Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Stuff that an AC3 must and must not have
Falconoffury
Member Posts: 555
Here are the game features I think an AC3 must and must not have.
Must Haves
Huge seamless world, huge inventory size, complex random loot, ability to heal fast and tank lots of mobs if you have the buffs skills and equipment for it, ability to assign experience points to skills, as many or more skill and stat choices, server wide chat channels, monthly or every 2 month updates, tinkering and salvage or comparable system for crafting, complex dungeons, complex magic system, long long long way to max out levels and/or skills, twitch style combat, Darktide style pvp server with no safe areas, and Ulgrim the drunk town crier.
Must Not Haves
Instances, level dependant system where level determines what fights you can win, graphics that are so good that the team must make sacrifices in the "must haves" list, too many quests to the point where you can level on quests only, a quest panel, a map that shows you exactly where to go to complete all quests, level restricted loot, monster xp based upon your level compared to the monster's level (monster xp should be fixed for all monsters)
My list focuses on keeping ACs greatest and most unique traits in the next game, while keeping it from falling into the traits that every other mmorpg has. Post your opinions.
Comments
It seems like you want something that sticks very closely to AC. I'm more interested in just keeping to the spirit of AC.
~~~ Currently Playing ~~~
LOTRO- Guardian Wrymstrum & Lore-master Stabler on Nimrodel.
Conan- Zoltar <Angels of Death> Guardian on Stormrage.
I agree more or less with the OP.
There are a few points that I think need to be altered.
I loved taking on many mobs in AC; that is fine. The problem came with the buffs though. I shouldn't be able to fight numerous extremely high leveled mobs simultaneously. This is what buffing allowed. This ruined certain aspects of the game and made players experience extremely watered down gameplay. Some grew to even depend on buffs. Last time I entered the game, lvl 7s were being handed out and one guy told me he never goes anywhere without them. He was about level 15...
One way they could change this issue: create a skill that limits buffs. A player can only have as many buffs as the skill level permits. Say it adds buff point system, and once the maximum capacity of buffs is hit, no more spells can be added. Higher level spells cost more points. Clearly, this would not allow a level 15 to easily get a set of level sevens. Even if he did get a level seven buff, the skill would probably only be high enough for one spell, which isn't enough to be so godly that you trample everything, especially since few additional (lower level) buffs could be added. This is, of course, only one method to correct the problem.
If I recall, AC2 had a system where the toon could only go so far from the person who cast the buff before the buff disappears. I only played it once (for a few hours at most) but I remember hearing something like this. This method is ok, but doesn't help if a patron is power-leveling a vassal or friend. I also don't mind if the player receives a little help from some other source, as long as it does not completely break down the gaming experience like it does now.
My only other concern is tinkering. I don't mind crafting, nor do I mind salvaging and whatnot, but the tinkering system got out of hand. It was absolutely required in order to become even half way decent. It was not very complex. Really, it was just enhancing weapons and armor to become extremely overpowered. I would like to see a crafting system that melds some of ACs ideas with newer crafting concepts. I am not much of a crafter though, so my opinion probably doesn't have much weight here >.>
I think there should be some instances, but very few. I like it the way AC had it, but there were some quest areas that would have been helpful to have some form of instancing. Places like the Lugian Citadel, for example, should not have instancing though.
i really like the your idea of creating a skill that permits what level buffs can be used on you
but, maybe it could be a strict system, instead of a skill too.. for example
level 1-5: Level 1 buffs
Level 6-15: Level 2 buffs...
i didnt apply any logic to ^ these level/buff restrictions, just jotted these down for sake of making an example .
anyway, i think the buff restriction would help a lot. it would also prevent powerleveling but i dont know if thats something theyd want to do. maybe
A buff restriction based on level could work.
The reason I suggested a skill restriction is because I think certain classes would require more buffs than others. For example, a mage not only needs to buff his magic but also needs better protection. If the skill was based on a similar formula to magic like Focus+Willpower, then they would tend to have more buffs than a melee spec.
