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

UPDATED: ACE Q&A for September - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Tinnis said:

weee

+

 

Yeah insanity like that is possible.

 

I still feel like there should be a consume cooldown on the skill tomes. Maybe 2-3 tomes per week at max. It double's training speed for new players and vastly slows down shenanigans like dumping 5k into an account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ranik said:

Yeah insanity like that is possible.

 

I still feel like there should be a consume cooldown on the skill tomes. Maybe 2-3 tomes per week at max. It double's training speed for new players and vastly slows down shenanigans like dumping 5k into an account.

They could add more diminishing returns based on number of tomes consumed.  

So your first tome is 100% of the expected amount, second 90%.third 80%. That gets modified by amount trained, so if you have a tree at 50% trained, and your third tome in a row, the math would be 1*.50*.70=35%.  Every X hours you reduce the number of consumed tomes.

You could even get more clever, and start new accounts with a deficit value on this math, say a one time use bank of 15 tomes, that do not recover after time, and actually provide a bonus. So for the first 15 tomes, your catch up tomes (1.5 months worth), you get 2.5X the training time, and possibly ignore the initial diminishing returns all together.

Much easier to do some on the fly diminishing returns math, than trying to cap based on all training possible over all time.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the system is implemented, the only way to get ahead of other players is by acquiring MORE high level skills.  No player can ever get ahead of another player in Skill #1, unless the player left behind decides to stop training the skill.

This becomes a problem when talking about Combat skills, in which a big number of skills overlap in character builds (Weapon skills overlap with Armor skills).  VIP players have a natural advantage over non-VIP.  Players with multiple accounts gain a small advantage over VIP players.

This is not the case in Race skills, where the tree is inherently immune by the fact that no player can be two races at once.  Or can we?  *weird smile*

TL;DR start here I guess.

I'll make 1 really stupid suggestion that technically fixes the problem.  Put skills that overlap in the same tree, just like you did with "Race" skills.

For example, put the Weapon skills and armor skills that are functional on the same character in Tree #1.  Melee attack, melee armor, same tree.  This fixes the advantage of VIP over non-VIP.  Makes defensive skills a subcategory instead of an actual tree (I don't know if that's a problem, probably is?) and I am still trying to understand whether or not it affects alt users feeding 1 account.

-

I have been thinking about the effects on alt accounts and have concluded that they can still get ahead if players are allowed to only train a tree partially before being allowed to train the next tree.  Because then X number of accounts would be able to skill up to only 50% for example, AND THEN, the slave trees would start filling the missing tech in the main accounts partially filled early tech trees.

I'm personally not worried about VIP accounts.  It sounds like alt account owners got the short end of the stick, too much work for a 1 vs 1 advantage.  The only vertical advantage I imagine they can get is in the early game IF players are allowed to train 2 skills simultaneously that can overlap on 1 character.

I feel pretty bad about writing a wall of text.  I must be bored.

Edited by sneaky_squirrel

How Can Mounts Add to the Crowfall Experience?  Caravans, Hunting Boars, and more.

 

How Complex can Mining be in Crowfall?  Mining difficulty, fatigue, infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, why_me said:

The problem is, multiple accounts will always win. You can have 100 accounts creating exp tomes for just one account. "Sell" your inventory slots to export goods out of campaign worlds, etc. multiple accounts will always win and you cant prevent it without damaging the rest of the player base.

If you try to make VIP more valuable you will hurt the non VIPs more than the multiple accounts.

 

So the main focus should be that VIP is more convenience and less an advantage. And there is the problem with 1 vs 2 training slots in profession. You get those benefits no matter which character you play. While you can only play 1 class and 1 race it doesn't give you any advantage in those two categories, its just convenience if you cant decide which class you want to play or want to play different classes/races.

But with profession you always have that advantage. Lets make an example:

Its Tuesday night, there are not that many people online. A non-VIP decide to take the risk and go out gathering alone. At some point the non-VIP gatherer meets an enemy gatherer and they start a fight. Both invested the same exp/time into their gathering tree, but the enemy has VIP and also invested into his combat abilities, giving him an advantage in this fight, because he paid money. In the end, the non-VIP lost, not because there were more enemies, or an assassin, not because the other gatherer had better fighting skills or better gear, no it was only because of his small stat advantage in combat.

