6 inventory slots? Can you put a bag in each slot and increase the amount of space that way? We used to do that in Everquest.
No you CANNOT add bank bags to each slot. 6 = 6 different items. Currently these items are unlimited stacking although if you are an archer, its possible to have like 10+ different types of arrows. Which would mean you would have to throw away 4 types. That is not to mention if you are a crafter you need to have have feathers, multiple wood, multiple shafts based on wood, arrowheads before you can turn them into different types of arrows.
You can see how quickly you will eat thru your limited space.
With that said after a lot of complaining they have slightly increased these numbers barely. You can now buy 6 bank spaces at a time for gold. Up to probably 30, don't know if it goes past 30 spaces because I have never seen anyone get enough gold to buy the last set of 6 slots.
You also get around 20 spaces in your SINGLE bag of your character (no additional bags you can purchase) But keep in mind if you die and have to forfeit your bag, you lose all your gold and items in your bag, which will be a lot because of lack of space.
Either way there are multiple tiers of ore, wood, potions, provisioning items, food, ingredients for food, torches, weapons(don't stack), armor(don't stack), other resources, all that have to fit into 20 slots, so expect to be throwing stuff on the ground.
If you are a crafter to some weapons require 4 parts, each could have different types of wood/metal/cloth to choose. So you can easily have hundreds of choices, but only a few slots to hold them, so your choices will be limited to what you can fit into your bank.
No AH or Player vendors to increase storage, and trading is player to player so that's not happening either.
Before these people added the extra bag they thought this tiny amount of space was sufficient to the player. Because they want their players to experience pain and loss.
This happens with many systems of this game. So frustration will be your experience.
So when I am suggesting AT LEAST a few more bags, this is the BARE and I mean BARE minimum this game will need to not lose half of the player base. The player testers are in month long arguments asking for scraps, and people here are pretending like these devs are negotiating in good faith.
Complaining about things like no magic also strikes me as silly considering the game was always like that, and manpower resources was, again, a reason offered for that. It didn't take a purchase to learn that.
First off they started with magic and fantasy and it was removed. So another uninformed post.
6 inventory slots? Can you put a bag in each slot and increase the amount of space that way? We used to do that in Everquest.
No you CANNOT add bank bags to each slot. 6 = 6 different items. Currently these items are unlimited stacking although if you are an archer, its possible to have like 10+ different types of arrows. Which would mean you would have to throw away 4 types. That is not to mention if you are a crafter you need to have have feathers, multiple wood, multiple shafts based on wood, arrowheads before you can turn them into different types of arrows.
You can see how quickly you will eat thru your limited space.
With that said after a lot of complaining they have slightly increased these numbers barely. You can now buy 6 bank spaces at a time for gold. Up to probably 30, don't know if it goes past 30 spaces because I have never seen anyone get enough gold to buy the last set of 6 slots.
You also get around 20 spaces in your SINGLE bag of your character (no additional bags you can purchase) But keep in mind if you die and have to forfeit your bag, you lose all your gold and items in your bag, which will be a lot because of lack of space.
Either way there are multiple tiers of ore, wood, potions, provisioning items, food, ingredients for food, torches, weapons(don't stack), armor(don't stack), other resources, all that have to fit into 20 slots, so expect to be throwing stuff on the ground.
If you are a crafter to some weapons require 4 parts, each could have different types of wood/metal/cloth to choose. So you can easily have hundreds of choices, but only a few slots to hold them, so your choices will be limited to what you can fit into your bank.
No AH or Player vendors to increase storage, and trading is player to player so that's not happening either.
Before these people added the extra bag they thought this tiny amount of space was sufficient to the player. Because they want their players to experience pain and loss.
This happens with many systems of this game. So frustration will be your experience.
So when I am suggesting AT LEAST a few more bags, this is the BARE and I mean BARE minimum this game will need to not lose half of the player base. The player testers are in month long arguments asking for scraps, and people here are pretending like these devs are negotiating in good faith.
6 inventory slots? Can you put a bag in each slot and increase the amount of space that way? We used to do that in Everquest.
No you CANNOT add bank bags to each slot. 6 = 6 different items. Currently these items are unlimited stacking although if you are an archer, its possible to have like 10+ different types of arrows. Which would mean you would have to throw away 4 types. That is not to mention if you are a crafter you need to have have feathers, multiple wood, multiple shafts based on wood, arrowheads before you can turn them into different types of arrows.
You can see how quickly you will eat thru your limited space.
With that said after a lot of complaining they have slightly increased these numbers barely. You can now buy 6 bank spaces at a time for gold. Up to probably 30, don't know if it goes past 30 spaces because I have never seen anyone get enough gold to buy the last set of 6 slots.
You also get around 20 spaces in your SINGLE bag of your character (no additional bags you can purchase) But keep in mind if you die and have to forfeit your bag, you lose all your gold and items in your bag, which will be a lot because of lack of space.
Either way there are multiple tiers of ore, wood, potions, provisioning items, food, ingredients for food, torches, weapons(don't stack), armor(don't stack), other resources, all that have to fit into 20 slots, so expect to be throwing stuff on the ground.
If you are a crafter to some weapons require 4 parts, each could have different types of wood/metal/cloth to choose. So you can easily have hundreds of choices, but only a few slots to hold them, so your choices will be limited to what you can fit into your bank.
No AH or Player vendors to increase storage, and trading is player to player so that's not happening either.
