I don't even mind that Kilsin referenced the woes of set bonuses from Vanguard. It's a good thing that he can reflect on the painpoints that were observed from prior games. Either way, I am confident that VR could overcome this obstacle if they really wanted to. Whether or not they do remains to be seen but I do hope that set bonuses haven't already been ruled out. They can be utilized without breaking the game but I do agree that extra care and consideration would need to go into the process of their implementation. I have all the faith in the world in VR.
oneADseven said:@Zeem -- Whatever floats your boat. It wasn't an attempt to troll you, but rather demonstrate how relevant a point is when there is no context provided behind your shared assessment. Saying you do not like something contributes nothing to the discussion other than letting everybody know that someone, for some reason, doesn't like something. I gained nothing from that. I love how you edited your comment about me being a shared set bonus with twinkies. (I really don't like them, yuck.) Anyway, you are more than welcome to share your opinion. If you would like to elaborate on why you feel the way you do, it might be easier for people to relate to your position and possibly learn something. That's the purpose of a forum by the way. If "yes" or "no" answers were considered valuable you would see a bunch of polls being utilized and last I checked we don't see those around here. At the end of the day, you are right. You don't have to explain anything. I will make a better attempt at managing my expectations with you moving forward.
I edited because I didnt want to further the discussion, however funny it was. I also didn;t want to be offensive(I know shocking). I made my post because I wanted to add my voice to the pool. Its like voting, you vote yes or no, you don;t also have to add your reasons.
If they do simple metrics for the yays and nays for set bonuses then I will add one more vote. I hope that is ok with you.
Zeem said:oneADseven said:SNIP
I edited because I didnt want to further the discussion, however funny it was. I also didn;t want to be offensive(I know shocking). I made my post because I wanted to add my voice to the pool. Its like voting, you vote yes or no, you don;t also have to add your reasons.
If they do simple metrics for the yays and nays for set bonuses then I will add one more vote. I hope that is ok with you.
Except it's not like voting, and this isn't a "simple metric for yays and nays" -- if you read back through the thread you'll see that plenty of people chimed in with their opinion, but they all provided some sort of context on why they feel the way they do. Again, that's how forums work. If you want to be special and use it as a platform for yes/no answers or as a voting mechanism (when it's not) then more power to you. I'm just letting you know that sharing an opinion with no context doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion. I would like to hear your thought process on why you feel the way you do and use it as a learning experience. You saw that I provided a pretty detailed explanation on why I think set bonuses could be a good thing. I don't really care whether you agree or disagree but I am interested in why you feel the way you do. I hope that is okay with you.
oneADseven said:Anyway, why couldn't bonuses be used as a form of "situational" gear that is also tied into progression? I see it mentioned that there has to be a trade-off ... but why couldn't part of the "trade-off" be the amount of time you have to dedicate to acquire a full set that ultimately only fulfills a situational purpose? I have seen 2 piece set bonuses used in a few games and I always enjoyed them. There is nothing wrong with having more combinations to consider as it pertains to situational gear. To be honest, if it were up to me, I would purposely use set bonuses for armor as a "bridge" of sorts.
What I mean by that is this ... rather than designing set bonuses to purposely be the absolute best gear for a variety of situational scenarios, tone them down a bit so they can be used as more of an entry-level type gear for certain resistance thresholds. You could get your resistances high enough to do battle in the Volcano zone if you manage to acquire the magma set, but there would be other combinations of gear that would be better if you managed to get your hands on the really rare pieces that aren't a part of a set.
Magma-Forged Breastplate: 100 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Spaulders: 80 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Legplates: 90 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Gloves: 75 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Boots: 70 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Set Bonuses: If you have 3 pieces, extra 10 Fire Resistance. If you have 5 pieces, extra 25 Fire Resistance. (They do not stack)
Net Gain for full set = 415 AC, 50 STA, 75 Fire Resistance
...
But why is a set bonus necessary at all? Why not just have each "Magma" piece with 15 fire resist for the same 75 resist at 5 pieces, or 13 for gloves/boots/spaulder and 18 for chest/legs? To me it seems more of a restrictive form of itemization.
oneADseven said:Zeem said:oneADseven said:SNIP
I edited because I didnt want to further the discussion, however funny it was. I also didn;t want to be offensive(I know shocking). I made my post because I wanted to add my voice to the pool. Its like voting, you vote yes or no, you don;t also have to add your reasons.
