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

ACE Q&A for June - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

teasy as ever!

sub guilds...

still awaiting mount mechanical details...could entirely transform both exploration and combat...


QUESTIONS:

  1. How will switching your vessel work? Can I make a “key chain” of different vessels – which retain different runestones – that I can ‘hot swap’ between based on needs or mood [e.g. I have a stack of bodies in my bank with different runestone 'loadouts']
     
  2. Do we have to combat a thrall (either solo or group based on power) – or just pressing F on a “node”? Are they static or mobile - will they roam huge areas like the hill-hugging-helcats – or more fixed like the static boar camps or a resource node (zzz).
     
  3. How do you envision node respawning times and randomness working in a real world - e.g. current ~15 minute times and always at the same place or more dymanic and longer cycles? Will there be 'finite' nodes that will NOT respawn?
     
  4. Are physics and projectiles abandoned? (and your previous comments about 'wall' style powers or anti projectile fields etc)
Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, I'm slowly starting to come around and sympathize more with the people that have been complaining since the very beginning that there is not enough permanence in character customization and builds. I was perfectly fine with craftable vessels, but now needing to craft 6 runes on top of that, which might be even harder to accomplish than crafting gear and vessels is starting to sound like a bit too much for my own tastes. I understand this falls back into guild logistics, I suppose we have to wait for CWs to see. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dolmar said:

Time frame for development. We understand you cant hit every mark but a time frame that I could tell to my people about POI , real test campaign worlds , and classes / races actually in.

This, I have 2 friends basically waiting for real campaigns. They don't have to be feature complete by any means but basic functionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal opinion, but disciplines like Bard, Troubadour or even the Shaman discipline you mentioned fundamentally change whatever class you're playing whereas a discipline like Juggernaut just adds utility even though they're both major disciplines. That's the reason why I prefer the idea of bard (and shaman) being a class instead of a discipline.

I played EQ1 so long I just can't get that version of a bard out of my head. The idea of a big bruiser like a Champion being able to be a bard just doesn't sit well with me. Maybe limiting it to certain classes instead of allowing everyone to use it would be a good middle ground.  


Blazzen <Lords of Death>

YouTube - Twitch - Website

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creating sub-classes using Discs is a good idea but i hope you guys create more rules so that it doesnt turn in a mess. Bard is a prime example of this, having a knight bard is weird but having a bard mirm is plain stupid. That is why a bard class makes more sense.

You guys talked about a shaman sub-class, if you guys make it only usable by druids i can understand. Seeing a knight using it would also fall in the stupid category.

The other one was a turret user sub-class so putting it under the stoneborns makes sense.

I just dont want to see Discs ruining any resemblance of classes. Seeing classes other than druid dropping/using those druid orbs still irks me. That orbs for me was the trademark of druids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

Creating sub-classes using Discs is a good idea but i hope you guys create more rules so that it doesnt turn in a mess. Bard is a prime example of this, having a knight bard is weird but having a bard mirm is plain stupid. That is why a bard class makes more sense.

You guys talked about a shaman sub-class, if you guys make it only usable by druids i can understand. Seeing a knight using it would also fall in the stupid category.

The other one was a turret user sub-class so putting it under the stoneborns makes sense.

I just dont want to see Discs ruining any resemblance of classes. Seeing classes other than druid dropping/using those druid orbs still irks me. That orbs for me was the trademark of druids.

or what we currently see: pick the 'best' base class in terms of 'resource system than sucks the least' and / or base hp and then stack up disc powers

and after massive base class cooldown increases combat is going to be terrible for those with no stones or using exploration or craft runestones (further alt and combat training creep!) combat training also has a BUNCH of CD decreasing nodes....

Edited by Tinnis

caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BarriaKarl said:

Creating sub-classes using Discs is a good idea but i hope you guys create more rules so that it doesnt turn in a mess. Bard is a prime example of this, having a knight bard is weird but having a bard mirm is plain stupid. That is why a bard class makes more sense.

You guys talked about a shaman sub-class, if you guys make it only usable by druids i can understand. Seeing a knight using it would also fall in the stupid category.

The other one was a turret user sub-class so putting it under the stoneborns makes sense.

I just dont want to see Discs ruining any resemblance of classes. Seeing classes other than druid dropping/using those druid orbs still irks me. That orbs for me was the trademark of druids.

Kinda makes "sub-class" pointless if only one class could use it. Then its just part of that class not a sub. If you don't want to use those Discs on the class you play fine don't but sorry you don't get to take away choices from others because you think its "stupid".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pang said:

Kinda makes "sub-class" pointless if only one class could use it. Then its just part of that class not a sub. If you don't want to use those Discs on the class you play fine don't but sorry you don't get to take away choices from others because you think its "stupid".

well that would be a choice of class specific promotions then...


caldera_forum_banner_wings.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pang said:

Kinda makes "sub-class" pointless if only one class could use it. Then its just part of that class not a sub. If you don't want to use those Discs on the class you play fine don't but sorry you don't get to take away choices from others because you think its "stupid".

I dont know man, for me sub-class means exactly that. Having shaman under druid makes sense but a shaman under knight seems stupid.

For me they should use Discs to increase class options. Like they said creating Discs are faster and cheaper than creating a classes.

They should give knights their own exclusives discs instead of creating weirds shaman knights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tinnis said:

well that would be a choice of class specific promotions then...

and that's a separate system not sure what that has to with what I said. ACE has chosen for Disciplines to be a sub-class system. They already said there will likely be some limitations to which class can use which runes but again its suppose to be a subclass system so can't just pick and choose because we might think certain combos are "stupid".

 

2 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

I dont know man, for me sub-class means exactly that. Having shaman under druid makes sense but a shaman under knight seems stupid.

For me they should use Discs to increase class options. Like they said creating Discs are faster and cheaper than creating a classes.

They should give knights their own exclusives discs instead of creating weirds shaman knights.

Sub class systems allow the base class to add things from other classes, not just things that "fit" or make sense to you personally. Regardless if you think they are stupid or not. To repeat, Disciplines are a sub-class system so having exclusives is the opposite of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the gating of disciplines via thrall capture is reserved for the most powerful few, as determined via testing, rather than all disciplines; or even a majority of them. Molding what kind of Templar I am via skills will take months (at least), and I'm fine with that, but every bit of customization shouldn't need that kind of time sink IMO.


Hi, I'm moneda.

s1tKI24.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, pang said:

Sub class systems allow the base class to add things from other classes, not just things that "fit" or make sense to you personally. Regardless if you think they are stupid or not. To repeat, Disciplines are a sub-class system so having exclusives is the opposite of that.

Okay. If you guys really dont see anything wrong with shaman knights, shaman fessor, shaman mirms i will concede. I mean, who cares if it makes sense or no?

PS: I dont really wanna fight but that sounds really, really stupid to me. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

Okay. If you guys really dont see anything wrong with shaman knights, shaman fessor, shaman mirms i will concede. I mean, who cares if it makes sense or no?

PS: I dont really wanna fight but that sounds really, really stupid to me. Just my opinion.

I don't want to fight about anything either. I was just trying to point out that with a subclass system you pretty much have to take the good with the "bad". Not every combo that can be made will make sense to you but it might to someone else. Not every combo may even work well and may make you far weaker then if other runes were slotted. But taking away option to do so, undermines the point of a subclass system.

But yeah I see nothing wrong at all with those combos. In fact Myrm Shaman kind of sounds like an Enhancement spec(melee) Shaman from WoW so yeah that combo makes a lot of sense to me. I mained a Shaman in WoW so having a chance to play that type of class again sounds great to me.

Edited by pang

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...