Before these people added the extra bag they thought this tiny amount of space was sufficient to the player. Because they want their players to experience pain and loss.
This happens with many systems of this game. So frustration will be your experience.
So when I am suggesting AT LEAST a few more bags, this is the BARE and I mean BARE minimum this game will need to not lose half of the player base. The player testers are in month long arguments asking for scraps, and people here are pretending like these devs are negotiating in good faith.
What you're describing is really unattractive.
That came off wrong I love all the different arrows and crafting options I don't like how hampered the crafting will be with the inventory system in place.
That came off wrong I love all the different arrows and crafting options I don't like how hampered the crafting will be with the inventory system in place.
Your not alone, this is likely where 95%+ of the playerbase is. If you look at games that have mods, the most popular mods are usually inventory expansion and stack size increase.
Its pretty obvious this is extremely important to the large retail base of customers.
However what you find is people in Beta represent and oversized sample of the 5% that say they want limited inventory. Then these games launch and people negative review the game to oblivion until they increase the pack size to a reasonable amount. Which is usually too late to save the game from their downward spiral.
This is just one QOL feature, but its the same thing with others.
Some games force the players to buy the extra inventory because they figure out its popular.
6 inventory slots? Can you put a bag in each slot and increase the amount of space that way? We used to do that in Everquest.
No you CANNOT add bank bags to each slot. 6 = 6 different items. Currently these items are unlimited stacking although if you are an archer, its possible to have like 10+ different types of arrows. Which would mean you would have to throw away 4 types. That is not to mention if you are a crafter you need to have have feathers, multiple wood, multiple shafts based on wood, arrowheads before you can turn them into different types of arrows.
You can see how quickly you will eat thru your limited space.
With that said after a lot of complaining they have slightly increased these numbers barely. You can now buy 6 bank spaces at a time for gold. Up to probably 30, don't know if it goes past 30 spaces because I have never seen anyone get enough gold to buy the last set of 6 slots.
You also get around 20 spaces in your SINGLE bag of your character (no additional bags you can purchase) But keep in mind if you die and have to forfeit your bag, you lose all your gold and items in your bag, which will be a lot because of lack of space.
Either way there are multiple tiers of ore, wood, potions, provisioning items, food, ingredients for food, torches, weapons(don't stack), armor(don't stack), other resources, all that have to fit into 20 slots, so expect to be throwing stuff on the ground.
If you are a crafter to some weapons require 4 parts, each could have different types of wood/metal/cloth to choose. So you can easily have hundreds of choices, but only a few slots to hold them, so your choices will be limited to what you can fit into your bank.
No AH or Player vendors to increase storage, and trading is player to player so that's not happening either.
Before these people added the extra bag they thought this tiny amount of space was sufficient to the player. Because they want their players to experience pain and loss.
This happens with many systems of this game. So frustration will be your experience.
So when I am suggesting AT LEAST a few more bags, this is the BARE and I mean BARE minimum this game will need to not lose half of the player base. The player testers are in month long arguments asking for scraps, and people here are pretending like these devs are negotiating in good faith.
What you're describing is really unattractive.
That came off wrong I love all the different arrows and crafting options I don't like how hampered the crafting will be with the inventory system in place.
After his description I am never playing this game. I am a huge hoarder and could not bear to discard anything that might be of value some day.
I pay good cash money (hundreds of $s) for extra storage in games like POE and monthly subs in ESO/FO76 just to gain access to unlimited scrap/crafting boxes and never play a minute without this convenience.
These Devs are clueless and clearly are doing it all wrong.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
These people advocating for lack of QOL do you think having these mechanics will make the game more or less successful? When I say successful I am saying do you think the Studio will actually be able to thrive after release and put out more games and expansions? Not just barely wimp along while they fire the entire staff.
Don't confuse QOL with mob difficulty. Because that's completely unrelated to me.
I am specifically talking QOL issues like
Lack of inventory/storage space Lack of fast travel/porting Harsh death mechanics Lack of mechanics to log out safely to eat dinner, being forced to spend hours or risk even more hours due to death Slow mana/stamina regen after battle
Do you people even care if the studio of these games are successful or do you only care if you are happy?
Personally when giving feedback I like to find win-win scenario's where changing the mechanic to my liking will actually make the game more popular. Mainly because I care about the long term health of the game and future games based on it.
However I have heard many people say they don't care if the game is unpopular, all they care is if they are happy. Where do you stand?
6 inventory slots? Can you put a bag in each slot and increase the amount of space that way? We used to do that in Everquest.
No you CANNOT add bank bags to each slot. 6 = 6 different items. Currently these items are unlimited stacking although if you are an archer, its possible to have like 10+ different types of arrows. Which would mean you would have to throw away 4 types. That is not to mention if you are a crafter you need to have have feathers, multiple wood, multiple shafts based on wood, arrowheads before you can turn them into different types of arrows.
You can see how quickly you will eat thru your limited space.
With that said after a lot of complaining they have slightly increased these numbers barely. You can now buy 6 bank spaces at a time for gold. Up to probably 30, don't know if it goes past 30 spaces because I have never seen anyone get enough gold to buy the last set of 6 slots.
You also get around 20 spaces in your SINGLE bag of your character (no additional bags you can purchase) But keep in mind if you die and have to forfeit your bag, you lose all your gold and items in your bag, which will be a lot because of lack of space.
