Register a free account today to Ignite your Adventure! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate with the Embers Adrift community. Your active account will also be the same account used to purchase, download, and login to the game.
I don't consider a few folks speculating on how things will work before any details are shared to be anywhere in the realm of "so much backlash". The whole point of QA is to implement ideas and gather feedback on the implementation of said ideas - hence why we are discussing these things and implementing them in QA. At the end of the day we are the developers of the game and will continue to do what we believe moves the game in a positive direction.
Criticizing others for having opinions isn't constructive. This is a place for discussion and there is no "remember their place in the system". We are all free to spend our time and money any way we like and I would like to think that good devs listen to feedback of their players so the game doesn't crash and burn. Both side are never always right on every topic no matter what the vision is, ask 5 players how to implement an auction house and you will get 5 different designs. Same thing probably happens to the devs lol. But I think we need to talk to figure it out. Ridiculing people just leads to toxicity or even worse people not talking and moving on. For the most part I feel we have a mature respectful and knowledgeable community of players. I also feel we have devs who enjoy the feedback and are very responsive even if they don't use all of it in their vision.
The statement of previous history was merely meant as context nothing more.
At the end of the day all this feedback doesn't matter and we're going to steer this ship straight into the iceberg anyway. Great attitude to have dude.....
Your attitude appears to be one of "if the developers don't agree with my disagreements then their heads are in the sand". You are here, in this thread, throwing a fit over a system that isn't even in QA yet. We understand your concerns and have had the same ones ourselves.
Is this an actual question? Or a rhetorical question? Because I don't quite understand what you are getting at here.
At the end of the day its feedback from a few sources. your opinion isn't the only one and I would like to see the changes before assuming.
So now we move to personal attacks, great. Arguing against a change is not equal to throwing a fit.
Apologies if this was viewed as a personal attack it was not meant to be.
In my view you started the personal attacks calling his judgement into question like he is dumb and wants the game to fail. If we can act more civil in the words we use, others wouldn't have such negative reactions. If we want positive change we need to conduct ourselves so. I for one appricate how the devs interact with us. Its candid and they don't pull punches on active discussion. He is still right we are arguing on things not implemented and we are speculating. At the end of the day we are getting our feedback listened to a thousand times more than you would get in any other mmo.
Yes I know how this system works. This is not what my question was regarding. My question relating this part of the combat equation is this.
I will never bother to ask rhetorical questions. Im not trying to be disruptive, Im not trying to berate, Im not being impolite. I am trying to get answers on how you are trying to manage Vertical and Horizontal progression while not scaling power to any large degree.
This states: You up any caps that is CURRENTLY impacting players.
If that system has been in for half a year and THEN we provide feedback, do you think you are going to scrap the entire thing if the playerbase doesn't like it? No... so far, if something is happening that is completely disliked, the only way to stop it from happening is to immediately protest and this is not only this game only, but everywhere. If a system is in place already, it is FAR more difficult to get rid of it again, than to prevent it in the first place. Usually it ends up as "yeah, personx/members/citizens/etc. don't like it, we'll throw them a bone by changing a few details, but essentially it will stay this way now"
Which will as an extreme example, just like you, pulling out random numbers, mean: You add 3 items with +50 healing each into the game, while the cap is set to 150 healing.
Then marketing sucked... in fact it really did. I for example learned about the game like 5 days before the release date by accidently stumbling over an obscure comment somewhere. This game was marketed as finished and having content up to lvl50. NOWHERE did it say how it truly was at release:"Hey guys, we have content to lvl30 and about 2 camps for each level range (except the 20+... there is only one each)". This is what people complain about. There still isn't any content at 50. The highest mobs are lvl46/47 in ONE single, small Ember Vein. The highest zone below that is Exile Freehold which is an outdoor dungeon with the highest mobs being 2 spawns that can reach lvl43, rest of the zone is <=42. There is no base zone of lvl40 even yet. Most tradeskills are impossible to level to 50, since the mats needed haven't been implemented yet or are so terrible to farm you would need months. The highest items ingame are 6 lvl46 drops from the EV, ALL other items are lvl<=40. This includes Flux btw, so noone even knows what the lvl50 flux is going to be called.
You have to think about scaling here. With 100 active players on the server at peak times (with like only 10% even using the forum...), 5 people worried/angrily posting 3 posts each, when put to old WoW dimensions with 100k players online and 5k people complaining... well I think even someone as stubborn as Blizzard would care about a thread that had 15000 posts... even gaming sites would report about "the controversy".
Yes, the request is to make the other stats useful. Some stats like +healing, +flanking, +dmg, phys resist etc. are SO MUCH more powerful than others like combat movement, resilience, all the debuff resists etc. that, as a player, you would be an idiot not to focus on the good ones. If the system was balanced there would be no need for artificial stat caps. Like for example "I really want that +healing, but then I won't have enough of the +sta regen and will run oom during combat... and don't these mobs do that nasty haste debuff? Damn, I have to keep that resist up or my casts won't be fast enough to heal the whole group. I think I can't afford to equip that... I have to test it. This sucks... what do to?" Even with the player thinking the situation which he's currently in (having to decide) "sucks", it is a lot more enjoyable than "+14 healing, -4 flanking? I'm going to camp that for a hundred hours, because that lvl20 item is a lot better than everything else *HURR-DURR*!" (yes, that's me, I admit it.)
After that the feedback of rounding problems and some stats not having much influence because of the low scaling (how much +healing -one of the most important stats!- does it need to make a noticeable difference in the warlords healing song?) is to be expected, since it is directly linked to stats being capped. Also the opinion that, after testing it for months now, "yeah, it was a nice idea at first, but that system simply sucks, feels unrewarding, brings more problems with it, than it solves and should be changed completely" is a valid one. Even if it goes against the "vision of the game", you should ask yourself:"Have I ever heard -anyone- say they are happy with how the stat scaling is implemented or has it always only been mentioned in a negative way, with noone defending the way it is?"
This is completely fair and I get it. I think some of the tension just comes from us having a much more complete picture of what we are aiming for than you all currently do since we haven't shared all of the details yet (as we are still tweaking them them internally). Our goal is not to upend the game but just provide a bit more flexibility design wise. As mentioned above adding these stat caps will impact nothing right now in the game as no itemization has been made with this in mind (these caps are also set above current level 50 gear targets). This system will more than likely only be used for less desirable stats so we can make them a bit more impactful and desired early on in the game. But we also plan to inject new items using this framework slowly so that if something does start going sour we can very easily just disable the system.
As mentioned above players shouldn't hit the stat cap even with planned level 50 gear. Ideally, it would be very difficult for players to hit any stat cap, and the system is flexible enough for us to make changes quickly if it comes to it (adjusting the cap, removing the cap, etc). And don't get me wrong, I appreciate you all coming here and voicing your strong opinions - it has come up in multiple design meetings and we certainly do take your concerns seriously. It is our hope that you don't even notice these stat caps for a long while if at all. But again - we are a highly iterative dev team and are happy to make adjustments based on player feedback.