If everyone (VIP and non-VIP) gets 2 profession training slots, however, then there is no advantage. The post I was responding to was saying that even that was bad because it would take away the impact of choice in the profession trees. My point was that players could already do all three categories of professions with multiple accounts.

Regarding your example, the non-VIP gatherer would have had the same problem fighting a non-VIP fighter. The important thing is that there is no advantage between a VIP fighter and a non-VIP fighter during combat. Or a VIP harvester and a non-VIP harvester during harvesting. Or a VIP crafter and a non-VIP crafter during crafting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Here is the exact spot in the stream.

Well, Krakken is a more patient person than I.

@Nazdar you may also find this quote of interest. It's an old one, from Todd 2 years ago, but as far as I can tell his stance hasn't changed:

Quote

With a heavy focus on crafting and economy and allowing RMT with VIP tickets...Could you tell me how this wont be pay2win? or pay2advantage? Wont people be able to RMT and have all the materials or anything they want in game? In turn taking that into pvp.

Quote

Eve has allowed this forever, and it isn't a "pay to win" game. Why not? Because you can't win by paying more money.

If your point is "players shouldn't get ANY items they didn't personally earn, because it's cheating", then the only way to fix that is to turn off trading completely.

Guilds give items to guildmates. Those players didn't earn it. Friends twink up their friends. Those players didn't earn it. Players beg. Players bully. Players con. Players trade.

Items are CONSTANTLY moved between players. It's a part of the game. If the items were created or collected in the game, by other players, IMO that isn't pay to win.

and remember -- we have import rules on every Campaigns. if you REALLY, REALLY hate the idea of facing a player who is using an item they didn't earn, because another player gave or sold it to them -- then stick to the Campaigns that don't allow you to import ANY items. Problem solved.

Unless it just offends you. Like I'm offended that a restaurant that I never go to, that serves a type of food I don't like, doesn't serve my favorite beer.

In fact, a pretty good argument can be made that a system like this is the opposite of pay to win, because people who CAN'T afford to pay for a subscription can now invest time -- instead of money -- to get the same benefit as the player who pay for a VIP membership. That's not pay to win; it's the opposite.

 

Share this post


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

with the new race/class structure:

do you think they should make certain advantages/disadvantages or even something like disciplines exclusive to a parent or child subset?

e.g.

requires: fighter

requires: monster

etc

I'm hoping that disciplines have very few restrictions. My expectation is that disciplines offer a really fun set of builds that become limited the more prerequisites involved. Some seem to already have prereqs, but I'd rather not see training get involved beyond simple race/class (even then I'm not usually happy).


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, mctan said:

I'm hoping that disciplines have very few restrictions. My expectation is that disciplines offer a really fun set of builds that become limited the more prerequisites involved. Some seem to already have prereqs, but I'd rather not see training get involved beyond simple race/class (even then I'm not usually happy).

I actually think the character building would be far more interesting if there were some more restrictions (not too many, but more than we have now).

Hear me out. Imagine you're a guild leader trying to theorize your ideal group for the upcoming siege. We have a ton of powerful disciplines like bard, or standard bearer, or field medic that any class can use. You want a bard for your group, so you ask yourself "Which class has the strongest base kit to add bard onto?" Well, confessor obviously.

You want a standard bearer for your group too, so you ask yourself.. I'm going to skip to the end. Your group is now 5 confessors with various disciplines.

You don't really need to think about which class to choose, the answer is always confessor, because confessor is a little stronger than the other classes and confessor can do everything (i.e. use almost every discipline). Even if confessor gets nerfed next patch, it'll just be a different class that becomes the "default" when your desired disciplines allow you to choose any class.

On the other hand if standard bearer said "only usable by knights", it would be even worse. Then everyone needs to bring a knight, no thought goes into that decision either.

It would be best IMO if standard bearer had a loose restriction, like.. "only usable by fighters". Maybe fighters are a little weak this patch, you wouldn't normally want to bring one along, but now you need one as a vehicle for standard bearer. So you find yourself considering the various fighter classes, figuring out which one has the best abilities to use in between dropping standards, and which one has the best other disciplines to pick from.

Maybe you wind up going templar/standard bearer/friar, because friar is also something your group needs, and templar is the only class that can equip both. Another group decides they don't really need friar, they go champion/standard bearer instead to take advantage of champion's stronger base kit. There are choices to be made here - more interesting choices than you get when every class can use (almost) every discipline.

Edited by Avloren
edit: I mixed up bard and standard bearer like a noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Avloren said:

I actually think the character building would be far more interesting if there were some more restrictions (not too many, but more than we have now).