Either way there are multiple tiers of ore, wood, potions, provisioning items, food, ingredients for food, torches, weapons(don't stack), armor(don't stack), other resources, all that have to fit into 20 slots, so expect to be throwing stuff on the ground.
If you are a crafter to some weapons require 4 parts, each could have different types of wood/metal/cloth to choose. So you can easily have hundreds of choices, but only a few slots to hold them, so your choices will be limited to what you can fit into your bank.
No AH or Player vendors to increase storage, and trading is player to player so that's not happening either.
Before these people added the extra bag they thought this tiny amount of space was sufficient to the player. Because they want their players to experience pain and loss.
This happens with many systems of this game. So frustration will be your experience.
So when I am suggesting AT LEAST a few more bags, this is the BARE and I mean BARE minimum this game will need to not lose half of the player base. The player testers are in month long arguments asking for scraps, and people here are pretending like these devs are negotiating in good faith.
What you're describing is really unattractive.
That came off wrong I love all the different arrows and crafting options I don't like how hampered the crafting will be with the inventory system in place.
After his description I am never playing this game. I am a huge hoarder and could not bear to discard anything that might be of value some day.
I pay good cash money (hundreds of $s) for extra storage in games like POE and monthly subs in ESO/FO76 just to gain access to unlimited scrap/crafting boxes and never play a minute without this convenience.
These Devs are clueless and clearly are doing it all wrong.
I spent a mini fortune on inventory in Path of Exile too. I did that in Phantasy Star Online 2 too come to think of it.
I don't like muling or begging people to help transfer stuff to an alt or multiple accounts but I will spend real money on inventory expansions. I loathe inventory restrictions especially when I enjoy crafting to a fault.
Complaining about things like no magic also strikes me as silly considering the game was always like that, and manpower resources was, again, a reason offered for that. It didn't take a purchase to learn that.
First off they started with magic and fantasy and it was removed. So another uninformed post.
That was when it was Saga of Lucimia, iirc. Literally the name change to Embers Adrift was to bring it more in line with the magic lore of the world they planned to create, which was rare.
These people advocating for lack of QOL do you think having these mechanics will make the game more or less successful? When I say successful I am saying do you think the Studio will actually be able to thrive after release and put out more games and expansions? Not just barely wimp along while they fire the entire staff.
Don't confuse QOL with mob difficulty. Because that's completely unrelated to me.
I am specifically talking QOL issues like
Lack of inventory/storage space Lack of fast travel/porting Harsh death mechanics Lack of mechanics to log out safely to eat dinner, being forced to spend hours or risk even more hours due to death Slow mana/stamina regen after battle
Do you people even care if the studio of these games are successful or do you only care if you are happy?
Personally when giving feedback I like to find win-win scenario's where changing the mechanic to my liking will actually make the game more popular. Mainly because I care about the long term health of the game and future games based on it.
However I have heard many people say they don't care if the game is unpopular, all they care is if they are happy. Where do you stand?
This reminds me a bit of DDO, which has gotten a lot better with that QOL, as time went on, but all the QOL improvements came with a cash cost.
Anyway, DDO is a resource management dungeon running game, where originally a huge part of the challenge of the game was not the direct difficulty of an individual mob, but being able to complete the dungeon with only the resources you went in with, like a traditional D&D dungeon crawl.
Thus, Making the game a thought provoking game, of making sure you had what you would need to face what was in a dungeon, as well as manage your resources, so you had to deal with the risks of being bested by a powerful mob, or dying to attrition from weak mobs.
In this venture, the game really did make you think about what dungeon you were about to do, and how to prep for it, it was in every way, a thinking and planning persons game.
So, to make sure this was in fact a challenge, things like limited inventory were applied, as well as smaller stack sizes, so you could not stack a 1,000 cure pots in a single spot and have near infinite HP, they set max stack size is 100, so 1,000 pots would take up 10 spots in your inventory, which were prime space you might need for something like Fire Resist items, depending on the dungeon.
They even had really powerful healing Silver Flame Pots, and those cap stacked at 10, just to make sure you could not go Monty Haul with them.
They even had encumbrance rules, So even if you had the space, you might not have the ability to carry everything you wanted, this was not just to be jerks to the players, this was a directly designed in aspects to make the game more challenging and harder, in a tactical and thought provoking way.
It had a purpose and reason to exist.
They have done a lot to give a crap ton more Inventory, so.... if you are willing to buy it, you can horde a ton of stuff.
But still the nature of how their QOL worked, was directly interwoven to the difficulty of the game, and did in fact make mobs and encounters harder.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
6 inventory slots? Can you put a bag in each slot and increase the amount of space that way? We used to do that in Everquest.
Character specific bank inventory is expandable with currency earned in game, as is shared inventory. Six slots is the starting value for character specific bank inventory, not the limit of such. Shared bank inventory starts with no slots, so to be able to share items between characters one must purchase the first upgrade at least.
So far as I know this cannot be supplemented by bags.
6 inventory slots? Can you put a bag in each slot and increase the amount of space that way? We used to do that in Everquest.
Character specific bank inventory is expandable with currency earned in game, as is shared inventory. Six slots is the starting value for character specific bank inventory, not the limit of such. Shared bank inventory starts with no slots, so to be able to share items between characters one must purchase the first upgrade at least.
So far as I know this cannot be supplemented by bags.
Even Everquest did better and we are talking the classic experience. 6 is very restrictive almost too much in my opinion. I mean not asking for 20 here but the possibility of using bags greatly mitigated the small number of bank slots Everquest had. What the devil can you put there if you are a crafter who because of the nature of crafting requires far more than that.
