|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 8:22 pm
With all the Forums talk of Soloing v. Crewing, something came up that evolved into a thought that... Well, I'll let you guys decide whether it's worth anything or not. I don't think I've got the presence-of-mind to think it through, at the moment. sweatdrop
Now, the trouble someone brought up was the fact that Quests in the game don't grant enough orbs; enough, that is, for the type of experimentation that zOMG! expects. And this is a reasonable complaint, I think - if you're expected to try out lots of rings to determine what you like, you're going to need well over 8 Rings at your CL in order to progress through the game. The obvious solution is simply "grant more orbs" - but that also poses obvious problems. We can't just give out loads of orbs, as that makes progressing through the game too easy; particularly for those who aren't experimenting like we expect. So, how do we stop people from throwing all those extra orbs into just a few Rings?
One solution: stop them from throwing all those extra orbs into just a few Rings. Predictable, huh? sweatdrop
Imagine a 'Charge Orb 1', that only worked on Rings below CL 2.0. We could hand out 'Charge Orb 1's all day long, and never worry about players overleveling; the highest they could get is CL 2.0. What's more, it actually encourages players to put Orbs into their other Rings - not just their favourites. We regularly see players on the Forums (listing their sets for advice, mainly) with one or two CL 10.0 rings, and the rest at 6.0 or lower. Players expect to be rewarded for leveling their favourite Rings over the ones they don't like - that's always been an expectation I've been concerned with. This option eliminates the option, completing removing the problem (as opposed to just working around it, via tutorials, et. al.).
Additionally, it prevents players from farming one location endlessly - well, it makes it less progressive. Players would no longer be able to farm Papa Saw until CL 10.0; if the Saws drop only 'Charge Orb 4', there would be a strict limit to the level players could get to without progressing. Which, again, is a concern I've been looking to remedy for a while.
One last advantage: it solves to 10+ problem. All current Orbs are, obviously, 'Charge Orb 9'. When the switch is implemented, all Orbs currently in existence would be replaced with 'Charge Orb 9's, effectively explaining why Rings can't be leveled to 10.1 and opening up easy options for new content (CL 11.0 areas would simply drop 'Charge Orb 10's). No more worrying about orb stockpiles. No more issues with how to require players to play new content to gain levels. It's simple, explicit, and predictable.
While we're on about stockpiles, though: it would probably make sense to allow players to exchange Orbs between levels, easily. A rate of 10:1 for higher-level Orbs, or 1:1 for lower-level Orbs. This is biggest condition I see for the change, though there are other issues. Like, for instance, why would you want lower-level Orbs...?
Epics. Epics would most likely need to require a specific level Orb, simply because that's how the Recipe system works. So long as you can exchange down, I don't see this being an issue - you can always trade your endgame Orbs for earlier ones. So long as the level of the Orbs required is roughly around the level of the loot required, I don't think anybody would be bothered by it at all.
Last thing: we might need to tinker with Orb drop rates a bit, but that shouldn't be too outrageous. Regardless, though, it would only be highlighting points in the game where we're already giving out too many or too few orbs - things that should be fixed now, would simply have to be, this way.
Alright, folks; start poking holes... whee
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 9:09 pm
I kinda like this idea, but at the same time I kinda don't. While it does solve some problems, such as the overfarming of certain areas, it also raises new problems. First and foremost is the technical concern. Somehow, some way, every ring and/or the ring inventory will need to be altered to accomodate eight new orb types. Enemy drop rates will likewise have to be adjusted to allow the new orbs. Furthermore, how will this affect the over-leveled enemies we sometimes face? Will Lorelei drop "Charge Orb 19?"
Next we have the inventory concern. Each time the CL cap is raised, a new orb type is added to the mix. Even with Epic Recipes serving as an orb sink, people will still have more and more orbs to clutter their inventory. (e.g. Yes, I can exchange my Charge Orb 3s for CO4s, but I only have six of them and the Orb Fairy needs ten to make a trade)
And finally, your solution seems to cut off one form of player experimentation: Building up a few rings they like and not worrying about the ones they're not accustomed to.
I somehow want to work the Swap feature into my argument but can't think of anything to support the point.
