Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Ammo in range weapons and ammo types

    • 2752 posts
    April 20, 2019 4:04 PM PDT

    Tanix said:

    Finite ammo is similar to finite mana. The point is to limit the ability to indefinitely do damage (which is important in enduranced based fights). Kiting will likely happen, so… allowing a class to have an indefinite supply of ammo creates a huge problem in this area of balance (ie casters have a mana pool, so are limited on how much they can do).

     

    No matter what they decide, free ammo is a mistake as it has no limitation. As for damage, I think their damage should not compete as a DPS class (I would prefer no role as DPS, but hey… we already went down that rabbit hole) or you run into problems due to their ranged/melee ability. For every benefit, there has to be a negative to balance it out.

    The PTW reference doesn’t make sense to me. If a mage uses a higher DPS spell that uses more mana, are they “paying to win”? Is a warrior that uses a 2handed damage sword over a 1h with shield “paying to win” by using the other weapon?

     

    Isn’t that the point of situational tools? Figuring out when the right time to use something is kind of the entire point of playing an cRPG. You aren’t simply running around play acting, you are simulating a role in a world with all the decisions that would come with such a role. That means, figuring out when a certain weapon, tool, etc… might be best used.

    If people hoard them because they either don’t know when to use them or they have to manage their inventory as to when they use the, then maybe they should pick a class where they can simply spam an attack with a weapon and not be concerned about all that stuff?

    Dumbing down the game because people think it would not be fun to have to manage play or think about playing the character is not a good development strategy in my opinion. In fact, I find the having to choose when, how, why and manage an inventory of limited ammunition to be in the exact spirit of cRPGs. That is fun, very enjoyable in my opinion.

    We are talking expendable ammo that has to be purchased or made, it is not comparable to mana whatsoever as all a caster has to do to regain mana (on top of passive regen) is sit. By all means they could have rangers use "ammo" as a limited class resource that could be regained by various melee skills which would further add to VRs ranger vision of having them be a more or less 50/50 melee/ranged hybrid if they want competitive damage. That would also solve your issue with kiting (assuming any number of other features/anti-kiting mechanisms aren't there and it was as easy as EQ) though I feel that would better be handled by requiring being stationary to fire off arrows.

    No point arguing against them being DPS, they are and will have parity with others of the DPS role.

    The point is that other classes don't have to pay to use their combat focused "situational" tools, they spend some endurance/mana/class resource which returns freely as just a part of existing. Can't say it would be good gameplay or design to have one class that has far more expenses just to be on the same level as others.

    • 77 posts
    April 20, 2019 5:13 PM PDT

    I'm a fan of you equip a type of ammo, but it is unlimited, this way you can have different ammos, but don't have to worry about carrying stacks of arrows or running out.  Also having expendable arrows adds kind of like a pay for your damage aspect to it.  If you can't afford the more expensive arrows, or the materials to make them, you have to get cheaper, less powerful ones, gimping your damage cause you don't want to spend hours of your limited playtime harvesting or playing the markets.

    • 1033 posts
    April 21, 2019 8:03 AM PDT

    Iksar said:

    We are talking expendable ammo that has to be purchased or made, it is not comparable to mana whatsoever as all a caster has to do to regain mana (on top of passive regen) is sit. By all means they could have rangers use "ammo" as a limited class resource that could be regained by various melee skills which would further add to VRs ranger vision of having them be a more or less 50/50 melee/ranged hybrid if they want competitive damage. That would also solve your issue with kiting (assuming any number of other features/anti-kiting mechanisms aren't there and it was as easy as EQ) though I feel that would better be handled by requiring being stationary to fire off arrows.

    My point about mana to ammo was they were both limited resources. You may be on to something though with ammo idea. One way to put the power of a rangers ranged ability into a balance similar to a caster is to do as you are suggesting, to make it where the resource of ranged “ammo” runs out in fight and the ranger has to then.. “med” to get more ammo. It would be the very exact concept of medding for mana, but instead you could have an animation of the ranger sitting there fletching arrows or something similar. That is, the ranger would generate their own arrows in play and they would be tuned to a maximum storage amount in their quiver which would be correlated to what is deemed an acceptable balance amount to have for a given encounter.

    What this would do is then put limits on how long a ranger could use ranged abilities in combat (like a caster is restricted) AND it would implement a downtime mechanic where the ranger has to produce the ammo (similar to medding to get mana back) to balance out the play.

    You could still have crafted arrows, even bought arrows, but… the amount of arrows a ranger could have at any time would be limited to their quiver size which would be a control mechanism VR can manage similar to managing caster pool sizes.



    Iksar said:

    No point arguing against them being DPS, they are and will have parity with others of the DPS role.

    The point is that other classes don't have to pay to use their combat focused "situational" tools, they spend some endurance/mana/class resource which returns freely as just a part of existing. Can't say it would be good gameplay or design to have one class that has far more expenses just to be on the same level as others.

    Having melee ability AND ranged ability is extremely powerful. Casters are balanced to their ranged ability via the mana pools. So every caster is limited by this and melee are limited by the fact that they have to be in range (which means they have to get hit a lot of the time) which turns their HP pool into the a limitation.

    Being able to do ranged damage without limit (mana pool or finite resources) lacks any counter weight to its design. There needs to be some balance to its play or you end up with abuse.