If they do simple metrics for the yays and nays for set bonuses then I will add one more vote. I hope that is ok with you.
Except it's not like voting, and this isn't a "simple metric for yays and nays" -- if you read back through the thread you'll see that plenty of people chimed in with their opinion, but they all provided some sort of context on why they feel the way they do. Again, that's how forums work. If you want to be special and use it as a platform for yes/no answers or as a voting mechanism (when it's not) then more power to you. I'm just letting you know that sharing an opinion with no context doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion. I would like to hear your thought process on why you feel the way you do and use it as a learning experience. You saw that I provided a pretty detailed explanation on why I think set bonuses could be a good thing. I don't really care whether you agree or disagree but I am interested in why you feel the way you do. I hope that is okay with you.
Maybe if I get time.
Iksar said:oneADseven said:Anyway, why couldn't bonuses be used as a form of "situational" gear that is also tied into progression? I see it mentioned that there has to be a trade-off ... but why couldn't part of the "trade-off" be the amount of time you have to dedicate to acquire a full set that ultimately only fulfills a situational purpose? I have seen 2 piece set bonuses used in a few games and I always enjoyed them. There is nothing wrong with having more combinations to consider as it pertains to situational gear. To be honest, if it were up to me, I would purposely use set bonuses for armor as a "bridge" of sorts.
What I mean by that is this ... rather than designing set bonuses to purposely be the absolute best gear for a variety of situational scenarios, tone them down a bit so they can be used as more of an entry-level type gear for certain resistance thresholds. You could get your resistances high enough to do battle in the Volcano zone if you manage to acquire the magma set, but there would be other combinations of gear that would be better if you managed to get your hands on the really rare pieces that aren't a part of a set.
Magma-Forged Breastplate: 100 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Spaulders: 80 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Legplates: 90 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Gloves: 75 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Boots: 70 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Set Bonuses: If you have 3 pieces, extra 10 Fire Resistance. If you have 5 pieces, extra 25 Fire Resistance. (They do not stack)
Net Gain for full set = 415 AC, 50 STA, 75 Fire Resistance
...
But why is a set bonus necessary at all? Why not just have each "Magma" piece with 15 fire resist for the same 75 resist at 5 pieces, or 13 for gloves/boots/spaulder and 18 for chest/legs? To me it seems more of a restrictive form of itemization.
I think there is a draw to collecting sets of things. The collection quests from EQ2 were a big hit and really resonated with the player base. The value to be had here, in my opinion, is creating an opportunity for fulfillment. Imagine while you are working on quests that you got partial credit for each advancement. Let's say a quest rewards you with 100 XP for collecting 10 boar tusks. You don't get the XP until you complete the quest ... that's just how it works. Now imagine if you got 10 XP for each tusk collected as you obtain them. There is no fulfillment for completing the quest and I look at set bonuses as an opportunity to play around this logic. That's why they are considered a "bonus" in the first place ... you get something "extra" for going out of your way to collect each piece. I understand that farming sets of gear isn't the exact same thing as completing a quest but this is an area where I feel like maybe it should be a little more similar.
It wouldn't be the traditional quest as we know it, but rather a player driven goal that is rewarded. Besides ... I think it makes plenty of sense from a fantasy perspective that gear becomes more powerful as you acquire more pieces of a set. This doesn't mean that it needs to be the most powerful gear in the game, but it could be used a bridge to help players cross situational resistance thresholds. Progression is rewarded and the player gets to enjoy a sense of fulfillment for completing their set that extends beyond aesthetics. It could also have an impact on the value of said items because now a pair of magma-forged spaulders could be more valuable to one guy than the next if it's the one piece they are missing from their set. These kind of fluctuating values are something I place a high value on from an economic perspective because of the supply vs demand implications.
@oneADseven - Do you think the same instincts could be triggered in another way? What if, instead of set bonuses coming from being worn together, the set bonus was applied to each of the items in the set once you had collected and bound the set to yourself? While it seems a little bit weird, would that not produce the same sense of achievement that you're discussing and then free you of itemization restrictions? Or maybe it would feel cheap like you got a pair of pants, but the game is forcing you for some reason to pick up some boots just to get the full effect out of them?
