Things that EL does (at least partly) wrong:
- not really multi-racial: misses race-specific attributes and skills that would add depth to the game
I disagree, i would hate to be in some way limited simply due to my char's appearance.
- magic system underdeveloped: few spells, very limited (especially ranged spells), confusion with fighting system (so that pr0 fighters are almost automatically pr0 mages)
I agree, we're going to work on this. One big issue atm is that we're limited to the current effects in the EL client... but we'll address that one way or another. We have a much bigger magic system planned than EL's.
- every skill has some specific problem, more or less bad: for mixing skills many items are high level, but progression is hard; training in fighting is expensive, and there are holes in the "monster progression"; pk system is very complex, expensive (except for KF) and ... dead?
I agree. One note; Competitive PK is still very expensive, even in KF.
Against opponents around my levels i'll usually sink at
least ~2kgc worth of stuff per single fight. It can be a lot more.
- build system a little complex (attributes, cross-attributes, skill levels, nexuses)
I disagee with you here. I very much enjoy that EL's char building system is more complex than 'traditional' RPG styles.
- lacks depth: no story affecting characters, almost no RPG aspect, no RPG-like explanation of invasions (with some effects on the state of the world), etc.
- lacks a unifying principle: something that explains why the world is as it is, and would allow to expand it in a coeherent way
- many unrealistic features (harving ores with swords? wtf???)
- all new features are either ridiculously expensive or serve a different purpose than what should be the inspiring principle (making the game more fun): horses, running, ranging should be more accessible
- economy has ... problems: can't really enter in detail here because I'm no expert (who said that the accountant is someone that solves problems you didn't know to have in ways that you don't understand? well I agree
I agree with you on all this.
- harvest events took away one of the most interesting features (afk harvesting) trying to solve the gold-farmer problem
This issue is complex, and i'm probably not qualified to determine long-term effects of AFK harvesting... but in general, i'm not against 'afk harvesting'.
- character community is somewhat disconnected with the game developers
Game developers who actually play the game with a normal account would be pr0 eh?
- some features thought to make the game "not too easy" are annoying
Yes :\
Things need to present a challenge, not just take ages.
- some items really don't belong to the skills needed to produce them
Yeah we'd hope to keep items 'making sense'
In spite of its problems, EL mostly works and has gathered quite a vibrant community of players.
A solid community perhaps, but the population size has been stagnant for years.
To do something better is a difficult task and one that could be accomplished only in small steps.
Yep, we're aware this will be no short nor easy task... and we'll need much help
I also assume that the goal is to create a similar game, not a "fighting only" variant.
Certainly
not a "fighting only" variant.
The combat system is being worked on first for a few reasons (such as determining how combat will operate, to see what kind of accompanying items would be needed)... but much of the reason is simply that Krayon and myself dont already have a big, detailed plan in our heads for most of the non-combat stuff (that's not to say we haven't been throwing around all kinds of ideas)... where as i do already have a combat system design in mind.
To improve on EL means basically trying to keep what's good and do well what doesn't work.
Well, yes, but even when we consider something in EL 'good', we'll still always first investigate whether it could still be 'better' before just implementing it 'the EL way'.
- unifying principle: what kind of world do we want? a medieval+fantasy-like world is fine by me, and for most players, but how "does it work"? Think about the necessity to use fes to produce bars and efes to produce most kinds of metal-based armors: this could be translated as follows "XXXXX is a world with medieval settings where alchemy has advanced far more than metallurgy, so that armors and weapons are produced using alchemical essences instead of traditional blacksmith furnaces". Define a set of principles like that, follow them when creating stuff (and introducing new stuff) and your world will automatically be homogenous, credible and enjoyable. Do the opposite and you'll end up with land mines and remote controlled booby traps (aren't they more suitable for rinascimental settings, or a Vietnam wargame?), spears that are so complicated that might as well be laser guns and hats that cost an arm and a leg to produce.
I tend to agree, if we're gonna have non-medieval stuff, i'd hope we at least can come up with good justification for it... and ya stuff needs to make as much sense as possible.
- history and RPG settings: there's a section on the EL forum full of interesting stuff that nobody reads, why is that? because Draia's past and current situation have no influence whatsoever on the gameplay, so you can just mix and hack in blissfull ignorance. Think instead how much it would benefit from some depth in this sense:
- the gods' wars could lead not only to meaningless invasions but to changes in the way people play like getting a (small) bonus XP when fighting invasion creatures that belong to gods enemies of those you follow and viceversa, having maps controlled by certain gods when they win an invasion (and so new spawns of creatures tied to that gods), having gods forced to retire from those maps after players actions, etc.
- races could also play a bigger role: imagine that after some old war between differente races some YYY NPCs won't sell to XXX characters, or that ZZZ race exist also as creatures that are pacific except towards the evil TTT characters because of racial antipathy, etc.
- quests are another part of game where more depth would definitely help, would also be nice to have mini-quests for newbies alongside with more complicated and interesting quests for advanced players (folks, quests can be almost text only: this is 80s tech for those who played Bard's tale and the like
Current quests in EL are more like mini-quests to me than real quests.
I agree, i want the
bigger storyline to have much more impact on the game world, and ya that may be an ok way to have racial choice mean something.
- attributes: these are a crucial part of the game mechanism, I see that QEL moves stuff here and there but I can't always understand to what purpose, f.i. why is Toughness a cross-attribute of Coordination? or: how is Will related to Dexterity? or Rationality to Instinct?
For the moment we're limited by the names in the EL client (as that's
currently what we're using, un-patched).