Also, the idea is intended to restrict the number of spells one has on himself, not just the rank of spells. This way the player is not 100% dependent on the buffs like in the previous version. This could be restricted by level if the system was incorporated right. Say at level 1-5 they can only have X amount of lvl 1 buffs on them at one time.
Either way, I think some buff restrictions could really help, both for grouping and soloing.
I think a change in item magic is required too. I think it would be better if one buffs an entire set when buffing his equipment, vice each individual piece. It multiplies the amount of effort required to buff the ones items quite a bit. Weapons and shields would not be part of the armor set buff. They would have to be buffed independently.
Good point about different classes requiring more buffs like mages, i hadn't even thought about that. Yeah, the skill for buff restrictions would definitely be based on focus + willpower or one or the other.
You should post that idea on the turbine boards, they have a thread setup by the devs.
Continuing my less-likely idea... the buff restriction based on level could could somehow differentiate between mage and melee and so mages would get higher buff limits and ranks than melees.
your idea of buff restriction based on skill seems better though.
If ac3 does not have decal: there wont be buff bots, so it is also a possibility that the devs wouldn't care about buff restrictions.
I agree about item magic. It takes so much effort buffing pieces individually.
You all forgot that getting buffed by higher level characters created a community within the game. This along with the Patron/Vassal system was the only reason there was interaction between players.
I agree with just about everything the OP says.
I will add that AC3 also must have...
Item Loss Death Penalty, Patron/Vassal system, And Carbon Copy the entire AC1 weapon/ armor/ item inventory. Nobody has come close to matching the different looks and combinations your character can wear.
Being able to buy things from a vendor that another person has just sold! This also was a fun pastime.
Also bring back the lugian character type from AC2 that could build walls and turrets and such! it was a blast!
Ac3 Must not have.... Bind on Equip items, Instances , Macros , Cookie Cutter skill trees, Level caps, and that freaking white rabbit!@!
Buffing isn't the only thing that bound vassals and patrons. Items and questing did its fair share too. I came to a point where my sword toon was doing 7s by himself and I still did loads with my patron. I also almost caught up to him in level, so I guess that created a different kind of relationship that many vassals/patrons didn't have.
Besides, buff restrictions can still allow players to get buffed by others, just not to the extent of becoming a god among men.
I agree with all of your have nots except for the white rabbit . I loved that thing! =D
WHAT are you CRAZY, No POOKIE!!!! OMG POOKIE is the only creature on Dereth that would survive the world being over run by Olthoi or Tuskers. I think it would even kill the Olthoi queen. I loved Pookie, except I never did find that Holy Hand Grenade to kill him with.
I don't like all the talk about restrictions on buffs. AC is all about freedom. Its lack of restrictions is among its greatest features.
Perhaps the buffs can have a reduced effect or random negative effects if the target character is too weak to handle it. It would be more logical and players would still have the choice of getting buffed.
Even AC had restrictions (for example, on weapons). Buffs had absolutely no restrictions and frankly it helped ruin the game.
The effect of the buffs was never a problem for me. It was getting something undeserved (level 7's at lvl 10). Offering a debuff for overwhelming buffs doesn't seem any more logical to me than a buff-limiting skill. I am not sure it would even work because it sounds like it would cancel the buffs out, thus making them pointless (thus it would be no better than the idea I presented) or it wouldn't cancel them out and we would still be presented with the same problem.
AC had limits based on skills. I do not see why buffs should be any different. I understand your concern, and would even agree, if players did not abuse the power they could acquire. You cannot expect plalyers to do it right, so one needs to limit it. By offering a skill to do so, the amount and level of buffs is really in the player's own hands (based on how relevant they made the skill in their template).
I would like to see buffs available but at a cost to your character. And mostly limited to self or fellowship buffs that were implemented in AC2 or LoTRO now. AC combat should be determined by your skill level and your choice of character design and not how many buffs you have on you.