You say it can be bought and expanded but how restrictive is the cost. For me to be perfectly honest I am used to a lot of restrictions having played Everquest for years and been playing these games from 1999 but I don't appreciate the use of mules. In fact I hate that mechanic that these restrictive banking slots create.
I absolutely dislike the idea of multiple accounts and alts just so that I can play the game with what I consider as a bearable experience.
I can agree with the sentiment that people asking for things to be made less restrictive can force developers to make changes that destroy the vision some players have of a game but these type of restrictions are not essential to create difficulty but rather nuisance that players use mules and multiple accounts to get around. Multiple accounts benefit the developers and one I am not prepared to invest in.
Six is very restrictive. That is why I buy more slots, as can anyone else, with currency earned through play. The cost is restrictive in the sense of the time it takes to earn that currency. However, the demands on your bank space during that time aren't high.
You don't get gear drops like candy and there aren't many types of resources to collect at that point and little you can do with them. There is time to acquire more space along the way as the need for it increases.
If you aren't satisfied with that then EA may not be the game for you.
Many that claim they want old school instead really desire an idealized version of it that only includes those cherries they found sweet and leaves out those they found bitter. Many want what never, ever existed rather than anything similar to what was.
Embers Adrift isn't for such players. It tries to emulate the past overall in the hope it will provide an experience similar to what was rather than select elements of it that which would result in an overall experience quite different.
The developers of Embers Adrift are not out of touch with their player base. They routinely invite player feedback. Sometimes they make changes in response to it, but they aren't afraid to deny requested changes at odds with their vision. As such, their request for feedback isn't a matter of lip service alone, but neither is it an effective carte blanche of change at the insistence of players. I feel that ideal and it gives me hope the game will stay on course over time rather than be chest burst by an alien of increasingly modern design leanings.
The problem is they are trying to pitch this to a new generation...The old school crowd that played in 2000 is still around to a degree, but they mainly need to appeal to the current teens and twenties now and they most likely will not go for this kind of game.
If their goal was to pitch this game to those in their teens and twenties it would not play and look anything like it does. Clearly that is not their intent.
Complaining about things like no magic also strikes me as silly considering the game was always like that, and manpower resources was, again, a reason offered for that. It didn't take a purchase to learn that.
First off they started with magic and fantasy and it was removed. So another uninformed post.
That was when it was Saga of Lucimia, iirc. Literally the name change to Embers Adrift was to bring it more in line with the magic lore of the world they planned to create, which was rare.
Not sure I understand your distinction here.
Project TL has changed the game to Thrones and Liberty. Do you think its not a legitimate complaint by its customers if they completely remove magic from the game with that name change?
Some games change names many times in early development. Fact still remains they removed magic from the game. A HUGE population of players like magic. This is an issue no?
These people advocating for lack of QOL do you think having these mechanics will make the game more or less successful? When I say successful I am saying do you think the Studio will actually be able to thrive after release and put out more games and expansions? Not just barely wimp along while they fire the entire staff.
Don't confuse QOL with mob difficulty. Because that's completely unrelated to me.
I am specifically talking QOL issues like
Lack of inventory/storage space Lack of fast travel/porting Harsh death mechanics Lack of mechanics to log out safely to eat dinner, being forced to spend hours or risk even more hours due to death Slow mana/stamina regen after battle
Do you people even care if the studio of these games are successful or do you only care if you are happy?
Personally when giving feedback I like to find win-win scenario's where changing the mechanic to my liking will actually make the game more popular. Mainly because I care about the long term health of the game and future games based on it.
However I have heard many people say they don't care if the game is unpopular, all they care is if they are happy. Where do you stand?
Inventory is expandable with currency earned through play.
They are planning to more travel convenience.
The death penalty is not harsh in the context of old school games.
Accommodate your play around your life. Don't undertake game tasks you may not be able to complete before you must leave. That is common sense in a game meant to be dependent on group play as one must demonstrate reliability in such.
I personally don't find stamina regeneration particularly slow.
My care is that their success comes from the market they seek to appeal to. They clearly know the game will not draw a massive population. Their intent is to capture a portion of a niche market that is not abundantly served.
It is not a win-win scenario if the desired changes are not popular with their intended audience. It's a Brainy win, and otherwise let the chips where they may.
My stance is that I want the game to be popular to those it was made for.
Complaining about things like no magic also strikes me as silly considering the game was always like that, and manpower resources was, again, a reason offered for that. It didn't take a purchase to learn that.
First off they started with magic and fantasy and it was removed. So another uninformed post.
That was when it was Saga of Lucimia, iirc. Literally the name change to Embers Adrift was to bring it more in line with the magic lore of the world they planned to create, which was rare.
Not sure I understand your distinction here.
Project TL has changed the game to Thrones and Liberty. Do you think its not a legitimate complaint by its customers if they completely remove magic from the game with that name change?
Some games change names many times in early development. Fact still remains they removed magic from the game. A HUGE population of players like magic. This is an issue no?
Your original post implied you were reacting to a recent playtest with dismay at the lack of magic, as it was in response to a news feature about the game's most recent update. It has been a long time since they indicated magic would be rare in their game world; that was where my comment regarding self-inflicted wounds came from.
If you were simply reiterating a criticism about a change in direction that happened a year ago, then that makes sense. Your post didn't really specify that these were long-held criticisms.
