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

ACE Q&A for July - Official Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Anthrage said:

Personally I feel the move to unavoidable durability loss while being in combat is an absolutely terrible idea. It doesn't matter if the loss is far less than what you might suffer in X deaths - you could play for 11 hours and never die, or die and be revived, avoiding that loss completely. There is currently some in-combat tray loss but it is far less than what is being proposed. This new change is in my view entirely unnecessary and takes an issue that was affecting a minority of people and spreads it around to the entire player-base.

The changes to crafting requirements - less materials needed, fewer required components, more optional components, and the free premium materials, address the issue quite sufficiently in my opinion. These durability loss changes...it's going to create all kinds of new problems. If anything, do the first set of changes and if the slippery slope is deemed to still be too slippery, then do the durability changes...

I agree.  I hadn't died this entire campaign in my current set of armor (knocks on wood).  But now I am still going to have to worry about replacement because a few bad players complain it's "too hard".  

I feel like devs are catering to the soloist who wants to do everything on their own, instead of what this MMO is suppose to be, working with a team.  

Well worded Anthrage!

 

Killerkat

support expert

www.infernalgamers.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

It is purposefully designed to make the expenses of consistent winners and losers closer to one another so the winners have to spend more because as current the winners end up with near zero expenses the moment they start winning, while the losers continue to need to split their time between acquisition and combat for objectives.

That leads to the very stagnation Crowfall is designed to avoid, and potentially does so after the first day of engagements in a campaign.

So yeah. It is unfair to winners but that's kinda the point. Right now winners can win too hard and too fast based more on degradation mechanics.

I never seen that in this perspective and now that I see it this way it makes even more sense. Nothing against Winterblades or the strongest guilds in the game neither related to the fact that we are noob and losers, but I am a strong advocate of not having "win more" mechanics and that game equilibrium can be reversed easily and so avoiding stagnation. Good insight.

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

I get where Anthrage is coming from here but I think what our Winterblades friends aren't considering is that the existing slippery slope has been working in their favor much of the time.

Obviously this change is gonna feel overly putative because yes, people that win a lot of fights are now subject to a much more median degree of degradation.

And it is punative because the entire point is that an organization with a solid economic back end, great combat specs, and who is generally already well positioned to win a lot of fights doesn't also need the ability to completely annihilate the equipment of enemies they fight in the course of one night while simultaneously incurring nearly zero economic cost, and reaping the additional economic benefit of enemy loot.

That's the slippery slope here. You guys have been surfing it so of course it feels unfair. It is unfair to you. It is purposefully designed to make the expenses of consistent winners and losers closer to one another so the winners have to spend more because as current the winners end up with near zero expenses the moment they start winning, while the losers continue to need to split their time between acquisition and combat for objectives.

That leads to the very stagnation Crowfall is designed to avoid, and potentially does so after the first day of engagements in a campaign.

So yeah. It is unfair to winners but that's kinda the point. Right now winners can win too hard and too fast based more on degradation mechanics.

Well said. This is the exact reason they implemented it. It's still plausible that Dregs (or any campaign) could have full loot turned on swaying more of the benefit towards the victor. The entire games base functionality shouldn't be so. This allows them to control it with a lever.

It also creates perpetual work for crafters, on both sides of the battle lines. Whereas before the work of the victor was mostly to try to improve on what had already been made (and not filling a necessary demand for equipment).

Edited by Scree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nyamo said:

I am a strong advocate of not having "win more" mechanics and that game equilibrium can be reversed easily and so avoiding stagnation. Good insight.

This game is absolutely filled with "win more" mechanics. It seems odd to me that we are talking about them as unwanted. If they are unwanted why do we have looting? Why have rewards for taking forts and keeps? Why have rewards for winning campaigns?

Getting actual in-game benefits for winning seems to be a cornerstone of Crowfall to me. There are lots of games out there that keep everyone on an even playing field. Crowfall, like most pvp RPGs, doesn't. Much of the game is a competition to gain in-game advantages over your opponents.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jah said:

This game is absolutely filled with "win more" mechanics. It seems odd to me that we are talking about them as unwanted. If they are unwanted why do we have looting? Why have rewards for taking forts and keeps? Why have rewards for winning campaigns?