     

    • 3237 posts
    April 21, 2019 8:49 AM PDT

    I would prefer for ammo to be expendable, but also something that can be stacked in a quiver.  While it's true that rangers would probably consume more arrows than other classes who can use bows, I really don't see that as a problem.  Being the undisputed king of "Ranged Physical Damage" should have a cost to it.  Rangers would likely have some sort of fletching skill that would allow them to craft lower grade arrows ... but the best arrows should be expensive.  Is this something that has to be "balanced" between all classes?  I don't think so.  As someone who enjoys tanking, I understand that there is a higher likelihood of my class dying than others.  I wouldn't complain about it and I wouldn't want XP loss to be shared by the group to help balance the burden.  If Terminus ends up being a world where some rangers struggle to always use the best ammo available, I would view that as a good thing.  Consumables should be expensive and have significant risk vs reward implications.  I'd like to see a solid economy in this game and can't help but reminisce about the days where currency was actually worth something.  Players struggled to upgrade their gear, buy spells, use high-quality food/drink/ammo, pay for costly town services/conveniences, etc.  Is it completely fair that rangers would have to spend more on arrows than other classes?  Nope ... but there are benefits that help balance that cost for the ranger class  --  if high-quality arrows are expensive then using them should be impactful.

    I'd like to see a legendary bow that can summon 100 epic quality arrows per X hours.  I'd like to see rare crafting recipes that allow woodworkers to create a variety of high-quality arrows that fulfill niche purposes.  Arrows that deal piercing/slashing/blunt damage.  Arrows that can be infused with elemental properties.  As far as basic attacks are concerned, bows should probably have the biggest damage cap and delay of any weapon in the game.  It should be possible for rangers to be absolutely lethal and devastating with their bow and when I think about things from that mindset, the cost of maintaining a supply of arrows can be easily justified.  Rangers should be highly sought after for their damage potential, especially for any encounter where "ranged physical damage" excels.  That should be their most specialized role, IMO.  When a ranger achieves a critical strike on their 9-second delay longbow you should be able to see a chunk of that enemy HP disappear.  If they happen to be using an ammo type that their enemy is vulnerable to, and a high-quality version at that ... psht, I would be carrying around stacks of ammo regardless of what class I play just to ensure that I'm always taking advantage of the incredible value that a ranger brings to the table if I'm fortunate enough to be grouped with one.  I remember grind sessions where our group would collectively bring at least 5k arrows just so the ranger wouldn't have to leave and resupply.  Costly arrows are more of a privilege than a burden if they are worth their weight  --  let's hope that rangers are more renowned for their ranged physical damage prowess in Pantheon rather than being the meme-worthy-ideal-death-touch-recipient.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at April 21, 2019 9:10 AM PDT
    • 1033 posts
    April 21, 2019 10:01 AM PDT

    Anything that is attached to a "cost" in terms of in game money is not a good restriction mechanic as the economy WILL outpace the currency restrictions. This has been proven over and over through MMOs over the decades (it is why I dislike player driven economies). It is why many MMOs change its currency every so often.

    So "cost" should never be a factor to balancing, hard aspects should which can not be "out purchased" over time. Mechanics that force a time restriction (ie down time) that can not be reduced without carefully allowed reduction (ie planned items/skills) should be what is used in my opinion.


    This post was edited by Tanix at April 21, 2019 10:01 AM PDT
    • 3237 posts
    April 21, 2019 10:35 AM PDT

    Seeing that a player driven economy is key to Pantheon, and that currency should require both time and effort to obtain, money sinks ("cost") are extremely important for the health of the game.  Traditional time restrictions can also be reduced by paying a "cost" if it's possible to purchase a teleport, clarity buff, rez, or corpse summon.  Even when it comes to rare/exotic spells that can only be found while adventuring, it's only a matter of time before players can pay others to assist them with acquiring them.  Objectively speaking, we already know that Pantheon is going to be a game that focuses on having a vibrant player-driven economy.  There needs to be checks and balances in place so the more "cost" elements in the game, the better, IMO.  As far as maximum ranger damage being gated behind the highest-quality arrows, that is more of an exception to the rule due to their rate of consumption, but all classes that throw daggers or shoot arrows would be affected.  There is nothing wrong with exceptions as it adds spice and flavor to the world.  Not everything needs to be perfectly balanced between all of the classes/archetypes/races.  If rangers have more expensive upkeep due to their ammo consumption, it is what it is.  The game isn't broken.  Again, I look at it as more of a privilege than a burden, but there should be a noticeable impact for the players who maintain a stockpile of the more expensive consumables/food/drink/ammo.  Rangers shouldn't require the best ammo to function in their role but those who go out of their way to have it on their person should benefit from the inherent bonus of higher quality materials.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at April 21, 2019 11:05 AM PDT
    • 1033 posts
    April 21, 2019 11:18 AM PDT

    oneADseven said:

    Seeing that a player driven economy is key to Pantheon, and that currency should require both time and effort to obtain, money sinks ("cost") are extremely important for the health of the game.  Traditional time restrictions can also be reduced by paying a "cost" if it's possible to purchase a teleport, clarity buff, rez, or corpse summon.  Even when it comes to rare/exotic spells that can only be found while adventuring, it's only a matter of time before players can pay others to assist them with acquiring them.  Objectively speaking, we already know that Pantheon is going to be a game that focuses on having a vibrant player-driven economy. 

    There needs to be checks and balances in place so the more "cost" elements in the game, the better, IMO. 