Hear me out.

Well put. I'm certainly open to it, and your propositions mimic Shadowbane's system.

As a veteran of a Role-playing guild, I am always approaching systems with an eye on what they imply about being able to craft unique groups, even if they are not min/maxed. In my case, I want to be able to legitimately vary Stoneborn through disciplines (Bard-like, Fessor-like, Druid-like, etc.). I know they will not be as powerful as other Race/Class combos, in almost every case. But, the ability to build sub-optimal groups with a purpose other than maxed power is a valuable asset in these kinds of games, in my experience.

The best part is that by allowing my guild to build interesting all-Dwarf group compositions, we may wind up countering the typical "min/max optimal groups," precisely because we bring unique or uncommon groups and strategies. The same can be said for all other Lore-based guilds, the more the merrier.

Edited by mctan

Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mctan said:

Well put. I'm certainly open to it, and your propositions mimic Shadowbane's system.

As a veteran of a Role-playing guild, I am always approaching systems with an eye on what they imply about being able to craft unique groups, even if they are not min/maxed. In my case, I want to be able to legitimately vary Stoneborn through disciplines (Bard-like, Fessor-like, Druid-like, etc.). I know they will not be as powerful as other Race/Class combos, in almost every case. But, the ability to build sub-optimal groups with a purpose other than maxed power is a valuable asset in these kinds of games, in my experience.

That's a good point point, too. I would be disappointed if, for example, Stoneborn-only groups were impractical because: Stoneborn can't be rogues, only rogues can equip bard, and every group needs a bard. On the other hand I'm still troubled by bard being available to every class, therefore: "What's the best class for a min/maxer bard to choose? Confessor obviously, they're the best at everything!"

Perhaps the most interesting restriction would be something like: "Bard requires Knight, Druid, or any Rogue sub-class." So you cover almost every race, and a variety of classes, but not all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Avloren said:

That's a good point point, too. I would be disappointed if, for example, Stoneborn-only groups were impractical because: Stoneborn can't be rogues, only rogues can equip bard, and every group needs a bard. On the other hand I'm still troubled by bard being available to every class, therefore: "What's the best class for a min/maxer bard to choose? Confessor obviously, they're the best at everything!"

Perhaps the most interesting restriction would be something like: "Bard requires Knight, Druid, or any Rogue sub-class." So you cover almost every race, and a variety of classes, but not all of them.

In your scenario, Confessors are best at everything because of their base kit - making the issue balance at the Class level, not discipline level. Nevertheless, I understand the concept and agree with your assessment of that as a problem. 

Your proposal of loosening the restriction certainly intrigues me, but I still wonder about restriction-less disciplines. I think the scenario of "oh, best bard is always confessor" is more likely the more restrictions placed on a discipline. Simply because discipline selections are not done in a vacuum, perhaps a Confessor actively wants one of the bard powers, but Stoneborn Knights use a different one. Something like "oh, best bard is a confessor if you are building to roam, stoneborn champion if you want dps, cleric if you want a group comp with one healer, etc. etc. etc."

In other words, I think plurality is amazing in builds, which is found through variety, which occurs more with more combinations. Yes, there will be "bests."

I am really enjoying the conversation, and obviously these are pretty hypothetical, but I think we are on an important discussion. Although I fall into the: more options is better, I appreciate your points.

Edited by mctan

Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mctan said:

In your scenario, Confessors are best at everything because of their base kit - making the issue balance at the Class level, not discipline level. Nevertheless, I understand the concept and agree with your assessment of that as a problem. 

Your proposal of loosening the restriction certainly intrigues me, but I still wonder about restriction-less disciplines. I think the scenario of "oh, best bard is always confessor" is more likely the more restrictions placed on a discipline. Simply because discipline selections are not done in a vacuum, perhaps a Confessor actively wants one of the bard powers, but Stoneborn Knights use a different one. Something like "oh, best bard is a confessor if you are building to roam, stoneborn champion if you want dps, cleric if you want a group comp with one healer, etc. etc. etc."

In other words, I think plurality is amazing in builds, which is found through variety, which occurs more with more combinations. Yes, there will be "bests."

I am really enjoying the conversation, and obviously these are pretty hypothetical, but I think we are on an important discussion. Although I fall into the: more options is better, I appreciate your points.

