Jump to content

Keeto

Members
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Keeto last won the day on September 9

Keeto had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Keeto's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • Collaborator Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In Rare

Recent Badges

5

Reputation

  1. If we're interested in just moving to one castle, and I assume we'd be resetting ownership and invests (which I think should just be locked anyway), then I'd vote for none of the above, and maybe push forward Fadhgridh (Valkyrie 3) or Skoegul (Valkyrie 4). New castle layout gives breath of fresh air for everyone to play in a new environment. It's also a pretty fun castle to fight in every floor. Just my 2c.
  2. For the most part, everything seemed to run smoothly. If the PZ team could state their philosophy behind implementing WoE:SE then the community can provide changes/suggestions better catered to that goal. For example, if WoE:SE was implemented to promote more GvG scenarios, then I agree with the post above me that the Barricades and Guardian Stones don't really need more HP. Moreso if WoE is only going to be 1-hour moving forward. People need to remember these are base values and obviously scale with DEF invests. Contrary to popular belief WoE:SE with a small numbers of guilds is very defense-favoured, more than FE. Another suggestion would be to let the community know if there's anything the PZ Staff wants to be extensively tested in any manner. Whether it's with bugs or with fine-tuning mechanics. That way guilds can purposely tackle these issues rather then just kind of playing around. Echoing the comment above, but thanks for all your hard work. Cheers, Keeto
  3. Agreed. No reason to add extra work for gear in a game mode that doesn't exist in kROz anyway. I don't think there's anything wrong with PVP rewards. Every game mode should have a carrot at the end of the stick (WoE has TBs, PVM has the gear). They all work because of that inherent loop of being rewarded for your play time. I do think people are getting carried away with the whole "me, me, me" thing about potential rewards, but I have no issues with temporary costumes and titles as PVP rewards that the staff originally outlined. God items are probably on the table, but not implemented until we get the last two realms for WoE (Payon and Al de Baran). This falls in line with the kROz timeline as well. As for the WoE meta being different from kROz I haven't personally seen anything egregious and I did quite a bit of looking into it in the past. Meta is exactly what it means. It's affected by many things such ease of access to gear, number of guilds and size, player base skill/knowledge, Guild preferences for certain strategies, politics, etc. I think mechanically we're pretty close to it (credit to PZ team), but there's obviously kinks here and there as we are emulating and not using their source code. If you have certain issues with how our WoE meta is currently I'm always open to discuss it, but it seems fine to me right now.
  4. High Priority Fixes for PVP/BG (Should be fixed within the supposed hot patch for BG) 1. Lesser Guild Sets/Equipment Fixing Rental NPC (No Cloaks available to rent, no way to change rentals, wrong item ID I assume is the culprit) Some people saying they aren't working, can't confirm personally as I didn't use them 2. Queue cooldown and number of players required Current population and interest makes it hard to gather 10 people for the 5v5 mode so testing itself is a chore to gather people (does it say something about current outcry for PVP? Hard to say, but we're also an international server with limited time IRL to play as well so could be a lot of factors) Lowering it to minimum 3v3 seems manageable at least for continued testing purposes. 5 minute cooldown seems excessive at the moment. I assume it's to prevent team hopping, but I'm not sure why that's an issue if you can't queue into an ongoing match anyway? 3. Ease of access Dunno why it was necessary to create an entirely new NPC let alone put it down in an obscure section of the town. Hopefully can just slap a chat option for the already existing PVP NPC at Prontera fountain (don't know if that NPC exists in every town yet, been on hiatus). 4. Skills/Consumables Fill in the missing consumables that people are complaining about (Panacea, ASPD potions, etc) Movement and knockback related skills should probably be enabled (Backslide, Snap, Charge Attack, etc) 5. PVP/BG Global Channel/Announcement No idea how hard it is to code, but it's currently a chore and there's no way to tell if people are queue-ing or want to play BG unless you're looking on Discord or they're shouting in #main. Should be periodic announcements (or an announcement in #PVP channel everytime someone enters the queue/waiting room) 6. PZ Staff's Vision for what they want to create with the BG/PVP mode and by extension WoE. Currently there's a pretty stark disconnect between the playerbase's expectations and the PZ staff's implementation of anything related to PVP/WoE (examples being multiple iterations of WoE Treasure Boxes, PVP Arena implementation, BG implementation, etc). Laying out the PZ staff's vision for the game modes alleviates frustrations of the playerbase because there's now expectations of what's to come rather than it being a mystery and everyone's imagination runs wild. This is only further exacerbated by the staff DM-ing people, but not implementing anything discussed. There's a Cantonese saying "Eyes bigger than my stomach" for when people order more food than they can eat. I feel like this has been a consistent issue with PVP for the PZ team. The saying goes in business to "Under promise and over-deliver". I would work on fine-tuning and polishing current game modes (KVM/PVP, WoE, PVM) before promising complicated things like rotating game modes, ELO, etc. Especially with your team being strapped for time and resources there's no point in stretching yourself so thin. Cheers, Keeto