    This is an area where I disagree with VR and anyone who advocate for in-game economies. It is because they never implement cost factors of reality into those economies. The reality of life is that there are numerous costs, risks, expenses to run a business and a game never properly emulates all these cost factors of reality so no “economy” in a game is of any “realistic” means as it does not contain these factors of constraint (ie taxes, fees, cost of living for the owner through state, city, federal costs, perishable aspects, state/political influence, storage limitations, etc…).

    Because none of these realistic factors exist, many solutions in the game are unrealistic (ie buying up a bunch of crab cakes off the market to store them an manipulate price is not realistic if you do not have to consider specialized storage costs such a refrigeration or that of perishable product dates). So, game economies aren’t anything realistic, they are just “toy economies” with numerous unrealistic abuses driving them without balance.

    That is not to say I am against in-game economies entirely, but to this date I have yet to see a game actually implement the pros/cons of a real economy, rather they player make believe economy.



    oneADseven said:

    As far as maximum ranger damage being gated behind the highest-quality arrows, that is more of an exception to the rule due to their rate of consumption, but all classes that throw daggers or shoot arrows would be affected.  There is nothing wrong with exceptions as it adds spice and flavor to the world.  Not everything needs to be perfectly balanced between all of the classes/archetypes/races.  If rangers have more expensive upkeep due to their ammo consumption, it is what it is.  The game isn't broken.  Again, I look at it as more of a privilege than a burden, but there should be a noticeable impact for the players who maintain a stockpile of the more expensive consumables/food/drink/ammo.  Rangers shouldn't require the best ammo to function in their role but those who go out of their way to have it on their person should benefit from the inherent bonus of higher quality materials.


    Again, my concern is not class to class balance, I could care less. My concern is always class to environment balance and having a class be able to have unlimited range potential is an imbalance, no matter how “cool” some people think it is or how “neat” it would be. A ranger who can have an unlimited potential to do strong damage from range without any constraints is not a good design focus.

     

    • 40 posts
    April 21, 2019 7:01 PM PDT
    I too made my own arrows in WoW, and had a quiver that let me shoot faster.
    • 40 posts
    April 21, 2019 8:41 PM PDT

    Iksar said:

    everett said:

    I get that a lot of people don't like it, but my arguement would be that it was such a class defining trait though, to make your own bows and arrows for rangers, that it would be almost sacreligious to not have it.  The down time that 'everyone' wants to socialize is a good time to spend working on fletching skills.  I used to do that all the time with my ranger in EQ.  It also gave me an opportunity to hand them out to other group members who also used them.  

    Plus this also provides a money sink for the economy.

    It's still an unnecessary/unfair tax upon a specific class to engage in half or more of their core function/abilities. 

     

    If it went that route then every class should follow the same design with a taxing resource, however tedious and unfun to gameplay they may be. Rogues needing to craft all their potions/poisons/powders for their abilities, all melee classes needing to continually sharpen/hone their weapons, casters needing reagents for most of their spells, etc.  (I would not like any of this and don't advocate it)

    I 100% disagree with the notion that every single class needs to have the same taxing design for balance purposes.  What an unecessary nightmare to balance...let people decide for themselves if they are willing to engage in a more expensive class...it's part of the beauty of a role playing game...

    That being said...make quivers with the ability to carry, let's say, 50 arrows.  Every time a mob dies, you have a 80% or whatever chance to recover your arrows.  You will have a finite amount, not one that's ridiculous...you save on the weight problem and it's set in such a manner that it makes sense and doesn't break immersion with people carrying 5000 arrows and 4 suits of armor...eventually you'll break enough arrows but that should last you long enough for most evenings out...

    • 3237 posts
    April 21, 2019 9:02 PM PDT

    Tanix said:

    This is an area where I disagree with VR and anyone who advocate for in-game economies. It is because they never implement cost factors of reality into those economies. The reality of life is that there are numerous costs, risks, expenses to run a business and a game never properly emulates all these cost factors of reality so no “economy” in a game is of any “realistic” means as it does not contain these factors of constraint (ie taxes, fees, cost of living for the owner through state, city, federal costs, perishable aspects, state/political influence, storage limitations, etc…).

    Because none of these realistic factors exist, many solutions in the game are unrealistic (ie buying up a bunch of crab cakes off the market to store them an manipulate price is not realistic if you do not have to consider specialized storage costs such a refrigeration or that of perishable product dates). So, game economies aren’t anything realistic, they are just “toy economies” with numerous unrealistic abuses driving them without balance.

    That is not to say I am against in-game economies entirely, but to this date I have yet to see a game actually implement the pros/cons of a real economy, rather they player make believe economy.

    Again, my concern is not class to class balance, I could care less. My concern is always class to environment balance and having a class be able to have unlimited range potential is an imbalance, no matter how “cool” some people think it is or how “neat” it would be. A ranger who can have an unlimited potential to do strong damage from range without any constraints is not a good design focus.

    You use the word "unlimited" multiple times but seemingly ignore the "cost" that has been established.  I understand that you don't like player-driven economies but that doesn't make the costs associated with them any less of a legitimate constraint.  I never said unlimited range potential would be "cool" or "neat" but you're quoting those words while responding to me as if to imply that they are somehow related to my position.  I opened my sentence by saying that I prefer for ammo to be expendable  --  by definition, that means that each arrow would only be used once.  I think I went out of my way to state my very clear perspective in that I think high-quality ammo should be an expensive consumable that requires a meaningful sense of time/effort to maintain a healthy supply of.  If you think that's impossible, that's your own business.  I have seen arrows utilized as a valuable component of a player-driven economy and that is something I would like to see in Pantheon.  Money sinks are important in this kind of game and if you're going to charge a premium for ammunition then it should be worthy of the cost.