I still think AC2 got it right more then AC1 in terms of the skill tree. I played a bounty hunter and I could choose to add alot of different types of buffs but it came at a great cost (at least for me) because I had to give up alot of my skills that I relied heavily on. And the beauty was that every player could decide for themselves on which skills they wanted within their allocated skill points.
Kindelnol, if you really think that such a core feature as buffs ruined AC, then perhaps you shouldn't be talking about an AC sequel. I still play AC casually and I don't feel like anything ruined the game. An AC sequel should seek to keep with the spirit of the original. When you start restricting anything based on level, you start moving away from AC and more into the rest of the mmorpg world. Like I said, some sort of risk against your character would be a logical fix to buffs. If you take away the choice, then you get away from the spirit of AC, which is all about choices.
Another element that I am not sure is how the AC play dynamic works in today's market of MMO's. If you don't have content all the way to level cap, you get forums like these whinning all day long about a lack of content.
AC1 and AC2 were games that boiled down to killing things and taking their stuff. That was what was fun about it because you never knew off that random mob if you were going to find something useful. Randomized loot is absolute must and killing mobs for xp and not just doing quests to level up are also at the heart of both AC1 and AC2.
I agree that the overwhelming availability of buffs and buffbots was harmful to the game. I don't think it ruined it, but I do agree there was a negative effect.
I disagree with Odysses about the skill tree - AC1 skill system is still the best I have ever played, with the constant rewards there was always something that you needed to play just a little bit longer to get. And it wasn't just casting ability or how hard you could swing pointy sticks, it included running and jumping, as well as all of your stats, and it let you create truly unique characters - I never used any template but my own. The AC1 skill system is my number one "must have" if they make AC3. It may make the game harder to sell though, as so many have got used to getting particular skills at set levels.
I agree with the comments about the loot system and being able to buy stuff from vendors that others had just sold, I loved that.
I liked the random monster spawn where you never knew what you would run into.
I really liked crafting - my main was an archer and the ability to make my own arrows and use alchemy to improve them made it feel a lot more personal. A lot of the MMOs now make crafting feel more like something you do to sell the product.
I have no problem with instancing - I seem to remember AC1 used it anyway, with the dungeons being hosted on seperate server from the rest of the world. Some of the instances should be closed (the end of a long quest chain, only your party in the dungeon) and the bulk should be open.
The monthly updates are a must have also, AC1 really stands out as the best game for updating content I have played.
I would like to see a bank/postal system of some form, but I could live happily without an auction house. I remember having to run mules into strange and remote places then log off/on with the main to get items before someone half-inched them - that I can live without.
Death penalties are a must have - corpse runs suck, vitae sucks, but they did serve a purpose and made you think before acting a little more.
Oh, and the bunny should stay, as should the TARDIS and all of the other easter eggs.
Buffing did not single handedly hurt AC, but it definitely played its role.
I loved AC, even when buffing was outrageous. When we started getting hand out buffs and fleets of buff bots, it greatly impacted the game. You can't tell me it didn't. After I left the first time (trying to get over an addiction to the game), I returned several times to find noobs at even high levels. They didn't know how to play and barely knew the enemies they were fighting. This stretched all the way up into the 100s. That is just sad. Why were they like this? Because they based themselves off level 7s. They said it themselves.
Whether you remember right or not, AC had restrictions for other things. Let me bring more examples to the table. The skill Arcane Lore restricted players from dawning the magic of an item (of course all you had to do once you got it high enough was buff the skill). Strength acted as an independent variable against armor, as classes with less strength could not bear the burden.
AC was never a completely open, anything works sort of game. Even if it were made as you say, where there is some risk to your character, I don't see why it cannot be measured by a skill. At least, as a skill, you could build it and some might have an edge in that area whereas others won't (likely compensating it with something else that gives them an edge).
In the end, I don't think buffing was as much of a core feature as you make it. Like Odysses said, features that made AC what it was were things like the random loot system or the skill system.