  5. Yes, but caps at about 183~184 since there's the 0.3s GCD to deal with. Max of 3 Raids/s Most of it's just NPC/Overcharge(OC). Can get some nice optioned Mufflers[1] from the champion mobs
  6. So having attended both Saturday and Sunday WoEs this week, as well as having held the castle for a week and invested into it to see the castle treasure box loot I thought I'd add some extra insight and suggestions to WoE. Unintended bug/mechanic at the moment would be the no dual-client on WoE maps. It currently works for castles (ie. you can't have multiple chars under the same Master account in one castle), however the work around that can be exploited currently is that it only applies to each individual castle. Meaning I could have one character logged on pre-casting a defense in the Emp room (Geffen 1 for example) and have an offensive character attack a separate castle (Prontera 1). Probably just an oversight and I expect it to be fixed. Otherwise there's no point in the current implementation of no "dual-clients" in WoE as functionally it still works as if it never existed. Probably the hottest topic at the moment. I can only speak for myself and what the turn out looks like for SQ/VM at the moment. For me, I live in NA East so Saturday WoE starts at 0800 EST. Not unmanageable, but I do choose to wake up at 0600 just so I can get some things out of the way, mainly walking the dog and then hopefully get some pre-WoE organization done. However looking at it for NA West players it's pretty rough. I tell everyone in my guild that IRL is always first and honestly it's not worth waking up at 5am to play a video game unless you're normally up at that hour anyway. We have a few night shift workers that try to make it after their shift but it's only a couple and even then coming home after a night shift the last thing on my mind is to play games. Saturday's turn out for us was ~23 players so just shy of 2 parties most of them being SEA or EU. Sunday WoE is currently 1500 EST (NA East) and 1200 PST (NA West). This time currently works fine for me as my weekends are generally free. I personally don't go to church so it doesn't apply to me, but it's an understandably important aspect in many people's lives which is currently where the time slot sits for people who would attend Church I think. SQ/VM attendance on this one is a lot lower with only 12.5 (someone showed up for the last 15min or so) so about half attendance compared to Saturday. And understandably it was the SEA players who didn't attend. Now for the suggestions in the #woe channel about adjusting NA times. The two main suggestions I've seen are moving the "NA" slot to Friday evening or pushing the NA slot to evening on Sundays. I think if the goal is to truly focus on the NA player base for these times then pushing it into the evening is fine. The problem stems from the fact that everyone on the staff/GM team is EU and pushing it later in the evening on Sunday makes the hours somewhat unreasonable for EU people for a Sunday. Now if we're looking at it through that lens what's more reasonable: 1) Staying up really late on a Friday night (some would consider this the norm as people used to stay/go out late on Fridays pre-COVID), or 2) Stay up really late on a Sunday into a Monday morning work week. Most would agree the former makes more sense if we're considering that we need staff on deck in case something funny happens before or during WoE. An argument has been made that some people would be working / rushing home on a Friday just to WoE so you would probably be looking to push it sometime later as Pancho and others' have suggested in previous posts. Whether that works or the current players are comfortable with I couldn't tell ya, but the premise seems reasonable if we're already targeting weekend WoEs with the preconception that people have the most time available on weekends then Friday evening should be considered as well. Going to lump these two questions/points together as they go hand-in-hand. This is an extension/alternative of the suggestion I made regarding Econ for Treasure Box loot as it currently is. I believe the scaling of Econ with the current treasure box loot is too linear and scales too quickly. These are the past two days of Treasure box loot after I assume we hit Econ breakpoints (13 and 15 respectively). My gut reaction to these drops is that it feels like too much. Yes you can argue that it's "split" between however many people in your guild and therefore not that much, but again this is only hitting the first Econ break point. Doesn't even require you to have held it for more than a week (TB's weren't enabled till after Tuesday maintenance either) and it's only up from here. So my suggestion as mentioned above is