My opinion is that I've liked the way some set bonuses have been made in the past, but more often than not I have disliked them. I generally prefer when set bonuses provide quality of life upgrades instead of combat ones, with the main exception being situational gear giving a situational bonus. If there is a set of 4 pieces that are only ever used for fire resist, then I would be fine with giving them a big fire resist boost for having the set. Some MMOs really made sets feel oppressive to me when the bulk of the stats/bonuses on the best item set were for 4-5 pieces and it certainly didn't help the cookie cutter gear syndrome.
Personally, not a big fan of set bonuses, but I typically like to gather a full suit of something because it matches, which I like. That's enough to drive me to acquire sets like Lambent or Ravenscale, even if their stats aren't phenomenal.
Now, it also depends on the bonuses and how they're applied. For example:
You have two rings. One is +2 int +20 mana, the other is +2 con +20 hp... If you're wearing both you get an extra +10 hp and +10 mana.
If set bonuses worked like this and weren't too crazy or cumulative, I'd be perfectly fine with them. Keep them simple and don't make them too powerful imo.
I think using the full set at the same time is a part of the trade-off that is necessary for leveraging the bonus. If the sets are purposely designed as bridge armor, they obviously aren't ideal (BiS). You would use them as a means to an end if you didn't have other ways of buffing your fire resistance up (group/raid composition, limited hotbar selection, consumables, etc) -- but if you did, you might prefer to use whatever gear you have that has the best stats if you do indeed have something better in the first place. It depends on how the thresholds are balanced and how many options players have to buff their resistances outside of gear. Either way, I think set bonuses would work fine if you purposely design them to be situational. Maybe mana regen is too powerful of a bonus. It's hard to say at this point but historically, mana regen is always one of the most highly sought after stats so it would probably have a lot more "uptime" than something like a fire resistance set.
You really venture into cookie cutter territory when you create class specific gear that amplifies your abilities. When you create gear that "When you have 3 pieces, Taunt is more effective. When you have 5 pieces, your defensive cooldowns are reduced." then I think you are heading down the wrong path. The key to making set bonuses work, in my opinion, is sticking with the idea that they would be situational. The next very important thing to consider is that one situation isn't the end-all-be-all which is something I have unfortunately seen. You'll see "Fire Resistance" dominate an entire expansion while poison/divine are left to the crows. I really hope to see a large variety of encounters that each use different kinds of attacks. This will also make progression feel more fulfilling. If Fire Resistance dominates an entire expansion then you only have one thing to work towards and progress feels stagnant.
If there are thresholds for every major resistance then now you have an opportunity to collect the "bridge sets" to get your feet wet, the "very rare" pieces for when you're able to outgrow the bridge armor, and then the "situationally end" jewelery sets. All of this can co-exist with standard gear implementation because the "ceiling" for viability of any set is limited to the resistance that it represents. It would be ideal if there was no "linear path" for what you would start working on. I guess one issue I have seen over the years is "Oh look, a shiny new BP, this will last me until the next Xpac." Sure, it's cool to get something really nice like that ... but now your margin for improvement is nil. I would much prefer to see scenarios like "Oh look, a shiny new FR BP. I might have enough shiny FR items now so that I don't have to use the magma-forged gear while fighting fire mobs anymore." (It's important to note, though, that acquiring the full set of magma-forged gear was still an accomplishment in and of itself)
I'd rather see a large swathe of incremental upgrades that players can work on in any order. This is rewarding in several ways. For one, you can now create more meaningful encounters. If resistances are actually worth a damn, you don't need to see tons of gear rotting away because it's obsolete; you have a much broader spectrum of value to assign to your gear if the resistances are actually meaningful. When it comes to named drops, I would like to see it where most things have some value to someone. BiS gear works against that notion and that's why I am so glad to see an emphasis on "situational gear." Rather than littering a bunch of names with mostly useless drops and a few names with awesome drops, you can populate most names with semi-useful drops and some names with extra-useful drops. Now content is more meaningful and progression feels more rewarding. Items are still memorable and cherished because they are situationally useful ... and the more situations you can thrive in, the more situational gear you can earn to thrive in other situations. And ... it's all non-linear because all resistances are represented. They don't have to be exactly equal, but there shouldn't be huge disparities where it always makes sense to skip out on poison and ice to focus on fire and divine.
oneADseven said:I think there is a draw to collecting sets of things. The collection quests from EQ2 were a big hit and really resonated with the player base. The value to be had here, in my opinion, is creating an opportunity for fulfillment. Imagine while you are working on quests that you got partial credit for each advancement. Let's say a quest rewards you with 100 XP for collecting 10 boar tusks. You don't get the XP until you complete the quest ... that's just how it works. Now imagine if you got 10 XP for each tusk collected as you obtain them. There is no fulfillment for completing the quest and I look at set bonuses as an opportunity to play around this logic. That's why they are considered a "bonus" in the first place ... you get something "extra" for going out of your way to collect each piece. I understand that farming sets of gear isn't the exact same thing as completing a quest but this is an area where I feel like maybe it should be a little more similar.