All AC3 needs that is different from AC is much better graphics, and server infrastructure. The constant rubberbanding lead me to cancel, and the laughable graphics didn't help explain why the lag was always present. I think the character customization of AC is the best I've seen in any game(MMO or not). The continuing storyline was completely awesome.
I was so hyped for AC2. I can't believe they thought that crap would fly. DDO and LOTRO are no where near AC quality. How is it Turbine can't make another game like AC? Are none of the devs still around?
Auction houses are great. that would be a feature id love to have
i demand an explanation for why AC had to suffer through so much LAG even at times with low server population
AC3 needs a lot of changes to be a success.
Does anyone else realize how much AC1 relies on third party content? If Decal ceased to exist the AC populations would drop quick because few people like the highly repetative PvM combat, buffing, or crafting. Also third party sites are essential for completing quests.
AC2 was on the right track. The AC world, characters, and lore are good. Almost everything else needs to be modernized. AC1 is too difficult of a game.
Changes needed in AC3:
- Obviously improved graphics.
- A good, useful in game map.
- A mail system.
- A trading system similar to AC2s vendors or WoWs auction house.
- More variations in combat.
- Funner crafting.
- Quest tracking and more quest guidance.
- A reduced amount of levels (275 in AC1 now is kind of rediculous and shows a lack of planning).
- Larger servers or ideally one server for everyone. I think Eve is the future, one large server is the perfect world. I think games will eventually split into two paths. One branch will consist of MMOs that use one large server. The other path will consist of smaller, more intiment, role-playing, and community driven servers like DDO.
What shouldn't change in AC3:
- The characters, creatures, basic lore. AC2 was on the right track.
- Dodging. Dodging should remain a feature, auto targeting spells and missles are lame.
- Non-instanced housing. Owning a house in AC is actually an accomplishment.
- Open world, and doors that open into buildings without load screens. (AC2 (and LotRO and DDO) had load screens for entering buildings, it sucks.)
- Random loot. Too many people running aorund in WoW with the same items. I don't feel like an individual.
- Portal system is cool. I like looking at portal screens rather than traditional static load screens.
Does anyone remember the original concept of AC2 was to have no NPCs? I think that was and still is a really interesting idea. I'd like to see it explorered more. I don't know how, but I think Turbine was onto something if they can figure out a way to make it work. Maybe I'm wrong, but I like that kind of thinking outside the box.
I like that thinking outside of the box Jaguar. without thinking outside of the box, new features would never be implemented to any game
id have faith in Turbine to keep the dynamic that AC1 had in attempt of recreating an AC3 because so much player feedback is available on the MMORPG forums and the Turbine AC forums...
You want AC3 to be more based on AC2 than AC1?
AC3 needs a lot of changes to be a success.
Does anyone else realize how much AC1 relies on third party content? If Decal ceased to exist the AC populations would drop quick because few people like the highly repetative PvM combat, buffing, or crafting. Also third party sites are essential for completing quests.
AC2 was on the right track. The AC world, characters, and lore are good. Almost everything else needs to be modernized. AC1 is too difficult of a game.
Changes needed in AC3:
- Obviously improved graphics.
- A good, useful in game map.
- A mail system.
- A trading system similar to AC2s vendors or WoWs auction house.
- More variations in combat.
- Funner crafting.
- Quest tracking and more quest guidance.
- A reduced amount of levels (275 in AC1 now is kind of rediculous and shows a lack of planning).
- Larger servers or ideally one server for everyone. I think Eve is the future, one large server is the perfect world. I think games will eventually split into two paths. One branch will consist of MMOs that use one large server. The other path will consist of smaller, more intiment, role-playing, and community driven servers like DDO.
What shouldn't change in AC3:
- The characters, creatures, basic lore. AC2 was on the right track.
- Dodging. Dodging should remain a feature, auto targeting spells and missles are lame.
- Non-instanced housing. Owning a house in AC is actually an accomplishment.
- Open world, and doors that open into buildings without load screens. (AC2 (and LotRO and DDO) had load screens for entering buildings, it sucks.)
- Random loot. Too many people running aorund in WoW with the same items. I don't feel like an individual.