    This isn't anything revolutionary, cool, or neat.  It's a pretty classic/standard element of gameplay.  Suggesting that money/cost is not a legitimate constraint ignores the premise that this game will have a great economy and if you have that mindset then I think the entire scope of your design focus/preference is contradictive with the planned goals of this game.  The economy will be just fine if crabcakes don't spoil or need approval from the Pantheon Food & Drug Administration.  You're setting obnoxiously high standards of what a "real economy" should function like in a game (as you said, no game has ever met your standard)  --  and then writing off anything less as a "toy economy"  --  and then, based on that personally derived realization, you twist/conclude that some people think it would be cool or neat for rangers to have unlimited potential to do strong damage from range without any constraints.  I have seen your other thread where you try to segregate people into different camps of "wanting to overcome obstacles" and "what cool things can I get/have/make"  --  there was some pretty sound advice offered up in that thread on why it's bad to try and divide/isolate people into those two camps when reality suggests that most people are more likely to be somewhere in the middle.

    In any event ... a player driven economy is key to Pantheon.  Any idea/suggestion/opinion/fact/opinion-posed-as-fact that deviates from that stated reality is something that I would consider mostly off-topic.  Again, you're free to disagree with VR and anybody else aligned with their stance in advocating for a strong player-driven economy ... but that's just your opinion.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at April 22, 2019 7:09 AM PDT
    • 768 posts
    April 21, 2019 10:11 PM PDT

    I'm demanding party when it comes to requiring ammunition for ranged weapons. It's just something that gives classes that use those ranges weapons more depth and character. 

    It's all part of the class and up and down sides of the game and class choice design. It also allows for a huge economic opportunity and if designed well, it can even lead on to different playstyles and combat strategies. So purely based on the choice of ammo used in a fight, the outcome might be different or the dependency towards other classes could be different as wel. I find that a very attractive option in the game. Mob fights could even be designed in such a fashion that it could be a subtle way to make a fight easier if one chooses the correct ranged ammo to tackle the mob with. Or in a longer fight it might require different kinds of ranged ammo, so you might need different players using different kind of ammo's, etc.

    It makes it all very juicy and fun to play.

    The idea to endlessly shoot arrows where you have none on you, does not appeal to me. And this would be a real downer for me when I scale the dev's designer choices for the game. 

    Unlimited ammo or no ammo at all, seems a very quick and easy way to design ranged combat. 

    • 1033 posts
    April 22, 2019 9:10 AM PDT

    oneADseven said:

    You use the word "unlimited" multiple times but seemingly ignore the "cost" that has been established.  I understand that you don't like player-driven economies but that doesn't make the costs associated with them any less of a legitimate constraint.  I never said unlimited range potential would be "cool" or "neat" but you're quoting those words while responding to me as if to imply that they are somehow related to my position.  I opened my sentence by saying that I prefer for ammo to be expendable  --  by definition, that means that each arrow would only be used once.  I think I went out of my way to state my very clear perspective in that I think high-quality ammo should be an expensive consumable that requires a meaningful sense of time/effort to maintain a healthy supply of.  If you think that's impossible, that's your own business.  I have seen arrows utilized as a valuable component of a player-driven economy and that is something I would like to see in Pantheon.  Money sinks are important in this kind of game and if you're going to charge a premium for ammunition then it should be worthy of the cost.

    oneADseven said:

    Seeing that a player driven economy is key to Pantheon, and that currency should require both time and effort to obtain, money sinks ("cost") are extremely important for the health of the game.  Traditional time restrictions can also be reduced by paying a "cost" if it's possible to purchase a teleport, clarity buff, rez, or corpse summon.  Even when it comes to rare/exotic spells that can only be found while adventuring, it's only a matter of time before players can pay others to assist them with acquiring them.  Objectively speaking, we already know that Pantheon is going to be a game that focuses on having a vibrant player-driven economy. 

    There needs to be checks and balances in place so the more "cost" elements in the game, the better, IMO. 

     

    Your entire point above is how "cost" is an important factor for checks and balances. I am pointing out that "cost" is quickly invalidated by player ecomonies and how inflation, dupping, plat selling, etc... outpaces the cost balance factor. An example, in EQ, in a single week, the average amount a player had went from 10-100 plat to that of millions of plat. This was due to duping in the game that deflated currency value.

    The problem with tying balancing to "cost" in a system where player markets control inflation is that the static cost of those items get quickly outpaced. Also, individuals who "gimmick" the market invalidate the balancing mechanism (ie the cost of the ammo has no effect to those who have TONS of money). Then there is the plat buying issue which WILL exist in Pantheon regardless of how much VR tries to stop it. So, players will be able to circumvent game balance issues by using RMT to bypass the balancing.

    This is why it is a bad idea to tie balancing to such systems. Anything that allows a player to negate entirely the obstacle of the balancing is not a good design. The obstacle must never be eliminated, it can be "reduced" through controlled means allowed by the developers (gear, spells, skills, etc...), but it should never be allowed to be invalidated and monetary based restrictions allow for this and have proven to be irrelevant in numerous games that applied them. Are there solutions? Sure, you could tie the games non-player economies to that of the the player ones so costs would rise with the market, but you and I both know that will not work as tying the player market to the game would KILL many aspects of game play balance because player markets have no controls and have no consequences in their designs as I explained.

