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

Sorry. I really think you need to gut the skill tree system.

Recommended Posts

I don't like this approach, I think it should be the gear that adds the extra layer of specialization in each world.  Doing it with gear gives player the flexibility to try different styles with the same basic trained skills.

 

I truly detest that idea for the reasons I've posted in this thread.

 

Gear customization is not character building. It is clothing.

 

I also find the LOL analogy used to support the dominant gear customization idea apt. But that's a MOBA.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gear customization is not character building. It is clothing.

 

If your choice of "clothing" substantially changes your character then I don't see how you can say it is not character building.

 

Apparel oft proclaims the man.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coolwaters is right. If you can lose it in one battle you cant say it is a part of your character progression. That is my biggest fear since everything basically became equipament with the vessel system...

 

Yeah and that being the case i dont see how you can really have a unique character if its all just dropped on death. Its claimed over an over again that even 2 knights will be different but how can that be the case if only the passive system is persistent and everything else dropped.


krevra.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can call something "character building" or "character progression" even when you can lose that progress.

 

Progression is not the same thing as permanence.

You can sue the Pope for bastardy if you can afford the filing fee.

 

That don't make it a good case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly detest that idea for the reasons I've posted in this thread.

 

Gear customization is not character building. It is clothing.

 

I also find the LOL analogy used to support the dominant gear customization idea apt. But that's a MOBA.

 

I don't see our vessels as "characters", I see our crows as our characters, disembodied awareness that take on the traits of whatever vessel they inhabit.

 

"character: the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual." 

 

The place where "character" development usually fits, (I am the fastest monk in the land, bla bla bla) is the one place ACE simply can't force customization, because they would do away much of the versatility that the incredibly novel crow/vessel model affords.  I have never been so excited to have a game that allows for so much "character" versatility as conscious jumping from archetype to archetype allows.

 

Vessels and archetypes are just as much "gear" to a crow as a sword or armor are.

 

There is in the design of universal skills a sort of dual or hybrid customization model, where the crow favors certain traits, but even those are broadly defined and will be restricted by vessel quality, especially in the combat lines.

 

Oh, and the time limited dying worlds strike me as a much more MOBA style of game, as there is a beginning a middle and an end, than classic MMO "character development" (actually usually just numerical skill leveling and equipment gathering) where the world is at best marginally impacted by character interactions, except perhaps by power creep and hyper inflation.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

r they still plannin on lettin u train past 100, cuz that would open up some posibilities. there's just so many things to train already that it will take a long time for toons to be similar imho. shouldnt forget the discs and the powers that come with them. of course it would be cool to have more powers in the trees, but wouldnt it still be the same end result for most toons?


94d3694d-21cd-461f-afe1-69b22f882477.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see our vessels as "characters", I see our crows as our characters, disembodied awareness that take on the traits of whatever vessel they inhabit.

 

"character: the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual." 

 

The place where "character" development usually fits, (I am the fastest monk in the land, bla bla bla) is the one place ACE simply can't force customization, because they would do away much of the versatility that the incredibly novel crow/vessel model affords.  I have never been so excited to have a game that allows for so much "character" versatility as conscious jumping from archetype to archetype allows.

 

Vessels and archetypes are just as much "gear" to a crow as a sword or armor are.

 

There is in the design of universal skills a sort of dual or hybrid customization model, where the crow favors certain traits, but even those are broadly defined and will be restricted by vessel quality, especially in the combat lines.

 

Oh, and the time limited dying worlds strike me as a much more MOBA style of game, as there is a beginning a middle and an end, than classic MMO "character development" (actually usually just numerical skill leveling and equipment gathering) where the world is at best marginally impacted by character interactions, except perhaps by power creep and hyperinflation.

I agree with the first bit. Vessels are not characters. They are gear.  Crows are the characters. Crows are only modified by the skill training.

 

Your definition of "character," wherever you've taken it from, rightly implies persistence, if not permanence.  "character: the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual." Your character doesn't change substantially after a few deaths. It wouldn't be a character then. That's exactly what happens to gear in this game. 

