Profile: Kindelnol
Send PM  Forum Posts  Forum Topics 

Recent Forum Posts [more...]

• • Stuff that an AC3 must and must not have

  • Originally posted by Falconoffury
    

    Kindelnol, if you really think that such a core feature as buffs ruined AC, then perhaps you shouldn't be talking about an AC sequel. I still play AC casually and I don't feel like anything ruined the game. An AC sequel should seek to keep with the spirit of the original. When you start restricting anything based on level, you start moving away from AC and more into the rest of the mmorpg world. Like I said, some sort of risk against your character would be a logical fix to buffs. If you take away the choice, then you get away from the spirit of AC, which is all about choices.

    
     

    Buffing did not single handedly hurt AC, but it definitely played its role.

    I loved AC, even when buffing was outrageous. When we started getting hand out buffs and fleets of buff bots, it greatly impacted the game. You can't tell me it didn't. After I left the first time (trying to get over an addiction to the game), I returned several times to find noobs at even high levels. They didn't know how to play and barely knew the enemies they were fighting. This stretched all the way up into the 100s. That is just sad. Why were they like this? Because they based themselves off level 7s. They said it themselves.

    Whether you remember right or not, AC had restrictions for other things. Let me bring more examples to the table. The skill Arcane Lore restricted players from dawning the magic of an item (of course all you had to do once you got it high enough was buff the skill). Strength acted as an independent variable against armor, as classes with less strength could not bear the burden.

    AC was never a completely open, anything works sort of game. Even if it were made as you say, where there is some risk to your character, I don't see why it cannot be measured by a skill. At least, as a skill, you could build it and some might have an edge in that area whereas others won't (likely compensating it with something else that gives them an edge).

    In the end, I don't think buffing was as much of a core feature as you make it. Like Odysses said, features that made AC what it was were things like the random loot system or the skill system.

  • Posted: 6/21/08 9:56 AM
    Asheron's Call
• • Stuff that an AC3 must and must not have

  • Originally posted by Falconoffury
    

    I don't like all the talk about restrictions on buffs. AC is all about freedom. Its lack of restrictions is among its greatest features.

    Perhaps the buffs can have a reduced effect or random negative effects if the target character is too weak to handle it. It would be more logical and players would still have the choice of getting buffed.

    
     

    Even AC had restrictions (for example, on weapons). Buffs had absolutely no restrictions and frankly it helped ruin the game.

    The effect of the buffs was never a problem for me. It was getting something undeserved (level 7's at lvl 10). Offering a debuff for overwhelming buffs doesn't seem any more logical to me than a buff-limiting skill. I am not sure it would even work because it sounds like it would cancel the buffs out, thus making them pointless (thus it would be no better than the idea I presented) or it wouldn't cancel them out and we would still be presented with the same problem.

    AC had limits based on skills. I do not see why buffs should be any different. I understand your concern, and would even agree, if players did not abuse the power they could acquire. You cannot expect plalyers to do it right, so one needs to limit it. By offering a skill to do so, the amount and level of buffs is really in the player's own hands (based on how relevant they made the skill in their template).

  • Posted: 6/20/08 10:32 AM
    Asheron's Call
• • Stuff that an AC3 must and must not have

  • Buffing isn't the only thing that bound vassals and patrons. Items and questing did its fair share too. I came to a point where my sword toon was doing 7s by himself and I still did loads with my patron. I also almost caught up to him in level, so I guess that created a different kind of relationship that many vassals/patrons didn't have.

    Besides, buff restrictions can still allow players to get buffed by others, just not to the extent of becoming a god among men.

     

    I agree with all of your have nots except for the white rabbit . I loved that thing! =D

  • Posted: 6/12/08 10:31 AM
    Asheron's Call
• • Stuff that an AC3 must and must not have

  • A buff restriction based on level could work.

    The reason I suggested a skill restriction is because I think certain classes would require more buffs than others. For example, a mage not only needs to buff his magic but also needs better protection. If the skill was based on a similar formula to magic like Focus+Willpower, then they would tend to have more buffs than a melee spec.

    Also, the idea is intended to restrict the number of spells one has on himself, not just the rank of spells. This way the player is not 100% dependent on the buffs like in the previous version. This could be restricted by level if the system was incorporated right. Say at level 1-5 they can only have X amount of lvl 1 buffs on them at one time.

    Either way, I think some buff restrictions could really help, both for grouping and soloing. 

    I think a change in item magic is required too. I think it would be better if one buffs an entire set when buffing his equipment, vice each individual piece. It multiplies the amount of effort required to buff the ones items quite a bit. Weapons and shields would not be part of the armor set buff. They would have to be buffed independently.

  • Posted: 6/11/08 2:51 PM
    Asheron's Call
• • I hate quests... and... other... things... [LONG POST]

  • I thought I would add my two cents, or maybe reiterate what has already been established >.>

    Someone suggested earlier in the topic that groupers will group and soloers will solo. I prefer incentives to group, but I also want efficiency. I think most players will be guided toward efficiency, not preference of play. Even if I like grouping, if it offers me virtually nothing, I am not going to do it.

    I also saw someone indicate that you can effectively group in WoW, dropping a number like 114 hours of play time from 1-70. The group also reached around 40 people or so. I never heard of this, but I do remember the first guy who reached 70 when the new expansion hit. Took him 28 hours if I recall. He did not do it by running dungeons or anything. He had a raid and they helped him powerlevel. From what I understand, if that one player trying to level hits a mob and lets the low leveled raid kill it, he will get a good deal of the xp. It will also be much faster. This is probably the same way the other guy did it. Obviously, this is an impractical means of levelling for the vast majority of players because few have such guild connections/guilds willing to do it.

    By ordinary means, I seriously doubt WoW offers much of an advantage to average groups (5 mans or lower) trying to level, if any at all.

  • Posted: 6/10/08 4:45 PM
    General Discussion