    So, in my suggestion (or rather Iksars original idea), I tied how much you can carry in ammo and how much you can use in battle to a similar controlled system that mana has. This can not be circumvented outsided of inteded design. That means the player market or RMT market can not skew or imbalance that aspect of play.

    Purchase requirements work well in single player games where the economies are completely controlled, in a vacuum and players are forced to a specific progression, but they do not work in MMO economies due to the human factor to which not only has no real consequence mechanics, but has numerous static systems to which can be imbalanced.

     

     

     

    oneADseven said:

    This isn't anything revolutionary, cool, or neat.  It's a pretty classic/standard element of gameplay.  Suggesting that money/cost is not a legitimate constraint ignores the premise that this game will have a great economy and if you have that mindset then I think the entire scope of your design focus/preference is contradictive with the planned goals of this game.  The economy will be just fine if crabcakes don't spoil or need approval from the Pantheon Food & Drug Administration.  You're setting obnoxiously high standards of what a "real economy" should function like in a game (as you said, no game has ever met your standard)  --  and then writing off anything less as a "toy economy"  --  and then, based on that personally derived realization, you twist/conclude that some people think it would be cool or neat for rangers to have unlimited potential to do strong damage from range without any constraints.  I have seen your other thread where you try to segregate people into different camps of "wanting to overcome obstacles" and "what cool things can I get/have/make"  --  there was some pretty sound advice offered up in that thread on why it's bad to try and divide/isolate people into those two camps when reality suggests that most people are more likely to be somewhere in the middle.

    In any event ... a player driven economy is key to Pantheon.  Any idea/suggestion/opinion/fact/opinion-posed-as-fact that deviates from that stated reality is something that I would consider mostly off-topic.  Again, you're free to disagree with VR and anybody else aligned with their stance in advocating for a strong player-driven economy ... but that's just your opinion.

     

    A player driven economy is not key to pantheon, in fact it doesn't even need to exist. EQ was designed WITHOUT one, it paid NO attention to it, nor did it balance or facilitate it. In fact, the player economy didn't even really begin to take off until Kunark and it wasn't until I think SoL when they added the Bazzar that they even attempted to add any features to accomodate it.

    So no, a player driven economy is NOT key as EQ and other games that did not cater to it were still VERY successful.

    lastly, I don't "hate" player economies, I dislike the fact that player economies are used as cheats in play. They are sanctioned content circumvention tools which allow players to ignore the designed content to gain a given item by grinding out easy content or playing trade gimmicks. That is, a person can get the "holy staff of the warrior" which was placed in a series of tests to which only the hardened and skiled player could hope to accompllish and it puts it on a market where the worst players in the game can simply purchase the reward.

    That AND the fact that the trade system has ZERO realistic consequence controls. It isn't reality in any way. At least the adventure portion of the game attempts to balance out some reality (HP, Mana, damage, run speed, AC, etc...) all components meant to provide risk/reward, action/consequence management, etc..., but NONE of that exists in the player trade economy which is what I was trying to explain to you.

    In real life, you pay taxes, have costs, fees, and conditions which make business volatile and risky. There is a reason why over 80% of businesses fail in the first 2 years and it is because a business has to outpace its costs to be functional. In a game, there ARE NO COSTS, there is no "outpacing" needed. You can get away with numerous things that you could never get away with in the real world because player economies are faux economies, they don't even try to emulate reality, they are pure fiction, pure make believe. There is no risk or consequence. As I said, at LEAST the adventure side tries to emulate some sort of balance to such a system.

    So no, I don't HATE player trade economies, I just view them as sanctioned player cheats to the game and ones that advocate and encourage RMT intentionally or not.

     

    • 3237 posts
    April 22, 2019 10:00 AM PDT

    Tanix said:

     Your entire point above is how "cost" is an important factor for checks and balances. I am pointing out that "cost" is quickly invalidated by player ecomonies and how inflation, dupping, plat selling, etc... outpaces the cost balance factor. An example, in EQ, in a single week, the average amount a player had went from 10-100 plat to that of millions of plat. This was due to duping in the game that deflated currency value.

    A player driven economy is not key to pantheon, in fact it doesn't even need to exist. EQ was designed WITHOUT one, it paid NO attention to it, nor did it balance or facilitate it. In fact, the player economy didn't even really begin to take off until Kunark and it wasn't until I think SoL when they added the Bazzar that they even attempted to add any features to accomodate it.

    So no, a player driven economy is NOT key as EQ and other games that did not cater to it were still VERY successful. 

    You're wrong.  I suggest you do your research on this game as the Chief Creative Officer (Brad McQuaid) has stated repeatedly that a player driven economy is key/paramount/vital to Pantheon.  That stance has existed since 2014 and has been reinforced time and time again since then.  This game isn't Everquest.  He has mentioned numerous times that currency will have real value in Terminus and specifically touched on the importance of consumables and other types of gold sinks.  I have been down this road with you before.  You suggest that the existence of RMT somehow invalidates "cost" as a metric since players can "circumvent" the acquisition of currency.  By that same logic, it will also be possible for players to purchase accounts.  When a player purchases an account they are "circumventing" any and every achievement that has gone into that account.  Whether it's leveling up, avoiding corpse runs, unlocking every spell or piece of armor in the game, grinding maximum AA's  --  whatever it is, it can ALL be circumvented by purchasing an account.  You don't get to pick and choose when your logic applies.  If you're going to invalidate "cost" as a metric due to RMT then you must also invalidate "effort" as a metric since it can be circumvented by using that exact same RMT rabbit hole that you keep basing your arguments around.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at April 22, 2019 10:16 AM PDT
    • 1033 posts
    April 22, 2019 10:19 AM PDT

    oneADseven said:

    Tanix said:

     Your entire point above is how "cost" is an important factor for checks and balances. I am pointing out that "cost" is quickly invalidated by player ecomonies and how inflation, dupping, plat selling, etc... outpaces the cost balance factor. An example, in EQ, in a single week, the average amount a player had went from 10-100 plat to that of millions of plat. This was due to duping in the game that deflated currency value.

