Let’s Talk Enchanting!

We have not received permission from Songcaller to share the quoted post.

Completely agreed, I personally would rather that the concept of 'horizontal' and 'vertical' be left out of this discussion entirely. I understand what people are distinguishing between, but what happens in practice matters much much more. As a BDO player, I'm sure you know this, due to the difference between some of their gear pieces.

For reference of others:

Two body pieces drop from bosses and are very close to identical, statistically. One gives +200 HP, the other gives HP Regen.

The game's mechanics invalidate any meaningful use of the second, so it is relegated to second tier. The first is therefore 'one tier of progression' higher than the second, because the game's OTHER systems don't support what the second is offering.

Owning both of these gear pieces is not even horizontal progression, except relative to one of the least interesting or profitable forms of activity in the game.

Azherae wrote: »

I understand.

That definition's wrong, like basic logic breakdown wrong, but I understand.

I'm not going to start using terms incorrectly just because Intrepid does, because that leads to designs being based on incorrect terms and concepts, often oversimplified ones.

Wrong to who though? Intrepid's the ones creating the system. You using another definition for what they're creating would just bring confusion to people who've heard Intrepid's definition and would think that you're using that, instead of your own.

Azherae wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

word.

I use this page as my definition of what Intrepid considers what
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Enchanting

I understand.

That definition's wrong, like basic logic breakdown wrong, but I understand.

I'm not going to start using terms incorrectly just because Intrepid does, because that leads to designs being based on incorrect terms and concepts, often oversimplified ones.

I realized that this response was probably too short/caustic, and didn't convey the feeling I was having at the time, so please allow me to make another attempt.

I don't want us to hold Steven, or Intrepid, to their old words/terms on everything, if they haven't confirmed them recently, because it leads to a form of rigidity that is dangerous in game design.

By his own admission, Steven has been learning a lot, about many things, since this project began. Sometimes, that probably means that he learns different or improved terms for things, different ways of thinking about problems, and so on, from more experienced people that he brought on as Seniors to assist him in making his vision come to life.

But originally, it was just him, and Jeff, basically, and that meant that anything that they both had 'weird terms for', or any situation where Jeff didn't 'push back on a term', it would become the parlance of Ashes. I would like for the parlance of Ashes to not be locked into being 'the reality of Ashes' unless it is a real intent. Particularly in discussions like these where the feedback is important.

Intrepid may not have time to always update old concepts, and certainly it is difficult to 'pull back' old QUOTES.

But in the end, the reason Steven needs actual Senior Designers instead of just doing it all himself, is because he wants the best, and he doesn't strike me as a person who is unwilling to believe that someone else knows the best way. Now, that doesn't apply to 'just people on forums' like me, but it's still important not to end up with illogical design goals because of what... Steven happened to use some ambiguous words that one time?

I have faith that Intrepid will create true Horizontal Progression within the GAME. I'm just saying that the term doesn't apply properly to the enchanting SYSTEM.

We have not received permission from Songcaller to share the quoted post.

I might be able to agree with you, but my mindset is that OF a 'Senior Designer' because that's my role in my work and 'indie' teams. It's my job to take the vision and ideas of people like yourself, and turn it into something that works and is balanced.

So I have to stop thinking about what I want, and focus on what the visionary says they want, and only 'push back' when I know for sure that it won't work in tandem with their other goals.

I am definitely not sure that any aspect of Enchanting, even as described, won't fit Intrepid's goals, but it definitely seems to go against the majority of feedback in the current form. My own suggestions and concepts are 'to fit within what Intrepid seems to want', and I'm always looking to be corrected on what that is, even if I don't like it.

I'd have to think more about if I would prefer Ashes to have 'no enchanting' and focus on actions and playstyle without enchanting, but I assume that this wouldn't be in the cards at all, therefore my thoughts focus on 'what makes Enchanting work within the rest of the game?'

We have not received permission from Songcaller to share the quoted post.

I see.

I'd love to theorycraft with you about balance but there's insufficient information, and I feel like I don't agree with many of your combat designs from the other thread for various reasons, but there's no reason why you should be concerned about that relative to the current system.

It just reminds me that this is all very abstract, without many more concepts than we have available. In some games, Armor Pen would be the most overpowered, obvious-choice stat imaginable, and in others, it would be borderline useless.

I'll stick to 'Imagining an Unnamed Augment/PowerUp Of Average Effectiveness' for Ashes. Those numbers, I already have equations for, and so, since this topic has come up before we saw the combat revamp, I can only give feedback based on the numbers I have, if we get to the point of needing them.

Sorry, I probably am not getting on this particular train at this particular station. Maybe we can discuss that in another thread, but I'm trying not to derail this one.

Azherae wrote: »

I don't want us to hold Steven, or Intrepid, to their old words/terms on everything, if they haven't confirmed them recently, because it leads to a form of rigidity that is dangerous in game design.