I agree that the Confessor base kit being too powerful is really the root problem. However, I expect there to always be balance issues like this. ACE could reduce those issues if they put some development time into balancing, which is something I'm sure they'll get around to eventually, but I don't think they'll ever be eliminated completely.

Therefore I think the overall character building system should aim to be "robust", i.e. designed to weather some imbalances without them having too much impact. I see (loosely) restricted disciplines as a tool that could help here. If only 5 classes could be bard, then those 5 classes will always have an advantage and see some use, even if the other 6 classes happen to be more powerful this month. Likewise if the bard discipline proves too powerful, but can only be used by 5 classes, you ensure that not everyone will use bard; surely the other 6 classes have their own strengths that could offset it.

But bard is perhaps a bad example. You're correct that since bard provides such a variety of buffs, it's likely we'll see confessor bards and champion bards and cleric bards, each using different bard skills. Maybe bard should remain unrestricted, and my logic applies better to other disciplines - standard bearer, for example. SB gives us one or two very powerful buffs that any group would want. It's the kind of discipline that makes a group leader think "I need an SB, which class would go best with that?" instead of the reverse ("I want to play [class], which discs would go best with them?"). It's this kind of situation that makes me wish there were some loose restrictions on the discipline, to make that choice more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Avloren said:

I agree that the Confessor base kit being too powerful is really the root problem. However, I expect there to always be balance issues like this. ACE could reduce those issues if they put some development time into balancing, which is something I'm sure they'll get around to eventually, but I don't think they'll ever be eliminated completely.

Therefore I think the overall character building system should aim to be "robust", i.e. designed to weather some imbalances without them having too much impact. I see (loosely) restricted disciplines as a tool that could help here. If only 5 classes could be bard, then those 5 classes will always have an advantage and see some use, even if the other 6 classes happen to be more powerful this month. Likewise if the bard discipline proves too powerful, but can only be used by 5 classes, you ensure that not everyone will use bard; surely the other 6 classes have their own strengths that could offset it.

But bard is perhaps a bad example. You're correct that since bard provides such a variety of buffs, it's likely we'll see confessor bards and champion bards and cleric bards, each using different bard skills. Maybe bard should remain unrestricted, and my logic applies better to other disciplines - standard bearer, for example. SB gives us one or two very powerful buffs that any group would want. It's the kind of discipline that makes a group leader think "I need an SB, which class would go best with that?" instead of the reverse ("I want to play [class], which discs would go best with them?"). It's this kind of situation that makes me wish there were some loose restrictions on the discipline, to make that choice more interesting.

Nice. I think my counter would be that in the scenario where you have outlined where not everyone will use bard due to restrictions, we are in a situation where bard is - as you rightly pointed out - too powerful. Everyone wants one. A group like mine, possibly unable to use any bard, will be hard hit. Take Standard Bearer, and say it remains very powerful. We are in a scenario where we are left out from particular powers, as all-Dwarf (something we are willingly getting by not having access to seven of the classes), a double-hit because we may not have access to Druids, Templars, Assassins, Rangers (hypothetical grouping that gets only access to Standard Bearer discipline).

On the flip side, if bard and SB (and all disciplines) are available to all Race/Class, then I argue we will see more build diversity, not less. At the same time, I can certainly conceive of a situation where this seems to "narrow" the min/max diversity. So everyone wants to play a Fessor, bard, SB, whatever because it is the combination of all the best available things. 

Perhaps a middle ground is available, where we either have disciplines that are completely unrestricted, or disciplines that are incredibly restricted (or uniquely crafted for a single Race/Class combo - something also in Shadowbane). So maybe High-Elf Fessors are the best Race/Class, but since they do not have access to a discipline that Elken Fessors get, you see both High-Elves and Elken (Elki?) on the field, utilized differently.

I am still working on seeing how the sort of "middle-restricted" disciplines you are bringing up might also fit in well.

Edited by mctan

Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read this thread, TL;DR.  But I watched the Q&A video partway and my immediate thought is:  What stops me from creating 20 non-VIP accounts, collecting time on them all, and then passing those tomes to my main to jack him far far ahead of everybody else who plays more "normally"?

Again, sorry if this point was already covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mctan said:

I am still working on seeing how the sort of "middle-restricted" disciplines you are bringing up might also fit in well.

I'd look at the archery disciplines - master of bow, arcane archer, etc. - as a good example, something I'd like to see more of. They're available to 5-6 classes (depending on if cleric gets them like legionnaire did).