Ultimately this seems like a case of KISS. (Keep it simple, sir)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 10:40 pm
Thard_Verad I kinda like this idea, but at the same time I kinda don't. While it does solve some problems, such as the overfarming of certain areas, it also raises new problems. First and foremost is the technical concern. Somehow, some way, every ring and/or the ring inventory will need to be altered to accomodate eight new orb types. Enemy drop rates will likewise have to be adjusted to allow the new orbs. Furthermore, how will this affect the over-leveled enemies we sometimes face? Will Lorelei drop "Charge Orb 19?" Next we have the inventory concern. Each time the CL cap is raised, a new orb type is added to the mix. Even with Epic Recipes serving as an orb sink, people will still have more and more orbs to clutter their inventory. (e.g. Yes, I can exchange my Charge Orb 3s for CO4s, but I only have six of them and the Orb Fairy needs ten to make a trade) And finally, your solution seems to cut off one form of player experimentation: Building up a few rings they like and not worrying about the ones they're not accustomed to. I somehow want to work the Swap feature into my argument but can't think of anything to support the point. Ultimately this seems like a case of KISS. (Keep it simple, sir)
Honestly, I don't expect accomodating the change Ring-side to be a big issue - it's not more than a few lines of code for the game to check among your orbs to see whether you have enough of a sufficient level. It'd be slightly longer with the change (with a little looping involved, where there wasn't before), but overall that part of the technical concern doesn't really worry me.
The bigger issue would be, as you mentioned, inventories. It may be more orderly to create a whole Orb Inventory to keep them straight, but I can see ways of managing it that don't necessitate it (namely, having Orbs listed numerically, as they are now, but allowing the player to mouseover for a breakdown of which types of Orbs are included in that number). Regardless, it would take some finessing - though I imagine that would be the case with any content change.
And I'd imagine whatever solution exists for Lorelei dropping CL 18.6 Rings could likewise apply to 'Charge Orb 19'. Simply having the the item check the level of the area you're in before dropping would solve both issues, no?
As for the experimentation problem: the game actively punishes players who focus on only a couple of Rings - obviously that was not an intended form of 'experimentation'. Even so, allowing higher-level Charge Orbs to drop in lower-level areas at a much smaller rate (i.e. 5% of the Charge Orbs you find in Bass'ken are 'Charge Orb 5') would enable a player to invest more highly in his favored Rings, while still retaining most of the benefits listed.
I tried, and I can't really think of any Swap issues, either; if you come up with one, though, let me know. sweatdrop
And, yes, ultimately this adds a lot of complexity to the game - I'll cede that. And, normally, you'll hear me on about how much I prefer not to add complexity, if it can be helped. The thing here is, though, that the solution generates so many advantages for the amount of complexity it introduced. And, what's more, the complexity added is extremely understandable. Even without explaining how the system works, a new player would likely be able to understand it the first time they encounter a 'Charge Orb 2' - of course the game should explain, but my point is that the system is intuitive.
While I certainly agree that adding it at this point seems like a lot of effort, I imagine that if it had been added from the beginning it would feel very natural. And, really, all my suggestions are ever aiming to do is to improve the game in ways that feel natural...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 11:14 pm
While the rings themselves probably wouldn't require too much tweaking, the Upgrade and Salvage buttons would be profoundly affected. Will you still require three "Charge Orb 3" to upgrade from 3.0 to 3.1? Can a CO4 be used to upgrade it instead? What if you salvage a ring? What variety of orbs do you get back? Is that dependent on the CL of the salvaged ring? Could I find a CL 5.9 ring, drop some CO5 into it, then salvage for 25 CO6?
RE: unbalanced rings: There's a mix of benefit and punishment for leveling a couple of rings ahead of the others. You do raise your OCL faster, and your base stats rise accordingly. (Weighted averages and all that) Early on, the enemies are pretty weak, so the Effectiveness Distortion doesn't really become a concern until later. Plus, the rings people "ignore" are often the ones that don't even scale with CL.