Getting actual in-game benefits for winning seems to be a cornerstone of Crowfall to me. There are lots of games out there that keep everyone on an even playing field. Crowfall, like most pvp RPGs, doesn't. Much of the game is a competition to gain in-game advantages over your opponents.

I agree, but there is a breakpoint where "fighting for ingame advantage" and "we expect players to have engaging encounters for three months in pursuit of a goal" clash.

Consistantly winning under this system is still an advantage.

Killing your enemies under this system is still an advantage.

Having good econ pipelines is still an advantage. In fact its a much larger advantage than before.

Consistantly being able to loot enemies is still an advantage.

The intent is that running a large army with great equipment is costly, and that economic barrier prevents "get more dudes" from being the monolith strategy.

With the disparity between winners and losers in degradation as it is now, "get more dudes" is not just powerful, it becomes nearly unstoppable because it lacks virtually any drawbacks once those dudes are equipped, and those dudes can be equipped in the first week of the campaign.

When the natural solution to an overwhelming force (assemble a counter-force) can't be achieved because he who equips an army first has basically already won the econ game, we may have stepped over the line from "fighting for advantage" to "The campaign model is unsustainable"

Armies, in general, need to be supplied. In 5.6 Crowfall the winning ones simply don't. Under this system they do.

This is done in a lot of PvP games by making gear both cheap and disposable. Winners need good econ because even one guy dying means he needs gear or spaceships replaced. In Crowfall's model we don't want gear to be so disposable. We invest a lot of time in to the act of crafting these custom pieces and we purposely hamstring bank space to prevent hoarding. We want it to last for a while. However we ALSO still want consistant winners to actually be economically vulnerable. We still want them to play the whole game like everyone else because winning should mean playing the whole game bettter than everyone else. This is a pretty OK way to get both of those goals. Econ is important for everyone long term as a need and not just a want, and that custom gear that takes luck, time, and significant expense to assemble actually lasts a while.

We could all debate the exact gradient and viscosity of the the slippery slope creating a fun slide versus a deadly plunge in to oblivion all day. What is clear is that the current slope isn't a fun slide for what ACE thinks is the majority of people. Differing degrees of hardcoreness are subjective. Some people think not having full armor looting by default is too carebear.

We'll have to all try it out together, give our feedback, as see if this gets us closer or further away from the end goal of everyone feeling like its a fun slide.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hammur said:

Everyone gets a trophy we cant have winners just like T-Ball great idea. Lets overlook the winners might be working harder to be winners. 

 

The entire point of this change is that the losers are working harder to be losers than winners are working to be winners in the current system.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

The entire point of this change is that the losers are working harder to be losers than winners are working to be winners in the current system.

I actually agree with a lot of points in your previous posts but that is a pretty broad assumption 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jah said:

This game is absolutely filled with "win more" mechanics. It seems odd to me that we are talking about them as unwanted. If they are unwanted why do we have looting? Why have rewards for taking forts and keeps? Why have rewards for winning campaigns?

Getting actual in-game benefits for winning seems to be a cornerstone of Crowfall to me. There are lots of games out there that keep everyone on an even playing field. Crowfall, like most pvp RPGs, doesn't. Much of the game is a competition to gain in-game advantages over your opponents.

Ok let me first repost what i was writing in discord for people that weren't aware of that comment and then i will reply to this.

i mean don't get me wrong, I am not saying that winners don't need to win!! Nor, to be honest, I have done an in-deep analysys on the benefits and demerit of the new system which I even't had chance to test and so it's mere speculation. I simply said that if the original purpose of the change was put in the light of what PopeUrban said (was it popeurban? I think so lol), made way more sense from an overall "mission statement" that was the one i backed back in kickstarter (uncle bob winning table game and getting so strong that the game is boring). I felt in love wth crowfall for the "design" behind it and that's why I decided to backed it on kickstarter. Also, as someone who welcomes al least 2 new players a day in kittens, I feel their stress and their feeling of being behind everything.... skill progression, skills, gear etc. etc.. and we re in pre-alpha only!!! Mind also that I have really low interest in pvp in general, and I am more interested in the meta-game, meta-dynamics, social, and game-of-throne aspect of the game.

 

That was for the repost, now back on your follow up.