And considering the name change coincided with the team getting rid of the prior project lead, I would definitely consider such a move to be significant in terms of the project's vision, yes.
Your original post implied you were reacting to a recent playtest with dismay at the lack of magic, as it was in response to a news feature about the game's most recent update. It has been a long time since they indicated magic would be rare in their game world; that was where my comment regarding self-inflicted wounds came from.
If you were simply reiterating a criticism about a change in direction that happened a year ago, then that makes sense. Your post didn't really specify that these were long-held criticisms.
And considering the name change coincided with the team getting rid of the prior project lead, I would definitely consider such a move to be significant in terms of the project's vision, yes.
Think you read a bit more into my post than I stated. I was simply putting out a pro/con list saying the reasons the game will not appeal to a large base of players. Each thing on my con list narrows the player base significantly. There is a point the player base is so small very few are left to play the game.
You might not agree with all the things I stated are problems to you personally, but its hard to deny they will be important to a lot of players.
There was a time, I thought I could help get this team on track and make a game that would appeal to a decent chunk of players to be successful. With their timeline and them slow walking every single OBVIOUS change, arguing about the most basic of things. I don't believe its possible to turn this game around in a reasonable time. I also don't believe the devs now want to change directions.
So let them make the game they want, it will fail, maybe Pantheon will learn from their mistakes, I doubt it thou.
6 inventory slots? Can you put a bag in each slot and increase the amount of space that way? We used to do that in Everquest.
Character specific bank inventory is expandable with currency earned in game, as is shared inventory. Six slots is the starting value for character specific bank inventory, not the limit of such. Shared bank inventory starts with no slots, so to be able to share items between characters one must purchase the first upgrade at least.
So far as I know this cannot be supplemented by bags.
Even Everquest did better and we are talking the classic experience. 6 is very restrictive almost too much in my opinion. I mean not asking for 20 here but the possibility of using bags greatly mitigated the small number of bank slots Everquest had. What the devil can you put there if you are a crafter who because of the nature of crafting requires far more than that.
You say it can be bought and expanded but how restrictive is the cost. For me to be perfectly honest I am used to a lot of restrictions having played Everquest for years and been playing these games from 1999 but I don't appreciate the use of mules. In fact I hate that mechanic that these restrictive banking slots create.
I absolutely dislike the idea of multiple accounts and alts just so that I can play the game with what I consider as a bearable experience.
I can agree with the sentiment that people asking for things to be made less restrictive can force developers to make changes that destroy the vision some players have of a game but these type of restrictions are not essential to create difficulty but rather nuisance that players use mules and multiple accounts to get around. Multiple accounts benefit the developers and one I am not prepared to invest in.
Six is very restrictive. That is why I buy more slots, as can anyone else, with currency earned through play. The cost is restrictive in the sense of the time it takes to earn that currency. However, the demands on your bank space during that time aren't high.
You don't get gear drops like candy and there aren't many types of resources to collect at that point and little you can do with them. There is time to acquire more space along the way as the need for it increases.
If you aren't satisfied with that then EA may not be the game for you.
I guess I will have to experience this for myself. I recall in Everquest I carried a box capable of crafting arrows on me but it was damn heavy. If you make classes who use arrows have an enormously annoying time making arrows it will diminish the interest in those classes. I am not an advocate of punishing certain classes for the tools they need to play effectively.
It is a cheap and nasty way to add difficulty in playing the class when there are better ways to implement complexity. Annoying restrictions are not they way to improve gameplay of classes and it will only make it so that certain classes will be less played because of the numerous limitations.
6 inventory slots? Can you put a bag in each slot and increase the amount of space that way? We used to do that in Everquest.
Character specific bank inventory is expandable with currency earned in game, as is shared inventory. Six slots is the starting value for character specific bank inventory, not the limit of such. Shared bank inventory starts with no slots, so to be able to share items between characters one must purchase the first upgrade at least.
So far as I know this cannot be supplemented by bags.
Even Everquest did better and we are talking the classic experience. 6 is very restrictive almost too much in my opinion. I mean not asking for 20 here but the possibility of using bags greatly mitigated the small number of bank slots Everquest had. What the devil can you put there if you are a crafter who because of the nature of crafting requires far more than that.
You say it can be bought and expanded but how restrictive is the cost. For me to be perfectly honest I am used to a lot of restrictions having played Everquest for years and been playing these games from 1999 but I don't appreciate the use of mules. In fact I hate that mechanic that these restrictive banking slots create.
I absolutely dislike the idea of multiple accounts and alts just so that I can play the game with what I consider as a bearable experience.
I can agree with the sentiment that people asking for things to be made less restrictive can force developers to make changes that destroy the vision some players have of a game but these type of restrictions are not essential to create difficulty but rather nuisance that players use mules and multiple accounts to get around. Multiple accounts benefit the developers and one I am not prepared to invest in.
Six is very restrictive. That is why I buy more slots, as can anyone else, with currency earned through play. The cost is restrictive in the sense of the time it takes to earn that currency. However, the demands on your bank space during that time aren't high.
You don't get gear drops like candy and there aren't many types of resources to collect at that point and little you can do with them. There is time to acquire more space along the way as the need for it increases.
If you aren't satisfied with that then EA may not be the game for you.
