Posts by Pacifism

    I'm thinking more SC/OC levels of difficulty or slightly easier

    55/75/85 etc were quite abundant in their day despite not being instanced and having a terrible drop rate (it's still terrible with 100% rants let alone 50%). I'd rather having content that is rewarding and challenging being gated by its difficulty than being less rewarding and being gated by its drop rate.

    Of course, having both is best and having either is far better than how it is now where content is gated by needing 8-10 players and not being rewarding at all

    I think the best party range for farming is 2-4 players.

    Having things solo is just a sign that they're too easy and makes classes that aren't glad irrelevant. If everyone can farm it solo, you also have to make the drop rate a bit lower otherwise the market will just get flooded with gears.

    Having too many people is just far too difficult to manage since the playerbase is so small, kills the sense of involvement you get with smaller party sizes, and makes large rewards feel less rewarding because they have to be shared amongst so many.

    Just pull the max players back down to 5 and make it difficult enough that it's challenging/inefficient to solo. Then have a healthy balance of mechanics/mobs in there so different classes are valuable. Make it give good rewards with BiS or some other niche filled in a couple small areas. IE: X dungeon drops boots, earrings and a card. Y dungeon drops rings, tops and pants.

    If they just followed a format like that, there would always be at least some new things to farm. People could slowly upgrade their gear rather than suddenly having to enhance a full new set.

    You could even re-use recoloured/larger mobs from lower level content and add slightly different mechanics to them. There's a lot of good content already in the game that nobody is playing because it isn't relevant anymore. Just make it relevant and keep the game moving.

    Don't base DPS tests on aggro, since it seems spectre skills in particular gain a tonne of aggro. Use the inbuilt feature in a dungeon to compare. If it's in ToG, have the glad/spec sit out from clearing the floors and DPS on boss only so it's not skewed by aoe damage.

    relating to animation speed, I'm pretty sure I mentioned this as a failing point for trickster when rebalance was discussed years ago, but a lot of tricksters seemed to like the animations as they were (??) despite them being slow. With animation bug, tricksters are strong-overpowered, especially in pvp. Without it, they're subpar to gladiator in almost every way.

    Are you sure they even get enough traffic to warrant multiple servers? We're talking less than 500 concurrent users

    I've never dealt with this kind of traffic (at work we just service http requests with varying computation requirements), but an upper mid tier cloud instance seems like it would be fine. They run for $300-500/month. They don't need load balancing.

    The major issue seems to be when they get ddos'd. If they had better load balancing they'd definitely be able to handle it better, but it's like fighting the problem by pouring money on it. Fiesta does not make a lot of money.

    Load balancing is also pointless if you don't have the infrastructure to support it. If they've been running on a legacy system with only a single server, it's likely that their server relies on managing/caching a lot (if not everything) in memory. If they suddenly have to add multiple systems, they'd need to sync with some intermediate in-memory storage like redis (lest they just persist everything and get killed by db latency). These problems aren't trivial, especially if you're dealing with outdated code and only have a bogged down, underpaid development team (or even just a single developer).

    Again, I don't have experience building out low-latency gaming services for lots of concurrent users. Maybe there are easy answers to these problems. I'd love to hear them.

    +1 for making vending separate from playing. Having the abiity to set a dedicated vendor would be pretty cool. Unfortunately, I'm sure that would go under the category of major change/rework and would get scrapped.

    The reason they don't make something like an auction house in the first place is because they wanted vending to be tied to the core areas of the game so that things look active. People love lagging their way through the town just as much as they hate it.

    I won't however say I'm in the same position as you when it comes to you saying that "leveling between 60 and 100 is ridiculously easy nowadays". Despite having made level 90-100 easier, it's not enough. I earlier made the notion that for something like a Paladin, doing the kinds of quests like "Kill 200x Mantrap Plants" for the equivalent of 2% just isn't in the realms of being reasonable, especially when it only gets worse afterwards as user "yengaphiwatbryden" pointed out.

    If you don't like doing the 200 kill quest for 2%, why not do the 30 kills for 1% quest? You're picking on one of the outdated quests while ignoring the updated option

    Oh I absolutely agree. I think Gamigo needs to have discussions about how they are prioritizing their queue, for sure. It might help if they consider becoming an agile/scrum/kanban style team (which I doubt they are currently).