Yes, this suggestion may be about four years too late. I will admit, it would encourage people to progress naturally through the game and use the progressively stronger orbs. (As opposed to our current situation of Sand Trap -> Papa Saw -> SS/EB)
There's merit with caveats attached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 11:46 pm
Thard_Verad While the rings themselves probably wouldn't require too much tweaking, the Upgrade and Salvage buttons would be profoundly affected. Will you still require three "Charge Orb 3" to upgrade from 3.0 to 3.1? Can a CO4 be used to upgrade it instead? What if you salvage a ring? What variety of orbs do you get back? Is that dependent on the CL of the salvaged ring? Could I find a CL 5.9 ring, drop some CO5 into it, then salvage for 25 CO6? RE: unbalanced rings: There's a mix of benefit and punishment for leveling a couple of rings ahead of the others. You do raise your OCL faster, and your base stats rise accordingly. (Weighted averages and all that) Early on, the enemies are pretty weak, so the Effectiveness Distortion doesn't really become a concern until later. Plus, the rings people "ignore" are often the ones that don't even scale with CL. Yes, this suggestion may be about four years too late. I will admit, it would encourage people to progress naturally through the game and use the progressively stronger orbs. (As opposed to our current situation of Sand Trap -> Papa Saw -> SS/EB) There's merit with caveats attached.
Upgrade wouldn't be an issue; again, it's just a matter of looping through your current stock of orbs to see if you've got what's necessary. Yes, I did intend for higher-level orbs to work on lower-level rings (making all current Charge Orbs 'Charge Orb 9' would retain their current functionality); the system would simply (starting from the top) check to see if you have the requisite number of Orbs to level a Ring, then (starting from the bottom, at the minimum required for a Ring of its level) remove Orbs from your Inventory up to the required number. Thus, upgrading a CL 3 ring would still require 3 Orbs, of any level greater than 2; but it would always use the lowest-level Orbs available. And, honestly, it sounds more complicated in text than it would in code. sweatdrop
Salvage, however, is much stickier - I had the sneaking suspicion I was glossing over something, and I suspect this was it. Simply, though, I'd expect a Ring to Salvage for Rings one order lower than it; a 5.9 Ring would Salvage for 'Charge Orb 4', while the CL 6.0 Ring would salvage for 'Charge Orb 5'. Unfortunately, that means you can't Salvage a Ring to raise another Ring up to its level (since CO4 can't ever get a Ring to CL 5.9). If that's a functionality we're really intent on preserving, we could force Rings to Salvage for a combination of lower-order and same-order Orbs - the 5.9 could drop 9 (arbitrary number, based on the .9) CO5, and the remainder in CO4. The 6.0 version would simply drop 25 CO5. Again, this appears to be the messiest part of the switch.
As for unbalanced Rings, that's actually part of the trouble; the game does way too much to allow bad habits (like that one) to form early in the game. As you've said, with the ease of defeating early enemies, and the rather unnoticeable Distortion effect, it doesn't sufficiently punish players until the habit's already been established. Personally, I think it would be interesting to allow players to use Rings at a wide range of levels to good effect - however, if the game's going to commit to that being bad policy, it makes the most sense to simply disable it.
Honestly, given the state of the team, every suggestion is obviously running a little behind schedule... sweatdrop
EDIT: Also, thank you for introducing the 'COX' shorthand... whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 11:16 pm
When people have enough COX's to get their main ring set to from CL X to CL Y, why would they keep doing CL X quests? By that point, their OCL will be high enough to move to area Y - what motivation do they have to stay in area X?
You can't force them to complete one area's quests before they can start the next area's - glitched quests are much too rampant.
If you were to find a way to force/strongly encourage them to continue farming/questing in area X, how do you keep the players who only care about their current ring set happy? They will feel like they're grinding for something they don't care about.
Let me address your points individually:
I don't think your system would do much to encourage experimentation, unless you restrict when players can move to the next area. There are obviously issues with that.
Yes, your system will discourage people from farming one location endlessly while they're leveling up to CL 10. Many people will leave each area as soon as they can. Some people will be encouraged to stay longer and complete quests (I suppose it mostly depends on how much they care about the story or completing the game "in order"). But there isn't any incentive to farm in the same area until you reach CL 10. However, I think it's possible to solve the sand trap --> PS --> SS/EB problem with better reward/drop planning.
I know you just threw it in there as a bonus, but the fact that this might fix the CL 10+ ring problem shouldn't sway our opinion.
Now, I was wondering...
Other than potentially making the game "shorter", what would be the downside of completely getting rid of individual ring charge levels, and having players just "charge" themselves instead? I think that would be a more effective way of encouraging experimentation.
The current system is really dull and I don't see much point in it. I understand why they chose it though - it seemed like a pretty good idea. But now, ring power is limited in so many ways (many rings don't scale with CL, over-leveled rings are capped at max CL while suppressed) that you might as well remove this system and let people experiment. Hell, it might even encourage people to coordinate buffs!