I guess I will have to experience this for myself. I recall in Everquest I carried a box capable of crafting arrows on me but it was damn heavy. If you make classes who use arrows have an enormously annoying time making arrows it will diminish the interest in those classes. I am not an advocate of punishing certain classes for the tools they need to play effectively.
It is a cheap and nasty way to add difficulty in playing the class when there are better ways to implement complexity. Annoying restrictions are not they way to improve gameplay of classes and it will only make it so that certain classes will be less played because of the numerous limitations.
You can if you like. All trying EA costs is the low, low price of $50 up front and you can try it whenever the server is available.
Ranged weapons have the unique advantage in EA of inflicting damage at a distance. There are no magic casters that can do so without. That advantage comes with a cost, as one should expect.
However, there is no exclusively or even primarily ranged class. The use of such weapons is no more punishing to any class than another.
6 inventory slots? Can you put a bag in each slot and increase the amount of space that way? We used to do that in Everquest.
Character specific bank inventory is expandable with currency earned in game, as is shared inventory. Six slots is the starting value for character specific bank inventory, not the limit of such. Shared bank inventory starts with no slots, so to be able to share items between characters one must purchase the first upgrade at least.
So far as I know this cannot be supplemented by bags.
Even Everquest did better and we are talking the classic experience. 6 is very restrictive almost too much in my opinion. I mean not asking for 20 here but the possibility of using bags greatly mitigated the small number of bank slots Everquest had. What the devil can you put there if you are a crafter who because of the nature of crafting requires far more than that.
You say it can be bought and expanded but how restrictive is the cost. For me to be perfectly honest I am used to a lot of restrictions having played Everquest for years and been playing these games from 1999 but I don't appreciate the use of mules. In fact I hate that mechanic that these restrictive banking slots create.
I absolutely dislike the idea of multiple accounts and alts just so that I can play the game with what I consider as a bearable experience.
I can agree with the sentiment that people asking for things to be made less restrictive can force developers to make changes that destroy the vision some players have of a game but these type of restrictions are not essential to create difficulty but rather nuisance that players use mules and multiple accounts to get around. Multiple accounts benefit the developers and one I am not prepared to invest in.
Six is very restrictive. That is why I buy more slots, as can anyone else, with currency earned through play. The cost is restrictive in the sense of the time it takes to earn that currency. However, the demands on your bank space during that time aren't high.
You don't get gear drops like candy and there aren't many types of resources to collect at that point and little you can do with them. There is time to acquire more space along the way as the need for it increases.
If you aren't satisfied with that then EA may not be the game for you.
I guess I will have to experience this for myself. I recall in Everquest I carried a box capable of crafting arrows on me but it was damn heavy. If you make classes who use arrows have an enormously annoying time making arrows it will diminish the interest in those classes. I am not an advocate of punishing certain classes for the tools they need to play effectively.
It is a cheap and nasty way to add difficulty in playing the class when there are better ways to implement complexity. Annoying restrictions are not they way to improve gameplay of classes and it will only make it so that certain classes will be less played because of the numerous limitations.
If you wait until closer to release, things with the inventory or bank system may change between now and then, too.
None of the systems are final, as far as I can tell. Again: I think that means release this year isn't really feasible.
6 inventory slots? Can you put a bag in each slot and increase the amount of space that way? We used to do that in Everquest.
Character specific bank inventory is expandable with currency earned in game, as is shared inventory. Six slots is the starting value for character specific bank inventory, not the limit of such. Shared bank inventory starts with no slots, so to be able to share items between characters one must purchase the first upgrade at least.
So far as I know this cannot be supplemented by bags.
Even Everquest did better and we are talking the classic experience. 6 is very restrictive almost too much in my opinion. I mean not asking for 20 here but the possibility of using bags greatly mitigated the small number of bank slots Everquest had. What the devil can you put there if you are a crafter who because of the nature of crafting requires far more than that.
You say it can be bought and expanded but how restrictive is the cost. For me to be perfectly honest I am used to a lot of restrictions having played Everquest for years and been playing these games from 1999 but I don't appreciate the use of mules. In fact I hate that mechanic that these restrictive banking slots create.
I absolutely dislike the idea of multiple accounts and alts just so that I can play the game with what I consider as a bearable experience.
I can agree with the sentiment that people asking for things to be made less restrictive can force developers to make changes that destroy the vision some players have of a game but these type of restrictions are not essential to create difficulty but rather nuisance that players use mules and multiple accounts to get around. Multiple accounts benefit the developers and one I am not prepared to invest in.
Six is very restrictive. That is why I buy more slots, as can anyone else, with currency earned through play. The cost is restrictive in the sense of the time it takes to earn that currency. However, the demands on your bank space during that time aren't high.
You don't get gear drops like candy and there aren't many types of resources to collect at that point and little you can do with them. There is time to acquire more space along the way as the need for it increases.
If you aren't satisfied with that then EA may not be the game for you.
I guess I will have to experience this for myself. I recall in Everquest I carried a box capable of crafting arrows on me but it was damn heavy. If you make classes who use arrows have an enormously annoying time making arrows it will diminish the interest in those classes. I am not an advocate of punishing certain classes for the tools they need to play effectively.
It is a cheap and nasty way to add difficulty in playing the class when there are better ways to implement complexity. Annoying restrictions are not they way to improve gameplay of classes and it will only make it so that certain classes will be less played because of the numerous limitations.
You can if you like. All trying EA costs is the low, low price of $50 up front and you can try it whenever the server is available.