It wouldn't be the traditional quest as we know it, but rather a player driven goal that is rewarded. Besides ... I think it makes plenty of sense from a fantasy perspective that gear becomes more powerful as you acquire more pieces of a set. This doesn't mean that it needs to be the most powerful gear in the game, but it could be used a bridge to help players cross situational resistance thresholds. Progression is rewarded and the player gets to enjoy a sense of fulfillment for completing their set that extends beyond aesthetics. It could also have an impact on the value of said items because now a pair of magma-forged spaulders could be more valuable to one guy than the next if it's the one piece they are missing from their set. These kind of fluctuating values are something I place a high value on from an economic perspective because of the supply vs demand implications.
I know there is a draw to collecting sets of things, but perhaps a set bonus isn't needed for that? People still enjoyed collecting full sets of matching armors in EQ even when the stats weren't ideal for most pieces (I imagine this will be more a thing now than ever with actual appearance slots), fashion is a massive incentive alone. The quest example is sort of an example of why questing in most games suck (to me), because the reward for quests should be items/currency/faction not experience as the experience should come from being out there doing the quest. So if someone wanted 10 boar tusks then the experience would come with each kill and should I want whatever the NPC offered I could choose to return the tusks. But I get what you are saying.
The issue I have is that having a set bonus means each piece individually has less value and is less flexible as a whole which leads to situations where upgrades aren't exciting. If you have the proposed 5/5 Magma set bonus and finally get one of those better more exotic fire resist pieces (though I imagine Magma armor would offer frost resistance not fire resist ;) ), you can't really use it and it doesn't feel so good. It's a net loss until you happen to get at least two pieces. Instead of step by step pick and choose upgrades you introduce larger gear leaps (however limited in occurance). The more flexible the items are individually the more value they have to the community as a whole I'd say, as opposed to rigid set stat bonus thresholds.
It would however be cool if wearing a complete set of some more rare but perhaps less statistically superior sets offered some aesthetic bonus, in this case maybe the armor gives off a heatwave bluring effect only when equipped as a full set or has some animated magma flows moving across or dripping off the armor.
Kaen said:Personally, not a big fan of set bonuses, but I typically like to gather a full suit of something because it matches, which I like. That's enough to drive me to acquire sets like Lambent or Ravenscale, even if their stats aren't phenomenal.
Now, it also depends on the bonuses and how they're applied. For example:
You have two rings. One is +2 int +20 mana, the other is +2 con +20 hp... If you're wearing both you get an extra +10 hp and +10 mana.
If set bonuses worked like this and weren't too crazy or cumulative, I'd be perfectly fine with them. Keep them simple and don't make them too powerful imo.
I was very much on the "I want set bonuses" team, but after reading everything and thinking about it, I'm kinda shifting gears here.
The quote above reminded me about one thing I loved about EQ and other games with large amounts of gear diversity. Being able to switch pieces of gear out for something better (or even, that just LOOKS better) without fear of ruining a set bonus really increased my enjoyment of the game, now that I think back on it (and now that I'm experiencing it again with P99).
Additionally, I worry that having set bonuses, will result on everyone looking the same. Granted, if they implement a wardrobe system for appearance gear, that wouldn't be an issue, but people would still all be running around with the same set of gear on, and that's not my idea of a good time. This is what happened in LOTRO, during my time there, and it was a bummer. The BiS gear were sets of them, and coincidentally, everyone wore them.
It has been confirmed that we will have appearance slots for our gear. I understand the points about how earning a "very rare" piece might not seem like an upgrade if you end up needing to sacrifice the set bonus but let's analyze that example for a second.