That's not very restricted. If you want to be an arcane archer, you have a variety of classes and races to pick from, not just one or two. But they're not available to everyone, notably they're blocked to templar. So why is that important?

Imagine templar and knight fill a similar role in groups, they both do the tank/area denial thing, except templar does it a little better. The fact that knight can equip a bunch of archery discs and be a hybrid ranged tank, that gives you a reason to go with knight over templar in some situations. Likewise the lack of any ranged options, either in the base kit or discs, is an interesting limitation for templar that helps offset their power in melee.

If a later patch allowed templar to use archery discs, we'd lose something that differentiates templars and knights. Both classes would become a little more generic. If we go too far down that path, we wind up with two classes that can do all the same things - except inevitably one will do them a little better, and the other becomes obsolete.

 

I like your confessor example. What if Elken Confessors were weaker overall, but could access an interesting disc that elf/nethari fessors couldn't? This is a good example of a restriction breeding build diversity.

Except why make it just elken fessors - why not let all elken use that disc? Maybe even half-giants and minotaurs, too. Then you still get that same diversity in fessor builds, but you also get diversity in [that disc]-builds too. Then people who want that specific disc for whatever reason can choose from a variety of classes and races to go with it. I think this is what gets us the optimal level of build diversity: a moderate restriction of 3-6ish classes or races.

 

Edit: That being said, I'm not arguing that all discs should have a restriction, just more of them (right now, most majors have no restrictions at all). There are general-purpose discs that go well with any class (bard, escape artist, firewalker, etc.) that I'm happy to see remain unrestricted. In fact, firewalker is an example of a disc I believe should never get any restriction, or it'll hurt build diversity. Right now if fessors are OP, firewalker is your answer. Any race or class that doesn't have access to it risks becoming unplayable whenever fessors are too powerful, adding a restriction there would take us in the wrong direction.

Edited by Avloren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Brindylln said:

I have not read this thread, TL;DR.  But I watched the Q&A video partway and my immediate thought is:  What stops me from creating 20 non-VIP accounts, collecting time on them all, and then passing those tomes to my main to jack him far far ahead of everybody else who plays more "normally"?

Again, sorry if this point was already covered.

Yeah, that is to me the major weakness of this system, many have brought it up.

One thing you should know: ACE plans to add the tomes later (3-6 months after launch), so they won't be helping people skip ahead on day 1. There are other limitations: diminishing returns the farther you get into a tree, so you don't get full benefit from the tome. Also the fact that if you want tomes for an advanced tree, your alts have to complete the basic trees leading up to it first. But none of this will stop people from using alts to farm tomes, it just limits their power.

We've been discussing ideas to prevent this. The one I like most is a cap on total training, so you can't ever use tomes to get farther ahead than a day 1 VIP account. So it would work as a catch up mechanic, but once caught up you can't go past where the day 1 vets are.

Edited by Avloren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Avloren said:

Yeah, that is to me the major weakness of this system, many have brought it up.

One thing you should know: ACE plans to add the tomes later (3-6 months after launch), so they won't be helping people skip ahead on day 1. There are other limitations: diminishing returns the farther you get into a tree, so you don't get full benefit from the tome. Also the fact that if you want tomes for an advanced tree, your alts have to complete the basic trees leading up to it first. But none of this will stop people from using alts to farm tomes, it just limits their power.

We've been discussing ideas to prevent this. The one I like most is a cap on total training, so you can't ever use tomes to get farther ahead than a day 1 VIP account. So it would work as a catch up mechanic, but once caught up you can't go past where the day 1 vets are.

Ok.

I also realized that non-VIP accounts only get up to 24 hours, but you need 3 days time to make a tome, so you can only farm them on VIP accounts.

I very much support the training cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brindylln said:

I have not read this thread, TL;DR.  But I watched the Q&A video partway and my immediate thought is:  What stops me from creating 20 non-VIP accounts, collecting time on them all, and then passing those tomes to my main to jack him far far ahead of everybody else who plays more "normally"?

Again, sorry if this point was already covered.

Point in live stream where they talk about diminishing returns.

@jtoddcoleman has in the developers forums said he is aware of other types of restrictions that could be added, if that actually turns out to be a problem. I'm 90% sure he wouldn't mind the full quote out here, but I won't cross that barrier without consent.