to have the TB boxes scale exponentially versus linearly. Meaning the type of loot you see above shouldn't be something you get till you've held that castle w/o breaks for about 3 weeks (~40+ Econ) minimum cause as it currently stands we're looking at 1 Conqueror piece/day with the current loot table. The second suggestion would be castle numbers. Now that I've sat and stewed on the idea a little more I think opening more castles might incentivize more people to play WoE as: 1) There's more opportunities for smaller guilds to claim a castle and 2) Risk/Reward versus Castle Econ. The first point is pretty simple if the no dual-client applies to all WoE maps (castles + the castle maps) then the player base gets spread out over more castles. Sounds like a bad idea due to current numbers right? I know but hear me out. This would open the opportunity for less geared/smaller guilds to compete in smaller skirmishes against "detachments" of bigger guilds which leads into point #2. More castles opens means more incentive to try and claim them. However that means dividing up your resources (read: guild members/players) onto multiple fronts. Now guilds have to consider whether it's more beneficial to pre-cast/defend one castle with Econ versus potentially holding as many castles as possible under the risk that they'll be broken and only have base econ. What you hopefully get is more fights spread out across multiple castles rather than the current setup of 3 larger guilds just trying to push through each other's pre-casts/defense and smaller guilds just getting run over if they're not with one of the 3 guilds. If it wasn't already obvious after the test WoE and these two weeks of WoE, but pre-trans and WoE1 in general is very defense favoured. There's currently no incentive for guilds who own a castle to go out of their way to attack and weaken their own defense since there's only one other castle (moreso with current Econ scaling), but if it's the difference of owning 1 castle versus owning 3 then the decision gets more interesting. That's all for now with regards to balancing WoE and getting the most attendance out of our player base. Feel free to hit me up on discord in the #woe channel to discuss these further or in this feedback thread. Cheers, Keeto
  7. Times - Do they work for the majority? Would you prefer different days at all? I think I generally prefer one on a weekday, one on a weekend. I couldn't attend this past Saturday's so can't comment on the attendance there, but Sunday seemed okay-ish? Was mostly VM and Virtuous for the first 40min or so in one castle till I saw Invictus and Corsair hop in near the end where it started getting a little more chaotic. As for NA times being on the Sunday others' have already voiced their issues with it being a family/church day for the current times or people working weekends so I think if the current NA players are having issues with the current times maybe a weekday evening could solve that (would be early morning for SEA, but not sure how many SEA players would be free in the morning to WoE). The issue I saw being discussed in #main after WoE on Sunday was Ema saying there needing a GM to be present during the WoE times in case any shenanigans happen which is hard since I think a lot of the staff are EU-based. Castles - Is 2 per WoE a good number? Would you like more/less? I think the current castle number is good just depends on how consistently guilds show up. On the test WoE day I saw about 4 guilds, which in an ideal world would be 2 guilds fighting for castles in each. Was less consistent this past Sunday till the last 15min or so. Outside of that, different castles for the different WoE days is good. Can obviously adjust castle count as more or less guilds start participating. Treasure Drops - Is everyone happy with the suggested items? If not, what should they drop instead? Probably the spiciest of the topics. I think if the goal is to inject more MD drops into the market then might as well add the Subjugation equipment (armor, boots, sash, rings) as well rather than just the crystals otherwise we run into similar issues of people having to run Easy modes for specific drops. I'm also okay with having the refine items be part of the treasure box loot. The most controversial opinion I'll have on this topic is probably Invest in Commerce Development should probably be locked at base levels currently. In general WoE1 and pre-trans meta heavily favors defenders with portal pre-casting so as guilds build up numbers and continue to just defend and hold castles you get heavier market power for holding, which would be a good reward, but the current risks of it aren't there due to current WoE turnout. So incentivizing guilds to just sit in their castles pre-casting for more rewards is pretty anti-fun in general and we all already know what kind of mob mentality opinions brew from people getting envious of others (think back to no-wipe Beta and public opinion on that lol). So until WoE turnout increases or spreads out between the guilds I'd probably say leave castle econs at base values (enough so they qualify for the refine drops from TBs as well) so that there's less incentive for guilds who already own castles to pre-cast/defend for an hour versus searching for fights in open ground.
  8. They come out with the Amatsu update, which should be after Louyang. They get Kagerou/Oboro an update or two after the Trans-class update.