Magma-Forged Breastplate: 100 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Spaulders: 80 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Legplates: 90 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Gloves: 75 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Boots: 70 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance
Magma-Forged Set Bonuses: If you have 3 pieces, extra 10 Fire Resistance. If you have 5 pieces, extra 25 Fire Resistance. (They do not stack)
Net Gain for full set = 415 AC, 50 STA, 75 Fire Resistance
Volcanic Cuirass: 115 AC, 12 STA, 10 AGI, 20 Fire Resistance
Lava Blaze Pauldrons: 95 AC, 12 STA, 5 AGI, 20 Fire Resistance
Sun Scorched Greaves: 105 AC, 10 STA, 4 AGI, 4 DEX, 20 Fire Resistance
Hellfire Gauntlets: 90 AC, 10 STA, 4 AGI, 4 DEX, 20 Fire Resistance
Amberfaet Sabatons: 85 AC, 12 STA, 5 AGI, 20 Fire Resistance
Net Gain for full set (although not an actual "set"): 490 AC, 56 STA, 28 AGI, 8 DEX, 100 Fire Resistance.
Now let's remove the Magma Forged Breastplate from the equation and replace it with the Volcanic Cuirass.
You lose a total of 15 fire resistance but gain 2 STA and 10 AGI.
Let's assume that you also acquire the Lavablaze Pauldrons.
Now you actually gain 5 fire resistance and also gain 4 STA and 15 AGI.
Using the example above, I think the hard stats would most likely be more valuable than the fire resistance as soon as you gain that first very rare piece, but it really depends on the value of resistance and stats and how they hold up against each other, and also just how important the "resistance threshold" is. Either way, you are definitely ahead when you gain a second very rare piece. It's also possible that any very rare piece is something you might consider using outside of "fire resistance" situations due to the improved basic stats so that is a consideration as well. At the end of the day, you would also have more flexibility with how you manage your buffs or which consumables you might use.
Maybe you can afford to forego the STA buff from a group members hotbar and instead replace it with fire resistance. Maybe you end up making changes to your jewelery to compensate for the slight loss of fire resistance but still come out ahead due to the added flexibility of having a choice to make in the first place. I understand what you are saying Iksar but I think these things can be resolved with math. I think it's fair to assume that a formula could be created that would allow for set bonuses to be utilized as "bridge gear" for certain kinds of content, while also preserving the value of the very rare pieces when you obtain them. I'm trying to work with the very basic examples I provided but I imagine things could be tuned better overall to accomplish this goal.
Situational Gear is defined as follows:
"In Pantheon, there often won't simply be a weapon or piece of gear that is the absolute best item for your character’s class and level. Instead, many items will be more situational, and the player will need to ask himself, 'where am I?', 'what am I going to fight next?', and 'who in my group is what class, and what items do they have that may help defeat the next encounter?' Items that protect against climates/atmospheres (areas of extreme heat or cold, or disease, or absolute darkness) will often be important. So also will 'bane' items that are especially effective against certain types of mobs (for example, the Undead, or Dragonkind)."
Set bonuses could be used to reinforce that logic rather than take away from it. Besides actual resistances, there could also be acclimation considerations to ponder. I will admit that set bonuses aren't really required to make all of this work, but they could be used as a form of meaningful progression and fulfillment. I also mentioned how set bonuses have economic implications due to the supply vs demand of individual pieces. As someone who loves to barter, I see value in that. Anything that requires a player to look at what's available on the market and then analyze how the value of something could fluctuate based on changes of circumstance and who you are bartering with is a good thing, in my opinion.
It rewards player knowledge and encourages socialization. There could be a scenario where a player would be willing to trade a breastplate for pauldrons even though the breastplate has a higher perceived value on the market because to that player, the pauldrons could be worth more to him than another player if it's the last piece they need to obtain the full set. I stand by my opinion that set-bonuses could be implemented in such a way that players have more choices to consider, not less. The choices extend just beyond what gear you are wearing at any given moment ... you would also consider the next item you want to try and acquire and a variety of other factors such as hotbar management, group/raid composition, consumable selection, etc.
Things get way more interesting when you start adding secondary or tertiary resistances to gear, and also have encounters where very "niche" items could thrive. For example, there could be a ring (or set of rings) that would be situationally BiS while fighting something that deals both high Ice and Divine damage. Tons of possibilities to consider but it sounds way more interesting, progression wise, than what I have seen in most MMO's I have played. The key is creating a headache and then allowing players to earn the aspirin. The headache is the encounter that has "niche situational components" and the aspirin is the gear that thrives in that situation. Any content associated with dropping the aspirin is instantly more valuable and contributes toward the idea that "Content is King." Less trash loot/encounters, and more meaningful rewards/progression.
oneADseven said:Zeem said:man this convo still going. Set bonuses won't be in the game.