Of course, if the devs made individual ring CL more relevant or interesting, it might be worth keeping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 11:36 pm
OMFG Taylor When people have enough COX's to get their main ring set to from CL X to CL Y, why would they keep doing CL X quests? By that point, their OCL will be high enough to move to area Y - what motivation do they have to stay in area X? You can't force them to complete one area's quests before they can start the next area's - glitched quests are much too rampant.
I would pray they have the forethought to fix glitched quests et. al. before even considering a change like the one I'm proposing here. It's a matter of priorities - the fact that the game can't rely on its own systems (like quests, and having NPCs function) needs to be resolved before they can even consider changing how it works, fundamentally. Glitched quests are a much higher-priority issue, so I don't see much point in considering them in this discussion.
Quote: Other than potentially making the game "shorter", what would be the downside of completely getting rid of individual ring charge levels, and having players just "charge" themselves instead? I think that would be a more effective way of encouraging experimentation. The current system is really dull and I don't see much point in it. I understand why they chose it though - it seemed like a pretty good idea. But now, ring power is limited in so many ways (many rings don't scale with CL, over-leveled rings are capped at max CL while suppressed) that you might as well remove this system and let people experiment. Hell, it might even encourage people to coordinate buffs! Of course, if the devs made individual ring CL more relevant or interesting, it might be worth keeping.
I think your last position on that is the real solution - the nonscaling of Rings and other issues severely undermine the Ring system altogether; I can certainly see why you say it's not working, as-is. Personally, though, I'd rather see the system we have working as it was intended to before we consider scrapping it. Levelling the character, rather than the equipment, is certainly a reasonable implementation (evidenced by its use in so many other games), but it seems rather unfair to compare the current, broken system, to an unrelated, unbroken one. And I don't see much in the way of advantages between a working Ring system and a working Character system - though perhaps I'm simply overlooking them... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 12:44 am
Red Kutai OMFG Taylor When people have enough COX's to get their main ring set to from CL X to CL Y, why would they keep doing CL X quests? By that point, their OCL will be high enough to move to area Y - what motivation do they have to stay in area X? You can't force them to complete one area's quests before they can start the next area's - glitched quests are much too rampant.
I would pray they have the forethought to fix glitched quests et. al. before even considering a change like the one I'm proposing here. It's a matter of priorities - the fact that the game can't rely on its own systems (like quests, and having NPCs function) needs to be resolved before they can even consider changing how it works, fundamentally. Glitched quests are a much higher-priority issue, so I don't see much point in considering them in this discussion.
If they could get the system to the point where it works 99.9% of the time and were confident that there is essentially no chance of it breaking in the future, then it might be reasonable for them to force completion of quest chains. The problem is, I don't think they can. I suppose I should ignore that, though. These threads are more about theoretical game design than realistic suggestions for zomg, after all Dx Red Kutai Quote: Other than potentially making the game "shorter", what would be the downside of completely getting rid of individual ring charge levels, and having players just "charge" themselves instead? I think that would be a more effective way of encouraging experimentation. The current system is really dull and I don't see much point in it. I understand why they chose it though - it seemed like a pretty good idea. But now, ring power is limited in so many ways (many rings don't scale with CL, over-leveled rings are capped at max CL while suppressed) that you might as well remove this system and let people experiment. Hell, it might even encourage people to coordinate buffs! Of course, if the devs made individual ring CL more relevant or interesting, it might be worth keeping.