 

You say, in conclusory fashion, that forced diversity in the Character (Crow) would somehow necessarily "do away with much of the ... diversity that the crow/vessel model affords." Then you just stop with that overt conclusion, failing to address why that conclusion might be true. I say it's not true. It's false. Of course ATs could be diversified by meaningful training and then the vessels be likewise modified through disciplines and advantages / disadvantages. They could also give us direct control over our stats as well and maintain the novelty of the crow / vessel dichotomy.

 

I fervently disagree that the goal of AC here is to more closely resemble a MOBA than an MMORPG as well. The dying worlds is Todd's realization that competitive games with PvP and asset loss have an begining, end, winners and losers and then you have to reset the board. The world is dying either way. You may as well make it a mechanic. Just like a football game, there's always next week or next season and hope springs eternal. That reset retains population over time. Take a break if you like, then come on back for the next CW.

 

@immortalis Not sure. Can't currently though. Also, when I went over 200 in SP / HD it cancelled the entire effect of the training on extend lifetime of projectiles. *shrug* 

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your character doesn't change after a few deaths. It wouldn't be a character then.

 

Are the characters in a game with permadeath not characters?


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

r they still plannin on lettin u train past 100, cuz that would open up some posibilities. there's just so many things to train already that it will take a long time for toons to be similar imho. shouldnt forget the discs and the powers that come with them. of course it would be cool to have more powers in the trees, but wouldnt it still be the same end result for most toons?

 

That is still in the plans but you only will receive that bonus if your vessel/disciplines allow it.

 

Puting a few powers in the trees would give it a little more color and the only thing that would keep people different would be time taken to train a lot of stuff unlocking multiple/all powers.

 

I still think they should try to link the runes to the crows puting a time limit in them (nothing last forever)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say, in conclusory fashion, that forced diversity in the Character (Crow) would somehow necessarily "do away with much of the ... diversity that the crow/vessel model affords." Then you just stop with that overt conclusion, failing to address why that conclusion might be true. I say it's not true. 

 

 

 

Your right, I did not fully explain myself.

 

 

 

The "is the one place ACE simply can't force customization," should probably have read "is the one place ACE simple can't force the majority of customization options". 

 

Diversity to me is the ability to chose different play styles from time to time.  The most clear representation is currently in the form of vessels as they relate to combat.  Archers are very different than Myrmidons, are different than duelists.  Again to LoL, this is like the difference between a Rammus and a FiddleSticks. Both can play the jungle, but Rammus runs as the tankiest of tanks, while Fiddle is a soft and squishy support caster with great ganking potential.

 

The current skill trees are fairly standard fair, not much variance other than the inclusion or exclusion of certain skill types based on abilities.  It would be stupid to buff PIP's on Myrmidon for example.

 

How equipment could afford more diversity of character than just skills.

 

Simply put, sets of equipment that allow a variance on the norms, or perhaps give abilities that don't normally exist for a specific archetype.  One example would be a pistol that could be equipped by any player, Templar for example, that gave a slightly weaker version of one of the duelist abilities. <see image>  LoL has plenty of items that have special casting abilities, that any champion can use. (The Hourglass for example). These could be done with those "custom seals", and apply a wide variety of abilities to any item.

 

If ACE however kept the majority of customization within the skill trees, there would be far less experimentation on the parts of players.  The experiments will have to run for weeks/months, and if a player does not like it, they will have no way to gain back that time, being obligated to start a new training regime to run the next "experiment".  Eventually all of an archetype's skills will be trained out, and then they will join the ranks of those who have the exact same skill set, and exact same training, with no real diversity within the archetype itself.

 

Putting more variety in items and archetype upgrades however, those things that can be built, tried, discarded, refined, and perfected in a much shorter, and much more satisfying time frame, would be a very helpful addition to the currently visible "universal is your special" design model.

 

Fortunately from that quote above, it looks like both approaches are going to be taken.