    A player driven economy is not key to pantheon, in fact it doesn't even need to exist. EQ was designed WITHOUT one, it paid NO attention to it, nor did it balance or facilitate it. In fact, the player economy didn't even really begin to take off until Kunark and it wasn't until I think SoL when they added the Bazzar that they even attempted to add any features to accomodate it.

    So no, a player driven economy is NOT key as EQ and other games that did not cater to it were still VERY successful. 

    You're wrong.  I suggest you do your research on this game as the Chief Creative Officer (Brad McQuaid) has stated repeatedly that a player driven economy is key/paramount/vital to Pantheon.  That stance has existed since 2014 and has been reinforced time and time again since then.  This game isn't Everquest.  He has mentioned numerous times that currency will have real value in Terminus and specifically touched on the importance of consumables and other types of gold sinks.  I have been down this road with you before.  You suggest that the existence of RMT somehow invalidates "cost" as a metric since players can "circumvent" the acquisition of currency.  By that same logic, it will also be possible for players to purchase accounts.  When a player purchases an account they are "circumventing" any and every achievement that has gone into that account.  Whether it's leveling up, avoiding corpse runs, unlocking every spell or piece of armor in the game, grinding maximum AA's  --  whatever it is, it can ALL be circumvented by purchasing an account.  You don't get to pick and choose when your logic applies.  If you're going to invalidate "cost" as a metric due to RMT then you must also invalidate "effort" as a metric since it can be circumvented by using that exact same RMT rabbit hole that you keep basing your arguments around.

    Yep, I am wrong.

    Bye!

    • 2752 posts
    April 22, 2019 11:18 AM PDT

    Ludek said:

    I 100% disagree with the notion that every single class needs to have the same taxing design for balance purposes.  What an unecessary nightmare to balance...let people decide for themselves if they are willing to engage in a more expensive class...it's part of the beauty of a role playing game...

    So you and others are okay with one class having to spend far more money than others to at BEST do equal damage to the other DPS classes? Or are you advocating for one class to be able to "pay to win" in terms of outperforming others (by using top tier arrows) so long as they are loaded with money? 

    • 1033 posts
    April 22, 2019 11:33 AM PDT

    Iksar said:

    Ludek said:

    I 100% disagree with the notion that every single class needs to have the same taxing design for balance purposes.  What an unecessary nightmare to balance...let people decide for themselves if they are willing to engage in a more expensive class...it's part of the beauty of a role playing game...

    So you and others are okay with one class having to spend far more money than others to at BEST do equal damage to the other DPS classes? Or are you advocating for one class to be able to "pay to win" in terms of outperforming others (by using top tier arrows) so long as they are loaded with money? 

    in the long run Iksar, that "cost" gets absorbed into inflation and then no longer becomes a cost at all. Also, if you buy plat, that cost is irrelevant. It is pay to win in that respect (as players can easily buy out the balancing factor).

     

    That said, what do you think about the suggestion based on your own evaluation that I made? Would making rangers "making" arrows similar to what a mage does in mana regeneration seem like a viable solution? It puts them in the same balance as a caster (ie their longjevity in a fight is finite, and they can replenish stock with down time) and it still allows for arrows to be purchased and made, but how many you have is always limited to what your quiver holds.

    That sound like a reasonable balancing mechanism?

    • 3237 posts
    April 22, 2019 11:42 AM PDT

    It's entirely possible that a wizard might have to spend a massive amount of money in order to acquire a specific robe or staff that amplifies their damage.  It's possible that a summoner might need to pay for help to unlock a new pet that does considerably more damage than the other pet types.  All classes that use ammunition would need to purchase those same exact arrows if they want to provide the "best possible" ranged physical damage.  If monks can't use bows then they too would need to purchase top-tier throwing daggers in order to provide maximum ranged physical damage.  It isn't really fair to suggest that rangers would have to spend "far more money" than other classes in order to do equal damage.  Ammunition would be considered a recurring cost because it would function as an expendable consumable.  What if there is a rare potion or food that provides wizards with a bigger increase to their damage than what potions/food might provide other classes?  Should they always have to pay for clarity buffs if an enchanter isn't present so that they can be dishing out the most damage possible for their class?  Are wizards required to always have potions/food/clarity ticking in order to do equal damage to other classes, or would you be advocating that they should be able to pay to win in terms of outperforming others (by using top tier food/potions) so long as they are loaded with money?  When you try to balance everything to be completely fair then you sap life/spice/flavor/flair out of the world and unique differentiators from the various classes, playstyles, and their role in the economy.