I can definitely agree with that. But fwiw Lineage 2 had a "horizontal" enchantment system, akin to the current AoC's one, in one of the later updates. You had the normal "vertical" enchant scrolls that would just increase the gear's atk/def and then they added rune stones that would add (and could then be increased) elemental dmg to said piece of gear. You'd usually have alternative weapons for specific situations (or specific enemies), just as you said in your definition. So if, by chance, Steven got inspired by that kind of system, then their definition of "horizontal" enchantment is pretty much the same as yours. Well at least if we look at the info available to us rn.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I don't want us to hold Steven, or Intrepid, to their old words/terms on everything, if they haven't confirmed them recently, because it leads to a form of rigidity that is dangerous in game design.

I can definitely agree with that. But fwiw Lineage 2 had a "horizontal" enchantment system, akin to the current AoC's one, in one of the later updates. You had the normal "vertical" enchant scrolls that would just increase the gear's atk/def and then they added rune stones that would add (and could then be increased) elemental dmg to said piece of gear. You'd usually have alternative weapons for specific situations (or specific enemies), just as you said in your definition. So if, by chance, Steven got inspired by that kind of system, then their definition of "horizontal" enchantment is pretty much the same as yours. Well at least if we look at the info available to us rn.

Ah, my bad, I was actually arguing from a different perspective, the things I said were moreso targeted at 'people who misunderstand it', not Intrepid. I was saying that when Intrepid uses the term, it can cause confusion in people who misunderstand it.

e.g.
Person gives feedback that they 'don't like vertical progression and lots of meta choices' and 'prefer horizontal progression'. Intrepid references their plans to have multiple options, but then that person plays the game and finds that their class, or their Node, only benefits from one of the many options.

They still have only one weapon, they still are 'meta-locked'. Their response then is 'frustration', and even though they usually don't claim 'you lied, this isn't horizontal progression', it gets confusing in feedback terms, because one can't know if the person means "I want to be unique and different and I really don't want too much power gaps or efficiency gaps in the game" or if they mean "I want to have to collect lots of gear for different activities".

The definition Intrepid uses, in conjunction with the rest of their intended design, is imo a poor terminology to use in the way it's used on that page, it's too ambiguous, even with the 'holy damage, incorporeal entities' example.

Maybe I'm not making sense on that front, but tl;dr I was not arguing that the enchantment system as defined by Intrepid is not what I was talking about (especially relative to the rest of the game), but that the term is too ambiguous to be used in a feedback situation.

e.g. I consider 'HP regen' to be a Horizontal Progression option in fast games (or useless, depending), and a Vertical Progression in slow games (particularly ones with smaller group PvP).

We have not received permission from Goalid to share the quoted post.

If repairing a weapon and bringing it back to its previous OE lvl has the same material/resource price as a full craft and OEing of the same weapon - I'll be completely fine not losing said weapon during a failed OE (that is if a broken weapon is unusable), but if it's cheaper or if you can use the weapon - I'd definitely prefer for there to be a chance to destroy the item. I really think that hard gear sinks are required in non-souldbound games.

We have not received permission from George_Black to share the quoted post.

What exactly would we be writing? Our imagined character stats? Our suggestions to what those stats should be? I'm a bit confused.

NiKr wrote: »

We have not received permission from Goalid to share the quoted post.

If repairing a weapon and bringing it back to its previous OE lvl has the same material/resource price as a full craft and OEing of the same weapon - I'll be completely fine not losing said weapon during a failed OE (that is if a broken weapon is unusable), but if it's cheaper or if you can use the weapon - I'd definitely prefer for there to be a chance to destroy the item. I really think that hard gear sinks are required in non-souldbound games.

Well, I don't personally see why you think you would need more hard sinks than are already present.

Exhibit A: "Specific and necessary crafting materials for higher tier items can only be obtained through the deconstruction of lower-tier items. This is designed to keep lower tier crafted gear relevant through progression and across expansions." There is definitely going to be gear repair and crafting that require deconstructing
Exhibit B: "Players gain craftable items and recipes from deconstructing (salvaging) completed items." It's been stated that high end gear such as world boss gear will have possible recipes you can get via deconstruction.

I personally hate hard sinks, but @Azherae has explained to me enough times why they must exist. So I guess my real question is 'do we really need more than we have?'

JustVine wrote: »

Well, I don't personally see why you think you would need more hard sinks than are already present.

Exhibit B: "Players gain craftable items and recipes from deconstructing (salvaging) completed items." It's been stated that high end gear such as world boss gear will have possible recipes you can get via deconstruction.

Depending on how those recipes will work, they might be a one-off thing that will be learned by the top guild's crafter once and new boss drops won't be deconstructed. Sub-BiS stuff will obviously be crafted at industrial scales across the entire server, so w/o them getting destroyed in OEs, there's nowhere for them to go, because the mats for them or from them will become overabundant soon enough.

And as I said, if repairing a fully decayed item is the same as crafting it from 0 - I'll be completely fine with no destruction on a failed OE.