You make it out like your claim is fact. Please cite a reference that substantiates it, otherwise you're just talking out your rear end.
I like how Kilsin put it also, so many cons but yeah can't go into detail..........
Zeem said:oneADseven said:Zeem said:man this convo still going. Set bonuses won't be in the game.
You make it out like your claim is fact. Please cite a reference that substantiates it, otherwise you're just talking out your rear end.
I don't see anything that supports your claim. Could you be more specific?
oneADseven said:Zeem said:oneADseven said:Zeem said:man this convo still going. Set bonuses won't be in the game.
You make it out like your claim is fact. Please cite a reference that substantiates it, otherwise you're just talking out your rear end.
I don't see anything that supports your claim. Could you be more specific?
Maybe this game tenant,
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/game/game_tenets/
oneADseven said:I think there is a draw to collecting sets of things. The collection quests from EQ2 were a big hit and really resonated with the player base.
LOL How is this statement even the same thing? You can collect a "set" of raid gear from a zone without it having a bonus. But collections quests in EQ2 as a comparision, man wow haha.
Zeem said:oneADseven said:Zeem said:oneADseven said:Zeem said:man this convo still going. Set bonuses won't be in the game.
You make it out like your claim is fact. Please cite a reference that substantiates it, otherwise you're just talking out your rear end.
I don't see anything that supports your claim. Could you be more specific?
Maybe this game tenant,
- A belief that an immersive world requires intelligent inhabitants.
I really don't see a correlation with that game tenet and set bonuses. I do, however, see several other tenets that could support the idea of implementing set bonuses, specifically:
1) An expectation that with greater risk will come greater reward.
2) An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses.
3) A belief that meaningful character progression will always involve a player increasing in both power and prestige.
4) A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and earned.
1A) This is a bit of a stretch, but the argument could be made that more risk is required to obtain a "full set" (for those that exist, which would ideally be limited) and could thus be rewarded.
2A) Obtaining each piece of the set would require some degree of player involvement, and could be viewed as a positive action.
3A) Obtaining a full set of rare armor should be viewed as meaningful. The power and prestige components are inherent, but a small bonus for completing the set could add to the effect.
4A) I have mentioned a couple times how collecting "sets" has a natural appeal for many players. If my friend is working on his set of magma-forged plate armor, there is added incentive for me, his friend, to help him complete his set to attain the bonus. This not only includes time spent farming the gear, but also, potentially, me going out of my way to purchase the missing piece and share it with them as it would instantly add value to all of the pieces that have already been obtained.
oneADseven said:Zeem said:oneADseven said:Zeem said:oneADseven said:Zeem said:man this convo still going. Set bonuses won't be in the game.
You make it out like your claim is fact. Please cite a reference that substantiates it, otherwise you're just talking out your rear end.
I don't see anything that supports your claim. Could you be more specific?
Maybe this game tenant,
- A belief that an immersive world requires intelligent inhabitants.
I really don't see a correlation with that game tenet and set bonuses. I do, however, see several other tenets that could support the idea of implementing set bonuses, specifically:
1) An expectation that with greater risk will come greater reward.
2) An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses.
3) A belief that meaningful character progression will always involve a player increasing in both power and prestige.
4) A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and earned.
1A) This is a bit of a stretch, but the argument could be made that more risk is required to obtain a "full set" (for those that exist, which would ideally be limited) and could thus be rewarded.
2A) Obtaining each piece of the set would require some degree of player involvement, and could be viewed as a positive action.
3A) Obtaining a full set of rare armor should be viewed as meaningful. The power and prestige components are inherent, but a small bonus for completing the set could add to the effect.
4A) I have mentioned a couple times how collecting "sets" has a natural appeal for many players. If my friend is working on his set of magma-forged plate armor, there is added incentive for me, his friend, to help him complete his set to attain the bonus. This not only includes time spent farming the gear, but also, potentially, me going out of my way to purchase the missing piece and share it with them as it would instantly add value to all of the pieces that have already been obtained.