 

 

Mother_Superior_Sisters_of_Battle_zps6f3

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diversity to me is the ability to chose different play styles from time to ti me.  

Fair enough, but that's not what diversity means to anyone else in this context...

 

Diversity in character building (as it has been used universally in this thread) is not the ability for you to play differently as compared to yourself.

 

Diversity in character builds is actually fairly self-explanatory. It is the difference between your build from the guy standing next to you on the same AT.

 

If we're defining terms differently we'll certainly never understand one another, much less agree. So humor me here. Assume that by diverse character building I  do not mean that we should be able to constantly change our characters from the way they are to something else, like getting in a better starship or putting on a set of plate rather than leather or becoming a Myrmidon rather than a Confessor. Assume, rather, that I mean exactly what those words mean, in context: the ability to make a unique character that you identify with because you made tough, meaningful decisions which determine permanent attributes defining the character as yours at a basic level.

 

I say there is no important reason that all AT's should be the same in training at the end of the day, either in skills or stats. I say that is far less diverse in terms of options available to you in making your character unique.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see our vessels as "characters", I see our crows as our characters, disembodied awareness that take on the traits of whatever vessel they inhabit.

 

"character: the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual." 

 

The place where "character" development usually fits, (I am the fastest monk in the land, bla bla bla) is the one place ACE simply can't force customization, because they would do away much of the versatility that the incredibly novel crow/vessel model affords.  I have never been so excited to have a game that allows for so much "character" versatility as conscious jumping from archetype to archetype allows.

 

Vessels and archetypes are just as much "gear" to a crow as a sword or armor are.

 

There is in the design of universal skills a sort of dual or hybrid customization model, where the crow favors certain traits, but even those are broadly defined and will be restricted by vessel quality, especially in the combat lines.

 

Oh, and the time limited dying worlds strike me as a much more MOBA style of game, as there is a beginning a middle and an end, than classic MMO "character development" (actually usually just numerical skill leveling and equipment gathering) where the world is at best marginally impacted by character interactions, except perhaps by power creep and hyper inflation.

 

With all respect, and you are of course entitled to your opinion, but what you've posted encapsulates most of what I (and some others) have been railing against since "the Big Reveal".  The unabashed and incomprehensible sundering of body and spirit for gear/mechanics purposes which includes the heavy implication of less meaningful throwaway choices of convenience, potential class hopping meta, and the flippant disregard for individuality and meaningful identity (character diversity)--culminating in that "MOBA" feeling (which doesn't really exist according to many, except people keep pointing it out for some reason <_<) are all problematic at best (devastating at worst) because they are all anti-RPG.  The pendulum needs to swing the other way, in the skill tree and elsewhere.      


The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but that's not what diversity means to anyone else in this context...

 

Diversity in character building (as it has been used universally in this thread) is not the ability for you to play differently as compared to yourself.

 

Diversity in character builds is actually fairly self-explanatory. It is the difference between your build from the guy standing next to you on the same AT.

 

Assume, rather, that I mean exactly what those words mean, in context: the ability to make a unique character that you identify with because you made tough, meaningful decisions which determine permanent attributes defining the character as yours at a basic level.

 

I say there is no important reason that all AT's should be the same in training at the end of the day, either in skills or stats. I say that is far less diverse in terms of options available to you in making your character unique.

 

There may not be an important reason, but the simple fact is if skill training is the only way you see diversity being developed, what you are going to probably see is that there is not so much diversity as you would like to see.

 

Even with a large number of options in the skill trees, certain strategies are going to emerge as best practices, just like they have in LoL for rune pages and masteries, or other competitive games of similar design.  

 

You will see a standard ore harvester build, a standard tank build, a standard weapon crafter build, a standard siege crafter build, etc etc etc. There are only so many ways you can skin that cat, no matter how many skill trees are built out.

 

Rather quickly people will figure out the ideal training course of action to reach their end goals. Many of those that have taken the "wrong" path will either divert to the ideal, until eventually every single profession type has a group of nearly identical crow training stats, who are all trying to achieve an identical ideal equipment list.