I do not think it is odd and they are unwanted. On the contrary i personally backed this game because in it's premises and in its manifesto promised that they would have done their best to avoid stagnation and uncle-bob like scenario.

In particular, quoted from you:

Getting actual in-game benefits for winning seems to be a cornerstone of Crowfall to me. 
Much of the game is a competition to gain in-game advantages over your opponents.

I am not against this. I am saying that:

1. It is more REWARDING when you work hard for winning rather than having win more mechanics. There is a difference in winning by skills and having a system that has flaws and leads to win more loops without efforts.
2. It is more INTERESTING if you have to work hard till the very day of the campaign, because an early win leads to boredom and stagnation also on the winning side.

So, as you can see, I am not against winning, I am against easy win-more buttons and the more comeback mechanics we have the more interesting is the game.

 

I imagine every campaign to be like the grand finals in Dota 2 Internationals. You want to see comebacks, you want to thrill till the very end, you want avoid any single mistake because you opponent will benefit from them.

2 hours ago, Mayhem_ said:
6 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

The entire point of this change is that the losers are working harder to be losers than winners are working to be winners in the current system.

I actually agree with a lot of points in your previous posts but that is a pretty broad assumption 

Try to re-read what he just said but imagining that the "winners" won at the very end of the campaign after a huge comeback and the "losers" were the favorite till the very last minutes. Basically everyone has to work harder. At least harder than now.

 

catfall-logo-typo-small.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

The entire point of this change is that the losers are working harder to be losers than winners are working to be winners in the current system.

This is... grossly inaccurate.

If you saw how some "Winners" coordinate farming sessions, internal EK scrimmages (generally 2 to 4 hour sessions), resource aquisition, gear distribution, group compositions etc. I would say "Winners" actually "work" quite a bit harder than most.

Edited by Armegeddon

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My statement was that this system will impact more people, and this includes not only the so-called winners, but the 'losers' as well. The people who avoid PvP but still PvE for gold or materials are now going to be paying the same price in durability as those who PvP but generally don't die. This system newly punishes a large number of players who lack the resources or skill training to craft gear for themselves and who might rely on the professional crafters selling their wares, making it entirely possible that in the process of farming gold to buy gear, they are wearing out said gear - they are being put in a circumstance even worse than taking durability loss on death hits when they choose to PvP or are killed while farming.

And that is not the only consequence of this change. I've given this some thought, I am not concerned as a winner as has been suggested about losing gear more quickly personally, anyone who knows how I roll knows very well I do not avoid fights or gear loss - there is plenty of footage of me running around looking like a hobo after a few pieces of armor break - and I have every crafting and harvesting skill fully trained, I can make replacement gear easily. My concern is how this will impact everyone who is not us, the majority of the player-base, as I mentioned. All things being equal, it is most certainly true that there are more people who do not PvP voluntarily than those who do. This will dramatically change the lives of those people, and not for the better. If you are farming boars in the starting area for example, with gear that most likely has far less durability than the so-called winners, you will take durability loss. Think about that for a moment. This goes beyond the slippery slope, this is applying a grade to level ground.

Edited by Anthrage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACE have taken steps to make acquiring gear far easier:  white mats on vendors, white mats in beachheads, white mats in EKs.   They have dramatically reduced the cost of making gear, as well.   And they have increased the rate at which we lose gear across the board with the durability hit on-use.

They are taking us in the direction of "easy come easy go" for bottom end gear, which is what the player base has been asking for all along.  It will keep crafters busy, and removes the gear barrier from PvP.

That said, the durability hit on-use changes high end gear from "difficult to acquire, relatively easy to keep" to "difficult to acquire, easy go" - and that may be problematic.  As things stand, I generally only replace my gear when my guild's crafters produce something that's a clear upgrade.  It's very rare that I break an item between wipes.  However, going forward, if I choose to wear my good PvP gear whilst farming NPCs in case I get jumped, I will now be punished for it in item loss.

One way to partially alleviate that particular issue would be to give higher quality gear much more durability than white gear.  Yes, durability can be experimented on right now, but it's only used as a filler when there are no more grade or sheen pips available.   Durability hit on-use makes durability experimentation more attractive, but it will always be the least  attractive option when making top end weapons.  That extra point of dmg will always mean more than a few seconds more durability.  If ACE dramatically increases the multiplier on durability pips, that will help make it more attractive in this new environment.