- Portal system is cool. I like looking at portal screens rather than traditional static load screens.
Does anyone remember the original concept of AC2 was to have no NPCs? I think that was and still is a really interesting idea. I'd like to see it explorered more. I don't know how, but I think Turbine was onto something if they can figure out a way to make it work. Maybe I'm wrong, but I like that kind of thinking outside the box.
I like a lot of what you say here.
"Dodging. Dodging should remain a feature, auto targeting spells and missles are lame."
- Being able to dodge missiles is an interesting mechanic. The implementation of it in AC leaves quite a bit to be desired though, IMO. I'd very much like to see what could be done in an updated MMO using some things like tumbling (DDO) and some of the movement abilities from Age of Conan (sidestep, foward/backward leaps, etc) along with the option for mages/archers to actually aim their spells manually. Also It'd be nice if everyone wasn't running around at The Flash speeds.
~~~ Currently Playing ~~~
LOTRO- Guardian Wrymstrum & Lore-master Stabler on Nimrodel.
Conan- Zoltar <Angels of Death> Guardian on Stormrage.
Not sure if anyone posted this or not. Didn't read all the post, but I'm not a big fan of buff bots and would rather not see them in the game. They are fun to use but really just hur the game i feel. Jut my thoughts on them, wrong or right, good or bad.
How many delicate flowers have you met in Counterstrike?
I got a case of beer and a chainsaw waiting for me at home after work.
I will completely disagree with you on the quest system. There are a lot of people that like questing and to exclude such a feature or even just pay lip service to it, would be a catastrophic mistake.
Remember developers are in this business to make money and they can't very do it with a small population. So be prepared for a complete quest system, if Turbine ever does get around to making such a game.
It's been a long time since I played the AC family of games but here goes:
The loot system is fantastic in AC1, finding useful, fun, interested or just aesthetically pleasing items was great.
There was a complaint here that ID'ing loot, or the task of physically looting each item individually was tedious -- to me that was part of the pay off. Missing great items, or finding great items others missed was always fun.. picking up trash was a good source of income at times. Not always knowing what you found until you took it home and sat there ID'ing each piece individually, or having someone else ID it if you couldn't was great and really, quite realistic.
Hacking, slashing and casting through huge hordes of enemies through kits, potions and spells was great fun.
The open world is great
The random scattering of enemies, and ability to take on -- or get destroyed by -- anything was great.
Elemental damage and protections anyone? This is a great feature, forcing you to gear up according to what you will be fighting, opposed to the same weapons/armor all day.
Spending XP in any skill opposed to skill trees was great -- but I would not oppose a blend of AC1 and AC2 skill systems.
AC2 altered a bit too much lore and cheesed out on the apocalypse storyline - however lore has always been an extremely strong area of AC.
Monthly content updates -- EVERY game should have it!
PvP -- both Darktide and Carebear was immensely successful. Darktide in both AC1 and AC2 had incredibly rich player created conflicts which added immense depth to the game. Even "turning red" on carebear servers was highly successful.
I am amazed at how few games have copied the AC housing features.
As much as I ended up liking the Lugians and Tumeroks as playable races, it took a LONG time to adjust to the idea - and their new look. This is one of many ways AC2 strayed from AC. I liked how it was humans vs. the beast world in AC1 - the shear abundance of loot styles made us aesthetically different rather than the model.
Everyone wants a detailed map system in this thread it seems - maybe I'm oldschool but I love the coordinate system and landscaping landmarks instead. Every part of the world in both AC1 (and 2 for the most part) was nicely made with rich details - remembering rocks, plants, trees, hill shapes, lakes, statues and what have you was a great way of getting around.
Vitae.. vitae has to stay. (5% penalty to all skills upon dieing for anyone not familiar... and it stacks the more you die.) It's removed by gaining XP.
I got tired of buying spell components all the time.... or burning components when my casting proficiency was low..... but I hate shaving, house work, and other things that just have to be done in life. In my eyes it just adds to the depth and wasn't such a huge annoyance that it killed immersion. Micromanaging components and preparation just made hunts and dungeon crawling that much better.