    If someone can't stand the idea of being more reliant on consumables than other classes then that is a choice for them to consider when they pick their class.  It's entirely possible that rangers will have more solo viability than other classes which then gives them an advantage for accumulating currency compared to another DPS class which would then offset the cost.  It's entirely possible that rangers will have other tools/abilities in their kit (like tracking/foraging) that might allow them to alleviate a portion of these costs depending on how they progress their character.  They may even be able to take up woodworking as a profession in order to avoid paying crafter fees for their ammo.  There is nothing wrong with a certain class being more expensive to play.  If that logic was valid it would imply that all classes should be able to cast teleport to be on par with the travel advantages of wizards/druids, or have improved solo efficiency for better farming.  Or does your argument only extend to raw damage in combat?  Either way, that argument still doesn't hold up, IMO.  There will be countless ways for players to improve their damage by purchasing gear/spells/consumables  --  just because rangers would have more of a recurring cost for their consumables doesn't mean they are being slighted.  I agree with Ludek in saying that people should be able to decide for themselves what kind of class they want to play  --  that is a big part of the beauty of a roleplaying game.  Some rangers will be filthy rich while others are poor.  As long as they have some sort of fletching skill that allows them to create decent ammunition for their level then everything will be fine.  The best ammunition should be more impactful and there is nothing wrong with charging a fair premium for what ultimately amounts to a pretty accessible advantage over the lifespan of a character.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at April 22, 2019 11:52 AM PDT
    • 646 posts
    April 22, 2019 11:57 AM PDT

    No thanks. Classes already have resources to manage, and I don't think it's particularly fair or enjoyable to force a ranger to carry around arrows to make use of their abilities. That'd be like forcing a warrior to carry around a sword for each swing.

    Now, a quiver as an equippable, nonconsumable item that has different effects depending on which quiver you equip? Sure, sign me up. Having to burden my inventory with stacks and stacks of consumables for basic attacks that other classes don't have to deal with? No thank you.

    oneADseven said:It's entirely possible that a wizard might have to spend a massive amount of money in order to acquire a specific robe or staff that amplifies their damage.  It's possible that a summoner might need to pay for help to unlock a new pet that does considerably more damage than the other pet types.  All classes that use ammunition would need to purchase those same exact arrows if they want to provide the "best possible" ranged physical damage.  If monks can't use bows then they too would need to purchase top-tier throwing daggers in order to provide maximum ranged physical damage.  It isn't really fair to suggest that rangers would have to spend "far more money" than other classes in order to do equal damage.  Ammunition would be considered a recurring cost because it would function as an expendable consumable.  What if there is a rare potion or food that provides wizards with a bigger increase to their damage than what potions/food might provide other classes?  Should they always have to pay for clarity buffs if an enchanter isn't present so that they can be dishing out the most damage possible for their class?  Are wizards required to always have potions/food/clarity ticking in order to do equal damage to other classes, or would you be advocating that they should be able to pay to win in terms of outperforming others (by using top tier food/potions) so long as they are loaded with money?  When you try to balance everything to be completely fair then you sap life/spice/flavor/flair out of the world and unique differentiators from the various classes, playstyles, and their role in the economy.

    I'm pretty sure rangers also may have to buy high-quality gear, or a better weapon, or help to unlock a new spell, or consumables. None of those things are class-unique.


    This post was edited by Naunet at April 22, 2019 11:59 AM PDT
    • 3237 posts
    April 22, 2019 12:05 PM PDT

    Naunet said:

    I'm pretty sure rangers also may have to buy high-quality gear, or a better weapon, or help to unlock a new spell, or consumables. None of those things are class-unique.

    Nor are they completely balanced since some classes will have more abilities than others, more gear choices, or receive different levels of efficiency from consumables.  Not only that, but some classes will be more common than others which then changes the supply vs demand and it's associated values for anything related to that class.  If there ends up being more rangers than warriors, should bows have a higher drop rate to compensate for that variance in the name of fairness?  Players should carve out their own paths and overcome the challenges of the world rather than having any sort of expectation that the world is being designed in a way to accommodate them.  As soon as every class has equal solo viability and farming potential then we can start talking about how important "fairness" is when it comes to the relative cost and upkeep of playing a certain class or archetype.

    Naunet said:

    Now, a quiver as an equippable, nonconsumable item that has different effects depending on which quiver you equip? Sure, sign me up. Having to burden my inventory with stacks and stacks of consumables for basic attacks that other classes don't have to deal with? No thank you.

    Most games offer a quiver for ammo storage so that arrows don't have to compete with traditional inventory space.  There is no "burden" when this very standard concept is applied.  Beyond that, rangers aren't exclusively bound to ranged attacks seeing that they are proficient with melee weapons and have various melee abilities.  Also ... it's not like rangers will be the only class that uses arrows for ranged basic attacks.  Any class that can equip a bow will follow the same rules and throwing daggers accomplish the same thing for those that cannot.  I imagine a bandolier being used in place of a quiver for classes that use throwing daggers.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at April 22, 2019 12:17 PM PDT
    • 1033 posts
    April 22, 2019 12:12 PM PDT

    Naunet said:

    No thanks. Classes already have resources to manage, and I don't think it's particularly fair or enjoyable to force a ranger to carry around arrows to make use of their abilities. That'd be like forcing a warrior to carry around a sword for each swing.

    A sword is singular object that is swung to do damage.

     

    You don't lose it each swing. An arrow is a projectile that is sent off at the target which has a finite amount.

    How do you purpose to deal with these obvious inconsistences or do you think to use "its magic" to explain away everything?