Edited by Durenthal
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify for Armageddon. I was referring, specifically, to the economic gradient.

Other groups do all of the above, lose fights for a solid day, and continue to do all of the above with an additional burden of replacing equipment. In no way is it a value judgement on player effort. Just raw economics.

Also, for Anthrage:

Good.

If only some players get to wholesale avoid the degradation economy, for any reason, that's a problem. Regardless of if it is because they are hunting boars or stomping noobs.

If the costs of implementing this impoverish the newbies you are worried about, that is an argument for adjusting the crafting costs. Not an argument for allowing some players to isolate themselves from the replenishment cycle as has been the case.

In fact, gathering is unfairly advantaged at this state and needs adjusted as well. Smacking nodes should also decay equipment.

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Durenthal said:

ACE have taken steps to make acquiring gear far easier:  white mats on vendors, white mats in beachheads, white mats in EKs.   They have dramatically reduced the cost of making gear, as well.   And they have increased the rate at which we lose gear across the board with the durability hit on-use.

They are taking us in the direction of "easy come easy go" for bottom end gear, which is what the player base has been asking for all along.  It will keep crafters busy, and removes the gear barrier from PvP.

That said, the durability hit on-use changes high end gear from "difficult to acquire, relatively easy to keep" to "difficult to acquire, easy go" - and that may be problematic.  As things stand, I generally only replace my gear why my guild's crafters produce something that's a clear upgrade.  It's very rare that I break an item between wipes.  However, going forward, if I choose to wear my good PvP gear whilst farming NPCs in case I get jumped, I will now be punished for it in item loss.

One way to partially alleviate that particular issue would be to give higher quality gear much more durability than white gear.  Yes, durability can be experimented on right now, but it's only used as a filler when there are no more grade or sheen pips available.   Durability hit on-use makes durability experimentation more attractive, but it will always be the least  attractive option when making top end weapons.  That extra point of dmg will always mean more than a few seconds more durability.  If ACE dramatically increases the multiplier on durability pips, that will help make it more attractive in this new environment.

The one issue with this is you widen the gap between the haves and have nots. A regular player with limited access to gear or high level crafting may have armor or weapons with 1000 durability, where right now, a good crafting can produce one with double that. Increasing durability, which would benefit the skill crafters more, would widen this gap even further.

This is why I feel that the durability loss over time aspect should be held at the ready after some testing with the other changes has been done. It's rarely a good idea to change too many things at once in any case, as anyone who has worked on a computer knows...incremental changes allow you to control results and identify causes much more easily than a larger number of changes at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Anthrage said:

The one issue with this is you widen the gap between the haves and have nots. A regular player with limited access to gear or high level crafting may have armor or weapons with 1000 durability, where right now, a good crafting can produce one with double that. Increasing durability, which would benefit the skill crafters more, would widen this gap even further.

This is why I feel that the durability loss over time aspect should be held at the ready after some testing with the other changes has been done. It's rarely a good idea to change too many things at once in any case, as anyone who has worked on a computer knows...incremental changes allow you to control results and identify causes much more easily than a larger number of changes at the same time.

^^ BOLD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

I agree, but there is a breakpoint where "fighting for ingame advantage" and "we expect players to have engaging encounters for three months in pursuit of a goal" clash.

Consistantly winning under this system is still an advantage.

Killing your enemies under this system is still an advantage.

Having good econ pipelines is still an advantage. In fact its a much larger advantage than before.

Consistantly being able to loot enemies is still an advantage.

The intent is that running a large army with great equipment is costly, and that economic barrier prevents "get more dudes" from being the monolith strategy.

With the disparity between winners and losers in degradation as it is now, "get more dudes" is not just powerful, it becomes nearly unstoppable because it lacks virtually any drawbacks once those dudes are equipped, and those dudes can be equipped in the first week of the campaign.

When the natural solution to an overwhelming force (assemble a counter-force) can't be achieved because he who equips an army first has basically already won the econ game, we may have stepped over the line from "fighting for advantage" to "The campaign model is unsustainable"

Armies, in general, need to be supplied. In 5.6 Crowfall the winning ones simply don't. Under this system they do.

