Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Pann

First look: Ranger powers & UI - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

Do you honestly not realize that the forum is for feedback purposes?

 

Do you honestly not realize the point of feedback? If someone shows you black & white concept sketches, and tells you "this is for conceptualization," do you give them feedback such as "OMG, the characters and environment probably need color in them! It's a huge mistake for them to look so rough!"? I should hope not. If you don't provide feedback accurately, what's the point?

 

 

This guy gets it. They're going to "turn some knobs" but what you see is pretty close to what the Ranger will be on release, and its core design is broken AF.

Really? So when you read "We are still building this system, so things are liable to change. In fact, they are almost guaranteed to change!", you can somehow reach the conclusion "obviously 90% of this will remain the same, u_u"?

 

Fascinating... *chin stroke*

Edited by Lephys

This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a pretty scathing evaluation when the Legionaire was introduced.

 

I was wrong. I enjoyed playing the class when I finally got access to Pre Alpha.

 

I would advise everyone to wait till we get to play Ranger, before

You call it OP or broken.


www.lotd.org       pking and siege pvp since 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lephys if this were a AAA budget backed title, I'd agree with you. They can't afford to spend time doing and redoing, using iterative design principles to improving the game incrementally. They are on a narrow time window of releasing by Dec 2016 (according to them, though admittedly this was vague for a reason). The time window they've put in place, combined with an incredibly small budget for an MMO puts them into certain restrictions of what they can and cant do.

 

What Ham was saying is that the current version of archetypes, it might not change as much as you might hope for, because they just don't have time and cash to burn to keep redoing them. The version you get is likely to be pretty close/recognizable as to what you'll get at launch. I just don't see how they are going to do more without dropping the time frame or needing to raise more money.

 

December 31rst 2016 is less then 9 months away. Games been in public post-Kickstarter development for just about a year now. We have four archetypes in play and a fifth that's about to come out in some form or another (regardless of what it was supposed to have been). Considering how many things we still haven't had revealed, and the number of archetype's yet to even peek their way onto our screens, this is a steep climb at best. 

 

As a backer, I have every right to challenge if this is the best course and method of developing archetypes. I don't expect them to listen to me and drop what they were doing. Thankfully, we live in a time and place where that doesn't stop me from stating my argument for approaching archetype design differently. Just because I disagree with an aspect of their development process, doesn't mean I can't handle watching them develop the game nor appreciate what they are doing. I'm a big advocate for this game. Doesn't mean I agree with everything they do, all the time. Nor should it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One concern I have is if a ranger runs out of arrows and out of energy. The ranger will be forced to go into ranged mode to regenerate energy, but won't be able to fire any shots. Rangers should probably have slow energy regeneration while in melee mode. Can't wait to see it in action and gain more perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One concern I have is if a ranger runs out of arrows and out of energy. The ranger will be forced to go into ranged mode to regenerate energy, but won't be able to fire any shots. Rangers should probably have slow energy regeneration while in melee mode. Can't wait to see it in action and gain more perspective.

They can still use their basic melee attack if this is the case, which is pretty much the same as other classes that are out of resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a backer, I have every right to challenge if this is the best course and method of developing archetypes. I don't expect them to listen to me and drop what they were doing. Thankfully, we live in a time and place where that doesn't stop me from stating my argument for approaching archetype design differently. Just because I disagree with an aspect of their development process, doesn't mean I can't handle watching them develop the game nor appreciate what they are doing. I'm a big advocate for this game. Doesn't mean I agree with everything they do, all the time. Nor should it.

I don't dispute that in the least. However, as a fellow backer, I have every right to encourage people not to steamroll the word "might" and voice paragraph after paragraph of concern over what "will" or "probably will" occur. I'm not pointing it out merely to be technically correct. I'm pointing it out because it's significant to the feedback process. They're trying to read all this feedback, and peole are writing them novels about how everything's going to happen wrong. Either:

 

1) ACE is just gonna do it wrong because that's what they decide is best and they stick to their guns, OR...

2) ACE is planning on ending up with something much closer to what people are hoping for with the Ranger.

 

Either way, it's a waste of everyone's time to prophesy to everyone here what they are or aren't going to do. That's why I'm not tryng to tell anyone "No, it won't be X% of the archetype that'll change by launch, it'll be Y%." Instead, I'm encouraging people to keep in mind that speculating about we don't know is only useful to the extent that it allows us to provide feedack based on certain sets of hypothetical circumstances.

 

"We don't want the Ranger to be like this at launch, for what it's worth." That's all it takes. Not "but it IS going to still be lke this, so I'm only going to complain about what I'm assuming will happen, which is useless in the event of any other outcome."

 

To be clear, I'm not even trying to point fingers here. I'm simply encouraging an awareness of the situation and a quick re-evaluation of people's feedback protocols. Just try to focus on feedback they can use. Whether or not they use it or change anything is beyond our control.


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't dispute that in the least. However, as a fellow backer, I have every right to encourage people not to steamroll the word "might" and voice paragraph after paragraph of concern over what "will" or "probably will" occur. I'm not pointing it out merely to be technically correct. I'm pointing it out because it's significant to the feedback process. They're trying to read all this feedback, and peole are writing them novels about how everything's going to happen wrong. Either:

 

1) ACE is just gonna do it wrong because that's what they decide is best and they stick to their guns, OR...

2) ACE is planning on ending up with something much closer to what people are hoping for with the Ranger.

 

Either way, it's a waste of everyone's time to prophesy to everyone here what they are or aren't going to do. That's why I'm not tryng to tell anyone "No, it won't be X% of the archetype that'll change by launch, it'll be Y%." Instead, I'm encouraging people to keep in mind that speculating about we don't know is only useful to the extent that it allows us to provide feedack based on certain sets of hypothetical circumstances.

 

"We don't want the Ranger to be like this at launch, for what it's worth." That's all it takes. Not "but it IS going to still be lke this, so I'm only going to complain about what I'm assuming will happen, which is useless in the event of any other outcome."

 

To be clear, I'm not even trying to point fingers here. I'm simply encouraging an awareness of the situation and a quick re-evaluation of people's feedback protocols. Just try to focus on feedback they can use. Whether or not they use it or change anything is beyond our control.

Agree 100%.

 

Just to add as well tone matters a lot I think. One might think that they should read our feedback no matter what but truth is the Devs are human as well and the more condescending, rude, demanding and use of ultimatums the less likely they are to take that feedback seriously and actually read it.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts on this

 

1. The art style continues to impress, really digging it

2. Very VERY pleased the arrows are going to be a depletable resource

3. The stake defense action is pretty cool, I think this could be expanded greatly and add alot to gameplay depth.


For the night is dark and filled with terrors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...