I think your last position on that is the real solution - the nonscaling of Rings and other issues severely undermine the Ring system altogether; I can certainly see why you say it's not working, as-is. Personally, though, I'd rather see the system we have working as it was intended to before we consider scrapping it. Levelling the character, rather than the equipment, is certainly a reasonable implementation (evidenced by its use in so many other games), but it seems rather unfair to compare the current, broken system, to an unrelated, unbroken one. And I don't see much in the way of advantages between a working Ring system and a working Character system - though perhaps I'm simply overlooking them... sweatdrop
You're right, I am comparing a broken system to a working one (although I do think they are very related). Thanks for pointing that out. Your thread was about encouraging experimentation (correct me if I'm wrong). A character system would have significantly lower penalties for experimentation than zomg's ring system does. I'm not really trying to say that zomg should use a character system. More like: if the developers are going to stick with a ring system, their system should offer clear benefits over a character system. Right now, I only see disadvantages - notably, ring experimentation is extremely discouraged. I think the ideal would be a character based leveling system and the ability to level up rings to make them more powerful or give them extra abilities, regardless of CL. Of course, that assumes that the difference between a low and high level ring is minor. If the difference is too big, we're right back to square one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 1:25 am
OMFG Taylor If they could get the system to the point where it works 99.9% of the time and were confident that there is essentially no chance of it breaking in the future, then it might be reasonable for them to force completion of quest chains. The problem is, I don't think they can. I suppose I should ignore that, though. These threads are more about theoretical game design than realistic suggestions for zomg, after all Dx
I think it's fair to say that we are firmly rooted in the theoretical, here. If we confined ourselves to merely what was technically practical at the moment, well... I think you know as well as I do where that's headed. sweatdrop
Quote: You're right, I am comparing a broken system to a working one (although I do think they are very related). Thanks for pointing that out. Your thread was about encouraging experimentation (correct me if I'm wrong). A character system would have significantly lower penalties for experimentation than zomg's ring system does. I'm not really trying to say that zomg should use a character system. More like: if the developers are going to stick with a ring system, their system should offer clear benefits over a character system. Right now, I only see disadvantages - notably, ring experimentation is extremely discouraged. I think the ideal would be a character based leveling system and the ability to level up rings to make them more powerful or give them extra abilities, regardless of CL. Of course, that assumes that the difference between a low and high level ring is minor. If the difference is too big, we're right back to square one.
Sorry; perhaps "unrelated" wasn't the word I was looking for. whee I think you understood what I was getting at, though.
Now, the thread wasn't really about encouraging experimentation; honestly, the game does that well enough on its own. I mean, there are 5 times as many extant Rings as there are Ring slots for a given character - naturally they're expected to try out Rings beyond what they'll be using regularly, and from that you can predict that they'll be putting Orbs into Rings that they're not using. I wasn't really pushing experimentation, but it was convenient that this change would accomodate it much better. I suppose it is correct to say, though, that it would encourage those who were not already prone to experimenting to do so - inasfar as that goes, you're right.
I do certainly get where you're going, actually; the Ring system is being pitifully undermined in a plethora of ways (general imbalance and rampant nonscaling of Rings being notable among them) - those integral systems, again, are things that really need to be corrected before the game can move on to expanding its functions. It's completely ridiculous that the most basic parts of the game are this unreliable, and those are really the things that need the most attention. Unfortunately, they're also often the things that are the least interesting to talk about, so we don't generally bother making threads for them. gonk
Personally, though, my preferred system is more-or-less the inverse of yours - maintaining (and fixing) the Ring system as the main method of advancement, while expanding (and fixing) the G'hi system to allow for more Character-based growth. But, again, that's just me. sweatdrop
Most importantly, I think, you've pointed out that adding levels to Charge Orbs poses relatively little advantage over a Character-based system - if we're going to stick with a Ring-based system, it's a better idea to push the strengths of that system, which this suggestion genuinely fails to do...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 1:06 pm
Hmm...
For the original thread idea:
I really like the concept of different orbs encouraging progress through the areas rather than farming. However, the disincentive to return to older areas is a major flaw. Of course, even now going to older areas generally means slower progress in levelling, but this would be more extreme (since you'd have to get past the exchange rate) with this system.
For OMFG Taylor's idea of character charge level:
I really like the concept of the ring leveling system. If balanced well, I think this is the ideal of "a character based leveling system and the ability to level up rings to make them more powerful or give them extra abilities" since leveling rings theoretically indirectly levels the character up and down (and the choice of which rings to prioritize levels up certain rings as more powerful or less powerful relative to the rest).
However, this does create a strong inertia in ring builds, especially in the middle levels (when rings are leveled high enough that it takes a lot of orbs to level up new rings to the same level, but players don't yet have a stockpile of useless orbs sitting around). This encourages players to form their own distinctive style which they develop over time, but this makes experimentation harder and less desirable.
Perhaps making the CL Swap feature more used (making it a more important part of the interface, easy and advised to use) and also more powerful (more swaps sooner) would help break this disincentive to experiment, but that's not much of a fix. I wish I could figure out a fully fledged idea to address the problems of the other ideas, but I can't think of anything concrete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atrash the Squidmonger Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