This is done in a lot of PvP games by making gear both cheap and disposable. Winners need good econ because even one guy dying means he needs gear or spaceships replaced. In Crowfall's model we don't want gear to be so disposable. We invest a lot of time in to the act of crafting these custom pieces and we purposely hamstring bank space to prevent hoarding. We want it to last for a while. However we ALSO still want consistant winners to actually be economically vulnerable. We still want them to play the whole game like everyone else because winning should mean playing the whole game bettter than everyone else. This is a pretty OK way to get both of those goals. Econ is important for everyone long term as a need and not just a want, and that custom gear that takes luck, time, and significant expense to assemble actually lasts a while.

We could all debate the exact gradient and viscosity of the the slippery slope creating a fun slide versus a deadly plunge in to oblivion all day. What is clear is that the current slope isn't a fun slide for what ACE thinks is the majority of people. Differing degrees of hardcoreness are subjective. Some people think not having full armor looting by default is too carebear.

We'll have to all try it out together, give our feedback, as see if this gets us closer or further away from the end goal of everyone feeling like its a fun slide.

I understand the econ part of what you are saying, I understand those that say winning should still have a consequence.  My only problem is my Legendary gear, that took months to get resources for will still degrade as fast as the person who slapped some slag together and is out fighting.  Now you all are going to argue well your legendary should have more durability so should last longer.  Well just cause I have more points in durability doesn't change the fact that I am losing the same 2pt/10sec as everyone else.  Where is the benefit to putting together that awesome gear you were going to help you survive many engagements. Now every time I'm killing a boar cause I need hides I'm taking a hit. 

For the pvp game I see this as a good thing. As eventually win/lose you will need to replace your gear.  But if I'm out slaying tier3 boars/spiders/etc and I know I am not going to lose, but because I have to be wary of the combat peeps out farming harvesters I still need to be geared.  This is going to force me to pick lower tiered gear, which then increases my chances of dieing and being looted by a pure pvpr.  So the slippery slop is already in place with disciplines and combat skills.  Harvesters get wasted day in and day out by pvpr.  Yes I know go get yourself some guards blah blah blah.  Well this initial spot from my perspective just like the vendors was to help those people solo, solo.

I am in a guild, so I know I'll have protection, I know we will be out fighting, but know do we really waste the resource for gear that will break just as fast as everyone else?  It seems like we made higher tier ore/stone/hides irreverent other than squeezing a few more hours of game play.  And for those of us that play 12+ hours a day, I'm having to get a new piece every 2 days for killing boars.

The whole game isn't just pvp.  

Killerkat

support expert

www.infernalgamers.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, killerkat said:

I understand the econ part of what you are saying, I understand those that say winning should still have a consequence.  My only problem is my Legendary gear, that took months to get resources for will still degrade as fast as the person who slapped some slag together and is out fighting.  Now you all are going to argue well your legendary should have more durability so should last longer.  Well just cause I have more points in durability doesn't change the fact that I am losing the same 2pt/10sec as everyone else.  Where is the benefit to putting together that awesome gear you were going to help you survive many engagements. Now every time I'm killing a boar cause I need hides I'm taking a hit. 

For the pvp game I see this as a good thing. As eventually win/lose you will need to replace your gear.  But if I'm out slaying tier3 boars/spiders/etc and I know I am not going to lose, but because I have to be wary of the combat peeps out farming harvesters I still need to be geared.  This is going to force me to pick lower tiered gear, which then increases my chances of dieing and being looted by a pure pvpr.  So the slippery slop is already in place with disciplines and combat skills.  Harvesters get wasted day in and day out by pvpr.  Yes I know go get yourself some guards blah blah blah.  Well this initial spot from my perspective just like the vendors was to help those people solo, solo.

I am in a guild, so I know I'll have protection, I know we will be out fighting, but know do we really waste the resource for gear that will break just as fast as everyone else?  It seems like we made higher tier ore/stone/hides irreverent other than squeezing a few more hours of game play.  And for those of us that play 12+ hours a day, I'm having to get a new piece every 2 days for killing boars.

The whole game isn't just pvp.  

If your driving the Batmobile out to pick up milk your doing it wrong. 