 

If however diversity is also found in the things we wear, then diversity is something anyone can experience at any time.  Kinda like if two girls wear the same dress to the same party.  Go switch your dress and suddenly your "different".  Skill training that takes days/weeks/months to accomplish is going to have far less diversity and flexibility than that.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may not be an important reason, but the simple fact is if skill training is the only way you see diversity being developed, what you are going to probably see is that there is not so much diversity as you would like to see.

 

Even with a large number of options in the skill trees, certain strategies are going to emerge as best practices, just like they have in LoL for rune pages and masteries, or other competitive games of similar design.  

 

You will see a standard ore harvester build, a standard tank build, a standard weapon crafter build, a standard siege crafter build, etc etc etc. There are only so many ways you can skin that cat, no matter how many skill trees are built out.

 

Rather quickly people will figure out the ideal training course of action to reach their end goals. Many of those that have taken the "wrong" path will either divert to the ideal, until eventually every single profession type has a group of nearly identical crow training stats, who are all trying to achieve an identical ideal equipment list.

 

If however diversity is also found in the things we wear, then diversity is something anyone can experience at any time.  Kinda like if two girls wear the same dress to the same party.  Go switch your dress and suddenly you "different".  Skill training that takes days/weeks/months to accomplish is going to have far less diversity and flexibility than that.

I disagree with you that having tons of options would somehow nonetheless result in non-diverse builds. I've seen it. I know better. There would certainly be FOTM builds, but the right character building system would have players trying new things for years. I'll take my chances on that.

 

Frankly, you had me at: "There may not be an important reason [to remove all choice from skill training ans stat allocation]."  On that we agree. 

 

And again with the freakin' MOBA reference. Jeez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ongoing need to craft vessels, craft disciplines for them, maintain them, and store backups of them will drive activity in the game.

 

If your progress is permanent that undermines activity levels in campaign worlds.

 

Permanent progress that can never be lost is bad.

 

If I wanted to fix the skill training system I would be tempted to get rid of it entirely and not replace it with anything. The system is jammed in a very difficult place because if skill training really matters then people will balk at joining the game late. It is really just there because people expect a skill progression system from an MMO.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may not be an important reason, but the simple fact is if skill training is the only way you see diversity being developed, what you are going to probably see is that there is not so much diversity as you would like to see.

 

Even with a large number of options in the skill trees, certain strategies are going to emerge as best practices, just like they have in LoL for rune pages and masteries, or other competitive games of similar design.  

 

You will see a standard ore harvester build, a standard tank build, a standard weapon crafter build, a standard siege crafter build, etc etc etc. There are only so many ways you can skin that cat, no matter how many skill trees are built out.

 

Rather quickly people will figure out the ideal training course of action to reach their end goals. Many of those that have taken the "wrong" path will either divert to the ideal, until eventually every single profession type has a group of nearly identical crow training stats, who are all trying to achieve an identical ideal equipment list.

 

If however diversity is also found in the things we wear, then diversity is something anyone can experience at any time.  Kinda like if two girls wear the same dress to the same party.  Go switch your dress and suddenly your "different".  Skill training that takes days/weeks/months to accomplish is going to have far less diversity and flexibility than that.

You say options as if there was a decision to make besides "do i get attack power first or stamina regen first". That option has the depth of "should i eat my french fries before my hamburger"?

 

And it doesnt matter which i chose first, the person who had the same options ended up the same way. 

 

The issue is that there is a huge lack of depth on the only permanent thing that truly belongs to me. 

 

Take it from the stance of this, what would it matter to completely take away the combat skills entirely? It wouldnt matter a single bit, you just wouldnt get the base stats. It would not effect game play mechanics in the slightest, its entirely removable with no issue.

 

Can you say that about the harvesting tree? The crafting? Of course not. Thats the question you have to ask, if its removed, would anyone even notice except tiny base state differences? Then why even add it in the first place if you arnt going to even make it matter.


CfWBSig.png

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...