Ranged weapons have the unique advantage in EA of inflicting damage at a distance. There are no magic casters that can do so without. That advantage comes with a cost, as one should expect.
However, there is no exclusively or even primarily ranged class. The use of such weapons is no more punishing to any class than another.
No need to buy. They said their next FREE test is close.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
My stance is that I want the game to be popular to those it was made for.
So even if you know the audience is so small it will not sustain the studio and allow them to make future games you don't care about that?
It seems your position is one, where if a family towing a raft comes to a crossroads and asks you directions to the fastest way to the river. You would tell them to gas it on path C when you know path C leads to a sheer cliff with the river at the bottom. Because TECHNICLY that's what they asked for.
You realize that game studios make games to make money not to appeal to specific audiences. Making money is primary. They are hoping at the end of the journey there is a pot of gold and players. If they knew they were running off a cliff they would change their plan?
You don't think a alpha/beta tester is under some implied understanding that the advice they are giving will get them to the overall goal safely. That the advice you give is actually supposed to be in the devs best interest?
Win-Win scenarios IMO should be the viewpoint of the tester, where they get things they like at the same time knowing those changes will help the success of the game. They shouldn't be recommending changes that they know will make the dev team fall off a cliff in the end.
If you wait until closer to release, things with the inventory or bank system may change between now and then, too.
None of the systems are final, as far as I can tell. Again: I think that means release this year isn't really feasible.
You are right about that, in fact I can practically guarantee 2 months after release, these QOL features will be firmly in place. These devs will be backtracking so fast on their original vision it will be funny to watch. Once they see their entire player base evaporate and negatively rate them on steam over their lack of these features they will 180 so fast it will make your head spin.
It will be too late by then mind you to save the game, but they will certainly try.
The chances the opposite happens where they remove QOL after launch to save the game is practically NIL. Because any moron with a lick of experience in games knows removing basic QOL features will not bring in more players.
I have seen this cycle so many times, its so very redundant.
Comments
You can see how quickly you will eat thru your limited space.
With that said after a lot of complaining they have slightly increased these numbers barely. You can now buy 6 bank spaces at a time for gold. Up to probably 30, don't know if it goes past 30 spaces because I have never seen anyone get enough gold to buy the last set of 6 slots.
You also get around 20 spaces in your SINGLE bag of your character (no additional bags you can purchase) But keep in mind if you die and have to forfeit your bag, you lose all your gold and items in your bag, which will be a lot because of lack of space.
Either way there are multiple tiers of ore, wood, potions, provisioning items, food, ingredients for food, torches, weapons(don't stack), armor(don't stack), other resources, all that have to fit into 20 slots, so expect to be throwing stuff on the ground.
If you are a crafter to some weapons require 4 parts, each could have different types of wood/metal/cloth to choose. So you can easily have hundreds of choices, but only a few slots to hold them, so your choices will be limited to what you can fit into your bank.
No AH or Player vendors to increase storage, and trading is player to player so that's not happening either.
Before these people added the extra bag they thought this tiny amount of space was sufficient to the player. Because they want their players to experience pain and loss.
This happens with many systems of this game. So frustration will be your experience.
So when I am suggesting AT LEAST a few more bags, this is the BARE and I mean BARE minimum this game will need to not lose half of the player base. The player testers are in month long arguments asking for scraps, and people here are pretending like these devs are negotiating in good faith.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
Your not alone, this is likely where 95%+ of the playerbase is. If you look at games that have mods, the most popular mods are usually inventory expansion and stack size increase.
Its pretty obvious this is extremely important to the large retail base of customers.
However what you find is people in Beta represent and oversized sample of the 5% that say they want limited inventory. Then these games launch and people negative review the game to oblivion until they increase the pack size to a reasonable amount. Which is usually too late to save the game from their downward spiral.
This is just one QOL feature, but its the same thing with others.
Some games force the players to buy the extra inventory because they figure out its popular.
I pay good cash money (hundreds of $s) for extra storage in games like POE and monthly subs in ESO/FO76 just to gain access to unlimited scrap/crafting boxes and never play a minute without this convenience.
These Devs are clueless and clearly are doing it all wrong.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Don't confuse QOL with mob difficulty. Because that's completely unrelated to me.
I am specifically talking QOL issues like
Lack of inventory/storage space
Lack of fast travel/porting
Harsh death mechanics
Lack of mechanics to log out safely to eat dinner, being forced to spend hours or risk even more hours due to death
Slow mana/stamina regen after battle
Do you people even care if the studio of these games are successful or do you only care if you are happy?
Personally when giving feedback I like to find win-win scenario's where changing the mechanic to my liking will actually make the game more popular. Mainly because I care about the long term health of the game and future games based on it.
However I have heard many people say they don't care if the game is unpopular, all they care is if they are happy. Where do you stand?
I don't like muling or begging people to help transfer stuff to an alt or multiple accounts but I will spend real money on inventory expansions. I loathe inventory restrictions especially when I enjoy crafting to a fault.
Anyway, DDO is a resource management dungeon running game, where originally a huge part of the challenge of the game was not the direct difficulty of an individual mob, but being able to complete the dungeon with only the resources you went in with, like a traditional D&D dungeon crawl.
Thus, Making the game a thought provoking game, of making sure you had what you would need to face what was in a dungeon, as well as manage your resources, so you had to deal with the risks of being bested by a powerful mob, or dying to attrition from weak mobs.