Buffs are a hot issue here in this thread - I agree getting full sets of level 7 buffs made things a bit too easy but it was just so much fun! I wouldn't be against restrictions on buffing. AC2 addressed this with ranged buffs (out of range = buff disappears).
Patron and vassal'ing is another fun system. In AC1's heyday it meant something significantly different than it did later -- it really was a master/student relationship, but as both AC1 and 2 progressed it became more about XP farming, which was fine really. XP bonuses are nice.
People in this thread want quest logs and books, etc... stop being spoiled by all the other games! AC's ambiguous quests and vague quest outlines were great! Webpages aren't hard to find for those who want quest spoilers, and believe me we all do at times, but it really is nice to actually have to search and look around the world for things, to stumble upon places, etc. Dots on maps are very mind numbing and boring... most games do this because questing is the main means for advancement.
AC quests overall, are fairly epic. They make players think about things, maybe test your jumping skill, and the rewards are almost always useful, flashy or fun (not to mention the XP is nice). I much prefer doing 1 long quest for a good chunk of XP than doing 50 fetch and kill quests.
Item loss on death and the dreaded corpse runs.. it was a huge success for a long time. Eventually players beat the system and just carried death items (expensive items carried for the sole purpose of being expendable if/when you die) -- but for a long time you almost always lost something useful, which drove you to 1) avoid dieing! and 2) change all ingame (and even real life) plans just to get your 'stuff back.
AC1 was a grind, but it was a FUN grind because of all the points above (and more). AC2 lost a lot of that depth and became more of just a ... mindless grind with very little interesting reward. AC1 kept you pushing for loot, skill points, or rare monster drops.
The massive number of NON-gear items found in the loot table was great! Triangles, portal stones (ac2), temporary buff potions, useful mob body parts, I can't remember the half of them unfortunately, but they were all great fun.
Mounts in AC2 were well done, even if they looked like gumbi-dinosaurs. Not sure I would like them in AC1 but they served the purpose well in AC2 (probably because AC2 lacked the content depth and a lot of the landscape was worth sprinting past on a mount).
The hub... or subway, whatever you called it, was a great place to bring people together.
Lifestones were always fun - deciding where to bind was always a strategic decision.
Allegiance halls in AC2 were..... decent, I guess.. but they did segregate the population too much for some (which conversely works quite well for PvP/Darktide)
I'm quite sure there's more I missed but it's been so long since I played either game, and AC2 did leave a bad taste for quite some time. To answer a question someone asked in this thread about the developers ---- almost all the original core team, if not ALL from the AC franchise have long since moved on. I used to be able to refer to them by name be it content developers, writers, artists and what not but I've long since forgotten those names, sorry guys.
Explorer: 80% // Achiever: 53% // Socializer: 33% // Killer: 33%
Wrymstrum, I agree ACs combat even with the ability to dodge is lacking. People like to brag about how good the PvP is, but I find it extremely boring. There is dodging, but the variations in attacks is highly lacking compared to other games. I also do not enjoy item drops or vitae penalties, which is another aspect PvPers like. Thankfully, Turbine realizes most players do not like harsh death penalties.
default, identifying random loot is a problem. I suggested that items with majors be given a special icon on the forums before. That's not a complete solution, but it helps. AC3 would need to devise a better method of altering playrs such as varying background colors, special icons, and text alerts.
My question is "buy why?"
But why is identifying loot a problem? Doesn't it make sense that you don't really know what you are getting until you get it home and have a chance to fully inspect it? On the battlefield all there's really time for is "ooh that ring is shiney" and "ahh that's a big sword".
And...
But why is it important to tier the loot visually with colored names? For lack of a better word it is so.. fake. After ID'ing I could see this but why before? What exactly do you have against the AC1 loot and ID style?
Explorer: 80% // Achiever: 53% // Socializer: 33% // Killer: 33%