  9. 1) Not gonna bother listing weapons for 13 classes for a variety of reasons, but at the base of Zero it's still Renewal. So higher level weapon with higher base weapon ATK is still better when it comes to physical damage. As for card combinations they haven't really changed from pre-Renewal. If you're farming weapon drops you're aiming for high ATK/+% to racial~element. And if you're going with forged Level 3 weapons you're aiming for the same thing just the ranges are higher. 2) The current goals for most classes and builds are the +9 Memorial dungeon armors with their respective class enchants. Check the wiki for more info. 3) You can obtain the enriched/HD ores from Thor's Flame NPC at the Prontera Blacksmith for zeny fee. 4) Efficiency changes with market values of the items. More expensive the base item the less likely you'll want to break it so you will want to use enriched or refine boxes. The cheaper the base item the less you care about breaking them. Better to run the math for yourself based on what you're aiming for.
  10. Lol hope it helped! Will update a few sections when.. I'm feeling less lazy 😅
  11. No, the Control Panel database needs to be updated for a variety of things at the moment (HIT/FLEE values of monsters, etc).
  12. It was reworked in Zero. https://gitlab.com/ragnarok-project-zero/bugs-and-suggestions-tracker/-/blob/master/changelogs/2020-09-01.md
  13. Cheers. Hope you enjoy your time with it.
  14. RE: Zeny drop change I think for field maps it shouldn't be too bad. I vaguely remember checking Sea Otter map in beta and the spawns weren't all that great for how large the map is and it'd be nice to add easier zeny generating spots for lower level players. The dungeons get a little funky though as they're supposed to have higher spawns so you'll have to watch those ones. Maybe push it to 3x and adjust later if they're not working as you'd have hoped. As for the Mimic and Myst Case card drops I think raising them slightly doesn't hurt too much, but I've always looked at them as bonus loot anyway so I have no strong opinion on the changes either way (within reason). RE: BSB and Refine boxes BSB and Refine boxes I don't have any issues against as they provide ways to fight the RNG of refining for nicely optioned items and the memorial dungeon equipment. And as mentioned future Zero-exclusive gears all essentially require +7~9 refinement for their intended effects so helping that will cause less burnout in the playerbase due to refining. As for BSBs being drops from Champion mobs I think its a great idea as it gives more incentives for spending time killing them. I've noticed of late on some maps people just ignore them as they're not really worth the time to kill if they're focused on leveling or if the drops aren't great/ With regards to BSBs being drops from fever field monsters I think will depend on your secondary goals of the BSBs as zeny sinks. If your secondary goal is for them to be additional zeny sinks then I think they should probably be untradeable between players. If you're planning on implementing them as card-drop rate items then I think what's going to happen is the lower level fever fields will just be farmed consistently by over-geared players as it's just more efficient than the future fever fields (GH, CT) if their goal is to get BSBs. This will likely cause them to become lower than their 5m value in the market over time as people farm them, which also doesn't take zeny out of circulation. If I were to suggest a middle-ground option it'd be something like somebody mentioned above with a scaling drop rate to the difficulty of the fever field. Something like Payon being the lowest at 0.01, Morroc/Geffen being a middle ground at 0.03 and GH/CT being the card rate of 0.05. This incentivizes people to push towards the more difficult content as the rewards for farming there are more meaningful, but gives the player base options to obtain them from the easier fever fields. This also prevents a saturation of BSBs in the market if you intended them to be tradeable. All in all, great changes and suggestions look forward to additional content from the team! Cheers, Keeto
  15. I like Sumimi's suggestions for Hard mode Memorial Dungeons. It's a little silly to have to decide between the Azure/Crimson Crystals versus the Bloody Rubies/Sea Sapphires when running Ant Hell/Izlude. Otherwise I like the proposed slightly increased drops based on unique master accounts in the party. The other issue with MDs at the moment as mentioned by others above is the distribution of loot. There's not much of a problem when its done in-house with the guild as I'm sure each guild has their own way to organize and distribute loot, but for Pick-Up Groups (PUGs) it's kind of a free-for-all crap shoot from what I've heard. Maybe adding the option for PUGs to select an option for individual loot with the current bonus rates(?) rather than the proposed new ones. That way there's still more incentive to play with your static guild/groups, but PUGs are an alternative for people who couldn't make it or people who have yet to find a guild to run them. Not sure how feasible this option is to code though. Anywho that's my 2c. Keep up the great work Project Zero Team 🙂
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

by using our forums you agree to our terms of service Terms of Use