In this venture, the game really did make you think about what dungeon you were about to do, and how to prep for it, it was in every way, a thinking and planning persons game.
So, to make sure this was in fact a challenge, things like limited inventory were applied, as well as smaller stack sizes, so you could not stack a 1,000 cure pots in a single spot and have near infinite HP, they set max stack size is 100, so 1,000 pots would take up 10 spots in your inventory, which were prime space you might need for something like Fire Resist items, depending on the dungeon.
They even had really powerful healing Silver Flame Pots, and those cap stacked at 10, just to make sure you could not go Monty Haul with them.
They even had encumbrance rules, So even if you had the space, you might not have the ability to carry everything you wanted, this was not just to be jerks to the players, this was a directly designed in aspects to make the game more challenging and harder, in a tactical and thought provoking way.
It had a purpose and reason to exist.
They have done a lot to give a crap ton more Inventory, so.... if you are willing to buy it, you can horde a ton of stuff.
But still the nature of how their QOL worked, was directly interwoven to the difficulty of the game, and did in fact make mobs and encounters harder.
They do.
Six is very restrictive. That is why I buy more slots, as can anyone else, with currency earned through play. The cost is restrictive in the sense of the time it takes to earn that currency. However, the demands on your bank space during that time aren't high.
You don't get gear drops like candy and there aren't many types of resources to collect at that point and little you can do with them. There is time to acquire more space along the way as the need for it increases.
If you aren't satisfied with that then EA may not be the game for you.
If their goal was to pitch this game to those in their teens and twenties it would not play and look anything like it does. Clearly that is not their intent.
Project TL has changed the game to Thrones and Liberty. Do you think its not a legitimate complaint by its customers if they completely remove magic from the game with that name change?
Some games change names many times in early development. Fact still remains they removed magic from the game. A HUGE population of players like magic. This is an issue no?
The death penalty is not harsh in the context of old school games.
Accommodate your play around your life. Don't undertake game tasks you may not be able to complete before you must leave. That is common sense in a game meant to be dependent on group play as one must demonstrate reliability in such.
I personally don't find stamina regeneration particularly slow.
My care is that their success comes from the market they seek to appeal to. They clearly know the game will not draw a massive population. Their intent is to capture a portion of a niche market that is not abundantly served.
It is not a win-win scenario if the desired changes are not popular with their intended audience. It's a Brainy win, and otherwise let the chips where they may.
My stance is that I want the game to be popular to those it was made for.
If you were simply reiterating a criticism about a change in direction that happened a year ago, then that makes sense. Your post didn't really specify that these were long-held criticisms.
And considering the name change coincided with the team getting rid of the prior project lead, I would definitely consider such a move to be significant in terms of the project's vision, yes.
Think you read a bit more into my post than I stated. I was simply putting out a pro/con list saying the reasons the game will not appeal to a large base of players. Each thing on my con list narrows the player base significantly. There is a point the player base is so small very few are left to play the game.
You might not agree with all the things I stated are problems to you personally, but its hard to deny they will be important to a lot of players.
There was a time, I thought I could help get this team on track and make a game that would appeal to a decent chunk of players to be successful. With their timeline and them slow walking every single OBVIOUS change, arguing about the most basic of things. I don't believe its possible to turn this game around in a reasonable time. I also don't believe the devs now want to change directions.
So let them make the game they want, it will fail, maybe Pantheon will learn from their mistakes, I doubt it thou.
It is a cheap and nasty way to add difficulty in playing the class when there are better ways to implement complexity. Annoying restrictions are not they way to improve gameplay of classes and it will only make it so that certain classes will be less played because of the numerous limitations.
You can if you like. All trying EA costs is the low, low price of $50 up front and you can try it whenever the server is available.
Ranged weapons have the unique advantage in EA of inflicting damage at a distance. There are no magic casters that can do so without. That advantage comes with a cost, as one should expect.
However, there is no exclusively or even primarily ranged class. The use of such weapons is no more punishing to any class than another.
None of the systems are final, as far as I can tell. Again: I think that means release this year isn't really feasible.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
So even if you know the audience is so small it will not sustain the studio and allow them to make future games you don't care about that?
It seems your position is one, where if a family towing a raft comes to a crossroads and asks you directions to the fastest way to the river. You would tell them to gas it on path C when you know path C leads to a sheer cliff with the river at the bottom. Because TECHNICLY that's what they asked for.
You realize that game studios make games to make money not to appeal to specific audiences. Making money is primary. They are hoping at the end of the journey there is a pot of gold and players. If they knew they were running off a cliff they would change their plan?
You don't think a alpha/beta tester is under some implied understanding that the advice they are giving will get them to the overall goal safely. That the advice you give is actually supposed to be in the devs best interest?
Win-Win scenarios IMO should be the viewpoint of the tester, where they get things they like at the same time knowing those changes will help the success of the game. They shouldn't be recommending changes that they know will make the dev team fall off a cliff in the end.
You are right about that, in fact I can practically guarantee 2 months after release, these QOL features will be firmly in place. These devs will be backtracking so fast on their original vision it will be funny to watch. Once they see their entire player base evaporate and negatively rate them on steam over their lack of these features they will 180 so fast it will make your head spin.
It will be too late by then mind you to save the game, but they will certainly try.
The chances the opposite happens where they remove QOL after launch to save the game is practically NIL. Because any moron with a lick of experience in games knows removing basic QOL features will not bring in more players.
I have seen this cycle so many times, its so very redundant.