1A, no its funnels people to a certain gear and the game because borning. Fail next
2A, each gear piece has equal diff to a set piece, fail next,
3a, getting any rare piece of gear should be meaningful, fail next,
4a, no natural appeal to me, if your friend needs a piece of gear then go help him reguardless of its a set or not. fail next,
oh were done yeah still no
Zeem said:oneADseven said:I think there is a draw to collecting sets of things. The collection quests from EQ2 were a big hit and really resonated with the player base.
LOL How is this statement even the same thing? You can collect a "set" of raid gear from a zone without it having a bonus. But collections quests in EQ2 as a comparision, man wow haha.
You are quoting something out of context. If you read the rest of the paragraph you will see the correlation. I spelled it out pretty clearly while also acknowledging that it wasn't the same thing. I asked you to support your claim that "Set bonuses won't be in the game" which you have not done. Now you're building strawmans. I think we're done here.
oneADseven said:Zeem said:oneADseven said:I think there is a draw to collecting sets of things. The collection quests from EQ2 were a big hit and really resonated with the player base.
LOL How is this statement even the same thing? You can collect a "set" of raid gear from a zone without it having a bonus. But collections quests in EQ2 as a comparision, man wow haha.
You are quoting something out of context. If you read the rest of the paragraph you will see the correlation. I spelled it out pretty clearly while also acknowledging that it wasn't the same thing. I asked you to support your claim that "Set bonuses won't be in the game" which you have not done. Now you're building strawmans. I think we're done here.
Nice redirect, yet it wont work you failed yet again.
Having read through much of the back-and-forth here, I am so tempted to quote the main players here and say "So, what you are saying is..."
... but I will resist!
What would be the effect of having 'Set Bonuses' for gear/armour?
At first blush, it seems logical that any (non-trivial) bonus for having a 'complete' set, or even a 'bonus X for Y pieces' would lead to each class having a few 'preferred', or even 'optimal', sets of gear that all will aspire to. This would seem to have some serious knock-on effects.
It pushes these pieces to become 'part' of a 'BiS' collection, thus reducing options and, inevitably, leading to all the negative aspects of having (singular) BiS items. This would then act to reduce player options for builds (away from the 'norm'), increase competition on the mobs dropping the pieces etc.
It would seem to be limiting choice for the developers - and more so for the players.
Can we look at the idea of 'sets' and innovate something more interesting?
I suspect we can.
Suggestion: We extend rock-paper-scissors for all aspects of gear.
Example 1: Take the aforementioned ‘Magma-Forged’ armour.
Magma-Forged Breastplate: 100 AC, 10 STA, 40 Fire Resistance, 85 Weight
Magma-Forged Spaulders: 80 AC, 10 STA, 20 Fire Resistance, 15 Weight
Magma-Forged Legplates: 90 AC, 10 STA, 20 Fire Resistance, 37 Weight
Magma-Forged Gloves: 75 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance, 5 Weight
Magma-Forged Boots: 70 AC, 10 STA, 10 Fire Resistance, 8 Weight
NB: In this case, I am using ‘Weight’ as the ‘offset’, but it need not be just this. Other pieces from ‘sets’ may have ‘lower Magic Resistance’ or ‘Lower Agility’ penalties, dependant on the Lore and Crafting methods.
So, for this example, let us say that these weights may be (partially) offset by some skill such as ‘Manoeuvring in Plate’, or merely by STR or other stat etc. This leaves the player free option to wear any number of these pieces ... as long as he can handle the extreme penalty for trying to move about in all that metal!
Thus, while the armour might offer a specific benefit that other pieces did not (here, Fire Resistance far above the ‘norm’ for such pieces) it comes at a cost that the player would have to choose to specifically counter. In this case, the player may have to invest (skill points, AA, or stats) to offset the penalty they provide. A ‘regular’ Warrior could certainly wear 1, 2 or even 3 pieces – but would need to have lighter pieces in his other slots to counterbalance this. Should he be determined to wear the whole set and get the awesome combined Fire Resistance bonus, he will have to work at increasing the skills needed to offset the penalty.
Example 2: other types of ‘balancing’ effects:
1.. Tanned Troll Hide Leather Armour:
TTH Chestplate: 40AC, +2 STA, +4 hp regen, -25 Fire Resist
TTH Shoulders: 16 AC, +1 STA, +1 hp regen, -10 Fire Resist
TTH Leggings: 24 AC, +2 STA, +3 hp regen, -15 Fire Resist
TTH Gloves: 12 AC, +1 STA, +1 hp regen, -8 Fire Resist
TTH Boots: 12 AC, +1 STA, +1 hp regen, -8 Fire Resist
You could wear all the pieces .... just run if you see a fire-ball !
