whatever choice you made in your city at an NPC before going out into the wild. It's leaning towards a "loadout" design that you might see in an FPS, or champion design that you would see in a MOBA. Give the player the freedom to create their own 'classes' and 'specializations' based on what they decide to use in combat....not what they're forced to use because of the forced class they chose.

    DFO already had some of the tools to do this, they just needed to build upon them. Transmutes were great for focusing in one elemental school, but they need a little more incentive to use them. For example, less mana cost for all spells cast by the transmuted staff from the related school. For example, I personally had a ton of fun roleplaying an 'earth mage' by having all earth transmuted weapons and opening my fights with the earth debuff. I didn't feel forced to do it because of a choice I made in a menu or with an NPC, I felt unique because I was the one who did all the work creating my weapons and chose the main spells I wanted to cycle.
     
  16. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    It is neither going to be forced nor classes.

    But in a way it will look like a loadout system. But you won't have to select anything if you don't want to take anything. Your character can stay fully vanilla.

    However if you have a set playstyle, like earth mage, then you would be able to improve that aspect of your character at the expense of the rest. But as an opt in mechanic.

    Good idea for the transmuted staves. That is something we've missed. What would you think on having them be as fast as a blackbolt for the one school and be slower for the others?
     
  17. yewhatever

    yewhatever Stormgraive

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    5
    Clearly always listing to the player base and having no clue what direction to take the game in worked out great for UW.

    Please, communicating with the playerbase is fine, but dont let them take the game in a direction the developers arent comfortable with.
    Dev's are what make a game, players receive a world with mechanics and limitations and freedom.
    How the players use what is given to them is highly unpredictable, and thats what the dev's need to react to.

    If enough players say they hate skinning graves, will you make the enchant mats drop inside the grave and remove skinning all together?
    Its a silly mechanic right, RNG if you succeed, after which you simply get a random drop just like the loot in the grave.
    Skinning takes valuable time, makes you stand still, forces a slot to be taken on your hotbar that is otherwise useless.

    Just jokingly making an arguement for something completely random i can make a fairly good point, it doesnt mean that there's something wrong with having skinning in the game or that it should get removed at all. Its an opinion, the dev's might have the courtesy of listing to your opinion...but they make the decisions in the end.

    (dont remove skinning based off of this post, its a silly post)
     
  18. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    That's the whole point of our communication strategy: we only listen to good ideas.
    It hurts us currently, but it will be a big selling point on the long term.

    Game design is in most case not a matter of opinion. There are almost always better alternatives in a set of possible choices.

    For instance, your skinning example is well chosen. That is a stupid idea that only appears well argued. But in the end, it remains what it is, a stupid idea and even if 90% of the playerbase was asking for skinning to be removed, we would not listen.

    This is one of our differentiation factor. While some understand it as we're closed to feedback, what it actually means is that we will read all feedback but only use what actually serves the game. No popularity contests, just design according to a purposeful vision.
     
  19. Neilk

    Neilk Web Development & System Admin
    Staff Member Team Lead

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    3,270
    This doesn't make any sense though, who listens to bad ideas?

    I'm sure AV didn't take they were listening to bad ideas when taking suggestions, it's purely subjective.
     
    Collapse Signature Expand Signature
  20. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    You have no idea how many companies have implemented badly designed concepts or just made "popular request" changes that were self defeating. Some devs have no vision so they will follow player polls instead of using their own knowledge. This is inexperience or lack of skill. Others do those changes knowing they are bad but their business model is based around instant gratification so it serves their bottom line even if it doesn't serve their game. This is greed and often occurs in cash shop driven games.

    In the end, game design is a craft and it is not subjective.

    It is equal part science, with psychology, behaviorism, Game/Decision theory, complex systems, maths and programming.
    Equal part knowledge, with good and bad practices being know. Just like programming, there are design patterns.
    And equal part art, with the creativity to find elegant solutions to issues, solutions trimmed down to what fits the two other parts.

    So yes, it makes sense to clearly state that we only listen to good ideas. Those that fit in our design and add to the game.