    I think they need to have less internal discussions and instead expose some of their ideas for community feedback. Especially with things like rebalance/quest xp. Worst case scenario is there's a couple weeks where they got it wrong and some class/quest is op. Given what crap the players have already been through, I doubt they'd care.

    Barely any of that process actually happens in trivial situations like this. The new setting they were discussing is already implemented.

    The people here aren't talking about a huge new feature or change, they just want some numbers changed. There aren't even code changes. It's just a matter of updating server db values and publishing an updated table.

    It's also pretty evident they skip any of the steps relating to QA (or the QA is just smoke testing), mostly disregard feedback etc.

    It's probably more difficult to fix the tiniest graphical overlap bug than it is to change numbers on weapons/skills/quests.

    Case in point: Private servers make changes like this all the time. Most of the time they have 1 or 2 amateur devs at best.

    To disagree with you - They've already done this. They've increased the KQ reward significantly and made new, easy repeats for every level. I also disagree with reducing the difficulty. They're already super easy. 11x+ dungeon content is 100x more difficult.

    Instead, what they need to do is massively increase the drop rate. People would be more inclined to farm things if they didn't get more than 1 or 2 poorly statted blue pieces per hour. Having more readily available gears at these lower levels would help genuinely new players as well as making the content actually worthwhile for more advanced players that were previously just relying on the collective slave labor of players 6 years ago farming across 6 servers.

    Having these dungeons become viable would encourage people to slow down and enjoy the levelling process, not just rush through it as fast as they can.

    So basically you want better weapons without having to do challenging content?

    DQ should be pretty easy, just get those weapons. Work your way up to CoC over time. If it's too hard, jump ship and go to isya.

    I have capped characters on Pagel so I'm biased to wanting to merge the servers, but I think they shouldn't. There's too many items and gems on Pagel.

    If they do merge or transfer, it should be characters and sc only - no tradable items or gems.

    1 minute cd, 20s dura moonlight would be permanent with set effects. That'd be dumb.

    Templar #1 issue is that they don't do enough damage to be relevant in a game where damage is the only thing that matters. Their defensive buffs and skills are already good enough.

    Moonlight as a skill should have only given damage, and had a better cd/dura, then sunlight could give some kind of defensive buff and the gameplay would be switching between the two. Instead you just get a temporary superman skill.

    I think you'll have great success with archer, mage or fighter (although beware of lategame costs).

    Stay away from trickster/crusader, they're too squishy early and can't level easily. Cleric is a great class but is reliant on others to kill.

    -Levelling (killing general monsters)-

    Archer: 9/10

    Mage ungeared/unsc'd: 6/10

    Mage geared or with duo: 10/10

    Fighter: 7/10

    Crusader: 6/10

    Trickster: 3/10

    Cleric: 1/10

    -Group pvp/Dungeons-

    Archer: 6-7/10 (kiting bosses can be slow)

    Mage: 8/10 (Crucial to kill large groups of mobs quickly, but far less useful in single target dps than fighter)

    Fighter: 10/10

    Crusader: 7-8/10 (Kinda useful lategame to buff other party members)

    Trickster: 5/10 (Medium dps, squishy - can't solo without great gear)

    Cleric: 10/10 (1 or 2 Required for most content)


    Archer: 8-9/10 (may be weaker after recent nerfs)

    Mage: 9-10/10

    Fighter: 8/10

    Trickster: 7/10

    Crusader: 6/10

    Cleric: 10/10 (MVP in group pvp, not useful at all in 1v1)


    Fighter: 10/10

    That's what I'm saying though.

    If the weapon damage was consistent throughout, rather than randomly doubling compared to other classes at 115, there wouldn't be a problem.

    What does that have to do with cap and raid and slime coins for pvp?

    The skills don't need a damage boost.

    Crusader weapons get a huge jump in damage at 114/115 (SQ is 3x the damage of ML). If they were consistent throughout, there wouldn't be a low damage problem before that.

    They should buff the drop rate to be 100% at least

    I think the best thing would be to just make the quest based on killing all of the bosses once, and double the xp reward.

    Would make it more party based and inclusive rather than just based on afkers, and actually worth it for people without a killer to do over their other quests.

    The change to 1 month schedule doesn't actually change much. The real change happened 3-5 years ago when they stopped being capable of pushing 2 week patches.

    With a 1 month release cycle they'll be more reliable/predictable.. but something tells me they'll still miss that target. Especially if they leave all of their testing on the NA version to patch day.