If getting ganked and losing your best combat gear dura is a problem while your farming, don't wear it farming and accept the fact your not at 100% combat effective while doing that.

Wearing your best all the time is a choice, risk/reward sort of thing.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anthrage said:

The one issue with this is you widen the gap between the haves and have nots. A regular player with limited access to gear or high level crafting may have armor or weapons with 1000 durability, where right now, a good crafting can produce one with double that. Increasing durability, which would benefit the skill crafters more, would widen this gap even further.

This is why I feel that the durability loss over time aspect should be held at the ready after some testing with the other changes has been done. It's rarely a good idea to change too many things at once in any case, as anyone who has worked on a computer knows...incremental changes allow you to control results and identify causes much more easily than a larger number of changes at the same time.

Adreesing the first part of this.

It's an MMO, the have (active guilds, large guilds) will always, and should, have more than the have nots.  I do not want to see a player come in and 2 days later be at the same place it took a guild full of harvesters and crafters who took hours upon hours to get material to equip their pvpr get rocked by Joe Smo Smucketelly cause he was able to get out of the beachhead/or other common area, gate.  Those that work hard will and should, have more than those that do not!  Haves and haves nots, as you put it. A regular player should struggle and it should be hard, that is the point of an MMO.

I've learned early on this is a game of gear.  One of my first battles was a group of Balance (about 8 of us) fighting a Mino mermadon.  He dropped 1 of us but we couldn't even scratch him, until finally a geared balance guy came out and tides changed, granted only slightly.  But it's because of gear, ok a little known issue with mino merms.  But the fact that gear is such a big factor, those working hard on getting it should be better off than those that just playing 30 minutes a day.  That guy/gal should not expect to be at the same level as the Haves.

Killerkat

support expert

www.infernalgamers.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

If your driving the Batmobile out to pick up milk your doing it wrong. 

If getting ganked and losing your best combat gear dura is a problem while your farming, don't wear it farming and accept the fact your not at 100% combat effective while doing that.

Wearing your best all the time is a choice, risk/reward sort of thing.

If that milk is through the battlefield why wouldn't I.  I used an extreme and I guess the trolls can't read between the lines.  

The point is I need to be geared well enough to be able to defend and/or escape if some rando happens to come across where I thought was a safe spot to harvest.  It has happened.  So I need to be geared and ready.  I don't play the cookie cutter fae assasin harvester to just run and hide.  I play what I plan to play at launch to be able to support the fight in hostile harvesting areas.  So I need to be geared just as everybody else who is out to farm me.  

As far as risk reward, the nodes I am harvesting are the reward, if I can't protect that in my inventory the best way possible I might as well farm it and hand it over to who ever comes by.  So yes I need to be geared just as everyone else, especially since my skills might not be all combat centric.

Killerkat

support expert

www.infernalgamers.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, killerkat said:

Adreesing the first part of this.

It's an MMO, the have (active guilds, large guilds) will always, and should, have more than the have nots.  I do not want to see a player come in and 2 days later be at the same place it took a guild full of harvesters and crafters who took hours upon hours to get material to equip their pvpr get rocked by Joe Smo Smucketelly cause he was able to get out of the beachhead/or other common area, gate.  Those that work hard will and should, have more than those that do not!  Haves and haves nots, as you put it. A regular player should struggle and it should be hard, that is the point of an MMO.

I've learned early on this is a game of gear.  One of my first battles was a group of Balance (about 8 of us) fighting a Mino mermadon.  He dropped 1 of us but we couldn't even scratch him, until finally a geared balance guy came out and tides changed, granted only slightly.  But it's because of gear, ok a little known issue with mino merms.  But the fact that gear is such a big factor, those working hard on getting it should be better off than those that just playing 30 minutes a day.  That guy/gal should not expect to be at the same level as the Haves.

Don't worry, they won't be.

5.6  Grey = 6, White = 6, Green = 7, Blue = 8, Purple = 9, Orange = 10
5.7, Grey = 4 White = 5, Green = 7, Blue = 8, Purple = 9, Orange = 10

That pip change is a dramatic change down in the levels possible for grey/white.  

Those that take the time to farm up to green will have 30% more pip potential than the whites.  With a possible 12% bump on amazing success per pip, that's fully 24% more potential for green from white.

That seems about right actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...