    This post was edited by Tanix at April 22, 2019 12:13 PM PDT
    • 646 posts
    April 22, 2019 12:16 PM PDT

    Tanix said:How do you purpose to deal with these obvious inconsistences or do you think to use "its magic" to explain away everything?

    I think the matter of ammunition is one I am perfectly comfortable handwaving, rather than having to constantly repurchase arrows. It wasn't fun in WoW, and it wouldn't be fun here either.

    • 1033 posts
    April 22, 2019 12:18 PM PDT

    Naunet said:

    Tanix said:How do you purpose to deal with these obvious inconsistences or do you think to use "its magic" to explain away everything?

    I think the matter of ammunition is one I am perfectly comfortable handwaving, rather than having to constantly repurchase arrows. It wasn't fun in WoW, and it wouldn't be fun here either.

    Fun is subjective. What makes your opinion of it being "not fun" valid over that of the arguments that attempt to argue the practical relevance of balance in game systems?

    • 1315 posts
    April 22, 2019 12:24 PM PDT

     

    Expendable Ammo I put in the same category as expensive spell components and item repair. Have all or none of them. Basically its a resource tracking game or it is not. There are plenty of ways to differentiate the classes other than how many resources it takes to play the class.

    Now if you on the other hand had an item slot for the type of non expended ammo you were using that could be interesting. You could change from bladed, to blunt to armor piercing. You could use ammo that had specific elements attached that interacted with different mob types. Thrown weapons might come in similar variations as well as wands if they decide to go that route. I remember them seeming interested in the concept of the caster auto attack but not anything else.

    The ammo and thrown weapons in this case would be a non expendable objects that worked in tandem with the ranged weapon to give the final attack stats and might just be a sub item you actually attach to the ranged weapon but can change out of combat.

    All that being said I prefer the resource tracking game as it feeds into the player economy and crafting system. Track everything: ammo, magical spell components that can be bought or crafted for less, magical charges on items or item decay that require salvaging items to recharge/repair (magical charges might be less hateful than true item decay). I would however add a secondary bag slot that is only for either ammo bags or spell component pouches. For that mater the type of spell component you use could effect the spell and that would be interesting as well.

    In terms of the Ranger specifically if ranged combat is a primary part of the class then I would recommend some form of summon arrow ability either in or out of combat. The ranger can choose to use high power crafted arrows or lower power summoned ones.

     


    This post was edited by Trasak at April 22, 2019 12:28 PM PDT
    • 2752 posts
    April 22, 2019 1:44 PM PDT

    oneADseven said:

    It's entirely possible that a wizard might have to spend a massive amount of money in order to acquire a specific robe or staff that amplifies their damage.  It's possible that a summoner might need to pay for help to unlock a new pet that does considerably more damage than the other pet types.  All classes that use ammunition would need to purchase those same exact arrows if they want to provide the "best possible" ranged physical damage.  If monks can't use bows then they too would need to purchase top-tier throwing daggers in order to provide maximum ranged physical damage.  It isn't really fair to suggest that rangers would have to spend "far more money" than other classes in order to do equal damage.  Ammunition would be considered a recurring cost because it would function as an expendable consumable.  What if there is a rare potion or food that provides wizards with a bigger increase to their damage than what potions/food might provide other classes?  

     Some rangers will be filthy rich while others are poor.  As long as they have some sort of fletching skill that allows them to create decent ammunition for their level then everything will be fine.  The best ammunition should be more impactful and there is nothing wrong with charging a fair premium for what ultimately amounts to a pretty accessible advantage over the lifespan of a character.

    The problem comes when you start adding extras/consumbles and I would rather not go there. Strip everything extra from figuring out class balances or expenses, focus solely on a barebones geared character of any given class. All the classes would be more or less fully capable/competitive in their given roles EXCEPT ranger if they are forced into expendable ammo(s). 

    So you envision ranger outperforming other classes if they use the best ammo types? Basically you feel the ranger should be the best DPS class if they are rich or subpar if they are not? 

     

    (Also: behooving any one class into a specific tradeskill when all are players are limited to one skill stinks of poor design I'd say.)

    Tanix said:

    That said, what do you think about the suggestion based on your own evaluation that I made? Would making rangers "making" arrows similar to what a mage does in mana regeneration seem like a viable solution? It puts them in the same balance as a caster (ie their longjevity in a fight is finite, and they can replenish stock with down time) and it still allows for arrows to be purchased and made, but how many you have is always limited to what your quiver holds.

    That sound like a reasonable balancing mechanism?

    I mean, it's one way to do it sure. I still feel that if rangers having infinite ammo for whatever ranged ammo type they have found/bought is somehow an issue (keeping in mind if a ranger only does ranged DPS their damage will suffer/they will underperfom) then they would better be served making ranged attacks require being stationary or making arrows a limited resource that is regained by being in melee. So if they had 10 ammo total, jumping into melee would keep their momentum up and melee abilities would return ammo when an enemy is hit (otherwise ammo would likely regen at a flat rate of 1 every 5 or 10 seconds). Almost a retreive arrow type thing. 

    • 370 posts
    April 22, 2019 2:05 PM PDT

    As an enchanter I can only imagine the amount of arrows I could have bought with all the money I gave players and NPCs to buy spells. 

     

    I don't mind rangers having to buy arrows but I would like to see the overall money sink offset by them having cheaper spells. If they are forced to purchase spells AND buy arrows I think that's a little unfair. Yes this really only matters at the start of the game but that part of the game still matters. You can't just omit a feature because as inflation increases it will eventually become trivial.