I agree some of the ways the attributes are linked doesn't quite make RL/RPG sense, and they would be name different if we could... but that said, the attribute system is designed very much for making balanced and varied char builds across all 4 combatant orientations.
For now it's really only well reflected in the Melee and Ranged orientations, but additional effects of cross-attributes will be added in future for the Summoning and Mage orientations... i already have some ideas and development done in regards to this
What I'd do: let's consider well our starting point (EL) and see how well it works. Do we have keep all of them? Exactly as they are? I'd start by dividing PHYSICAL attributes from MENTAL ones, also keeping the cross-attributes separate: what's got mana to do with vitality? or perception with reasoning? I would take some time to think hard about this basic stuff.
I see you're a fan of a more traditional RPG attribute system
...We'll have to just agree to disagree, as i find the
'1attrib effects 3cross-attribs' system very appealing, and much more rewarding of considered and thought our attribute build plans/strategies, and offering more variety for 'build types'. I'd even hope to have non-combatants ending up being able to make different, balanced and useful 'build types'.
- nexuses: the way QEL uses them is to "determine" play styles, I find it very much limiting and somewhat artificial (inorganic nexus for rangers?). I also think that we could just get rid of nexuses altogether, and use cross-attributes for the same purpose (armor could depend on might, summoning on "charm", etc.), or other mechanisms (magic means no armor in lots of fantasy games), but that's an entirely different subject.
In regard to the seemingly non-sensical names (like inorganic for rangers), once again that's just because we're limited to the EL client, for the time being.
Introducing cross-attributes to play the role nexuses currently do doesn't really work with how i've planned out the attribs from the minute go. I'm certainly willing to review whether the current nexus system is the best way to go a little while after it's implementation (after some feedback), and i will go over it again with Krayon somewhere in the next few days to ensure we're happy with the limitations it includes.
- combat experience: here I really disagree, linking XP to the amount of damage (degree of success for spells) is plainly wrong IMHO; again, let's look at EL, the XP progressing system works well, with only a notable exception (ranging, again IMHO): why change it? What about different weapons dealing different damages? and is it fair that someone gets more XP simply because he has more might? Note that this system would make summoning more hard to level than it already is.
Well if a fighter wants max attack exp and to make a powerful offensive build, using Might and/or Dexterity will be the way to go (dex is an option because can then use higher damage, lower accuracy weapon to the same effect), although there's a lot more to it, the person needs to consider if they'll last long enough for their big offensive power to do the job, etc.
I dont see anything wrong with this, we just need to ensure that there's equal benefits for other types of builds.
I think it makes perfect sense to give more attack exp when you deal more damage, more magic exp when your spell has greater effect. Consider that perhaps "attack" doesn't only encompass your ability to
hit, but can be a reflection of your ability to dispatch opponents. The damage done is a key part of what the attack skill is used for.
All that aside, one of the key reasons offensive combat exp, across the 4 skills, is gained this way is to keep training 'epic' (as kav would say
)... training is this boring, mundane thing in EL... i cripple my character when i train, fighting a creature that cant hit me well at all and i do minimum damage when i hit him... i like the strategy one can use in EL to get the most out of EL's system, but really i think most people would prefer if training had more of a thrill to it. With exp based on damage/effect, when training for exp in those offensive skills you go out with your best sword, or strongest spells, or meanest summoned beasts and obliterate your opponents with all the power you've amassed in the development of your character.
It just sounds so much more fun to me than the dry task that is training in EL.
Also consider that allowing people to easily level offensive power, but making it harder to level defensive power, makes for really intense PK... less long, drawn out fights, more fast paced slaughter.
I'd like to see the following things, sorely missing in EL:
- racial bonus/malus on starting attributes (better start from a little more than the EL standard 4)
- racial abilities
Again i dont really like the idea that just because i prefer to look a certain way, i get disadvantages in some skills i may want to pursue.
Who says i cant be a hat making Orchan, or a magic Dwarf
- fighting skills: assuming that you a) get rid of nexuses b) gain >= xp than in EL, you could spend those PPs in fighting skills like Sword, Shield, etc., all combining in improving your def/att abilities
Well, those nexuses already do dictate equipment and item usage for the orientations... as i said earlier, the Nexus system is something i would be willing to re-visit, and as far as i'm concerned it's
never too late to go back and change things... i'd hope to get the design right first time, but i've got no problem with going back and re-doing work if it turns out we need to.
- greatly improved magic system, also including scrolls and runes (ready to use spells for non magic users, like summoning stones are for non summoners)
Perhaps... atm though i'm leaning towards disagreeing.
I never really liked that summoning became something everyone could do... kinda cheats the summoners in my mind... same would apply to magic.
- make fight training a little more self sustaining
Combatants will never have to do anything other than combat if they don't want to (same applies in reverse for non-combat oriented people). I said earlier that this game will not be a "combat version" of EL, but that doesn't mean we're not going to be making PvP/PK'ing a much easier thing for people to do, with less 'effort' needed to gain the resources to compete. Still to this day no one has ever been able to give me actual good reason why gc shouldn't be simply thrown at combatants. Considering QEL wont have stuff like pickpoint buying, most of these combatants will burn that gc on resources for PvE or PvP, hopefully keeping the artisan/producers product throughput very high.
- "charm" (or charisma) if implemented could be used not only for summoning but also for secondary, non fighting skills like haggling with NPCs
If we can make it work we will
--------------------------
Thanks for all your input and ideas Reh, you've got me thinking about some changes that may be needed to balance the Mage too ^^
I can see you're a fan of many of the aspects from traditional RPG's... i am too with a lot of things, but not with some others ;p ...we'll no doubt re-visit many of the points/suggestions you've made in the future, in more detail.
Author