2.. Runed Human Flesh Robes of Power:
RHF Robe: 20 AC, +60 mana, +1.5’ range, -600 Human Faction, +20% aggro
RHF Gloves: 8 AC, +20 mana, +0.5’ range, -200 Human Faction, +10% aggro
RHF Boots: 8 AC, +20 mana, +0.5’ range, -200 Human Faction, +10% aggro
RHF Mask: 4 AC, +20 mana, +1.0’ range, -300 Human Faction, +15% aggro
RHF Belt: 10 AC, +30 mana, +1.0’ range, -300 Human Faction, +15% aggro
Nice pieces if you want extra mana and range .... but watch out for the attention!
Conclusion:
‘Set bonuses’ act to push players towards fewer options. Gear/Item that have a ‘common bonus type’ and is slightly stronger that the ‘norm’ for the level/rarity can be great if your character wants to focus on a narrow option, but this should be balanced by the cumulative negative that reflects this.
It will lead to ‘Most players’ having a few pieces of these sets, with only ‘a very few’ having put in the effort to make the whole set work – whether by focusing their stats/AA/Skills on offsetting the negative, or by grinding faction, or by utilising spells/abilities (whether by themselves or a group member) to make up for this.
TL;DR
Don’t bother with ‘set bonuses’, just have ‘sets’ as types of armour/gear that have a certain ‘style’ (eg Higher than normal AC, higher than normal resist etc) in common, but which also have a negative to balance this.
Eg ‘Super Strong’ armour may have nice AC compared to others, but weighs a ton!
Evoras, is still looking for ‘Gnome repellent’ gear ...
I like those examples Evoras. One thing to consider, though, is now you're taking the "fewer options" mentality away from gear and applying it directly to the players. If you end up using any of these "sets" that you listed, there will be certain "offsetting variables" that will push players toward fewer options on how to counter them. AA's wont be in the game at launch. You mention utilizing spells/abilities (whether by themselves or a group member) but that leads me to believe that this gear would be "situational" in the sense of what class uses it, (summoners might use the RHF set because they have an innate FR buff) or who is available in your group. So maybe a non-summoner would use the RHF set if they have a bard in group who is willing to use one of their hotbar slots on an FR buff.
I guess that's a different take on "situational gear" than what I was thinking. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think I would still prefer the more traditional kind of set bonuses. You mention that set bonuses push pieces to become 'part' of a 'BiS' collection, thus reducing options, and limiting choice for the players. Well, I specifically mentioned how I think set-bonuses (for armor, specifically) should be used as a "bridge" -- this means it would absolutely not be considered BiS. If designed the way I envision, it would give players additional options. Let's say they aren't able to get a class that can buff their fire resistance in their group. If they have a set of magma-forged plate, they can reasonably buff their FR on their own. That is an option that the player is in control of, regardless of what class they are, who they are grouped with, how they are specced, what abilities they want to commit to their hotbars, etc.
TL;DR
I think gear should be used to compliment the player and their groups, not the other way around. I appreciate you taking the time to offer an alternative but I think it reinforces the problem you alluded to solving in the first place, just in a different, more confining way. You can still accomplish having negatives associated with balancing the set bonuses by purposely designing them as a "situational bridge" that players would eventually grow out of. You can create rare, powerful gear that would ultimately trump the purpose of the "bridge" in the first place due to having superior stats with the same situational flavor, but it's a matter of progressing to the point where you acquire that gear. Either way you look at it, both "bridge sets" and "style sets" contribute toward the idea of "situational gear." It's my opinion, though, that bridges would give players more options while styles would ultimately end up limiting them.
I still see plenty of merit in your suggestion. It puts more emphasis on "situational" and maybe that could end up being a good thing. One of my favorite situational pieces from EQOA was very similar to what you described ... a breastplate that had the highest raw AC of any breastplate in the game, but it had no other stats. I'll have to spend some more time thinking about this and see if there is another angle to consider. More than anything I would like to see an end to the notion that "set-bonuses" automatically contribute toward the "less options" and "BiS" theory. BiS is going to happen with or without set-bonuses. Depending on how they are implemented, set-bonuses could be a secondary consideration, one that only becomes available if players go out of their way to acquire the full set.