Oh, and you would have had to drop 2k to get those 20 alt accounts, so there is that.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so I promised I was going to post my spreadsheet for boosted XP based on how it was discussed in the video Q&A.

At 0% experience in a tree a player gets 100% xp from the tome, at 50% experience in a tree a player only gets 50% of the xp from the tome, so on and so forth. We know that tomes take a total of 3 days to accumulate enough banked XP to make a tome, so this means that only VIP accounts can CREATE tomes.  I'll be the first to admit there are probably much cleaner ways of working out this problem in excel, but this was just a first pass at it. The only thing you need to do is go to the second tab and input the number of booster accounts 1-50 and the number of days to fully train a tree (1-365). I did not extend the sheet to account for more than 365 days or more than 50 booster accounts, although I could do so easily if needed.

Reminder - I'm not the best at math but I'm fairly confident in the logic used in this sheet, feel free to double check it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jkzIVYi2nHknx2JWkK69VF2Ly8de_jfdWWGnmlj2qZ8/edit?usp=sharing

This sheet does not fully realize the various approaches players could use to boost their accounts but as a small example.

With 11 total accounts (1 main and 10 boosters) and the assumption that they only need 50% completion to move on to the next tier, a player could reach tier 2 in only 6 days on the main account. Roughly 6 days later the next account would reach 50%, followed by the next booster account roughly 9 days later. So, with a total of 21 days passage, this player would have his main account at tier 2 along with 2 of his 10 booster accounts. This player would then be training tier 2 skills 2-3 times faster than a non-boosting player. Those numbers will actually go higher as more and more of the booster accounts reach 50% in the tier 1 skill.

I don't want to get too far into the weeds on the specifics because there are a lot of unknowns. Another thing a lot of players overlook is that each skill node in a tree is time weighted based on the % complete each node is. What this means is that training each node to 50% for the entire tree will be significantly faster than training 50% of the tree to 100%. This makes the skill tomes that much more powerful when it comes to boosting a player's account to get to higher tier skill trees long before it would otherwise by possible.

While it was apparent that the devs have intended this to be another robust player market, it appears to be a market that only VIP players can participate in. It was stated that the time bank for non-vip players caps out at 24 hours, yet it takes 72 hours in the time bank to create a skill tome. From a business perspective this a good news for ACE. First it requires more players to have VIP status if they want to participate in this lucrative market. Players who already pay for VIP will need to make a decision on if its better to bulk train alt accounts, or provide VIP to another player who already has training in a desired line. Secondly, it requires the non paying VIP players to give up a percentage of the advantage they get from VIP so that they can then sell that skill tome to another player, either for more VIP or for in game goods an services. Ultimately it will result in the players who were  looking to maintain parity with VIP players supplying the very wealthy ones with the advantage they were trying to negate. Its a vicious cycle and one that ACE seems ready to capitalize on.

Ultimately wealthy players won't have to run dozens of accounts, they already have a way to convert real world capital into in game resources by virtue of VIP. 

 

Edited by Verot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 6:36 PM, ClockworkOrange said:

How is training both Armor and Weapons opposed to only being able to train just Armor not a P2W advantage. You do get both of the passive benefits from both trees at the same time. This is p2w, not pay for convenience. I don't think you understand how the profession tree works. I believe ACE already identified that this is an issue.

Is it any more p2w than being able to train combat/harvesting? VIP represents an advantage now. You can like the change or dislike the change, but the fact is that VIP results in game play advantage even if they don't allow double dipping into one profession (armor/weapons etc). If they force players to pick 2 of the 3 professions at a time, it will still result in VIP being advantaged.

Assume a 10 on 10 scenario between VIP and Non-VIP players. The 10 Non-VIP players are all harvesters as are the VIP players, however the VIP players are also Combat trained and as such have a combat multiplier in their advantage. Now assume its 10 Non-VIP combat players against those some 10 VIP players. The VIP players now have a resource advantage over the Non-VIP. While every battle may not go in the VIP players favor, given enough time the war should be safely in their hands. It would be silly to think that 3 different profession offer equal power curves, it is still easy to see how a player who can both effectively gather and protect resources has an advantage over a group who can only specialize in 1.

Obviously a large and diverse player base will most likely negate the odds of a 10 on 10 ever pitting all Non-VIP against all VIP. The force multiplier nature that VIP now represents slides the advantage towards the group that has the most VIP players with that advantage being more pronounced depending on the disparity in the number of VIP players between each group.

Edited by Verot

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...