Vile Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 The # itself is arbitrary, it's about the time it takes to achieve it. Personally, getting +9 in iRose's early life cycle took as long as it took for a +20 in late NaROSE. People forget failing refines in early iRose broke items. The number could be 5, 9 ,31, 14.7 it really doesn't matter. What matters is how it feels, the time it takes, and the pay-off of completing it. As for the glow color. Color is cosmetic for me, I couldn't be bothered or care less if the max was changed to suit the "it must be the brightest and goldiest of them all" seeing as I'll end up refining it to whatever color glows right for my costumes, because costume slots are a thing. Oh, right, so is the glow-dyes they implemented. Making what color is glows by default moot, and really only the intensity matters. The same goes for the gem stones. The max-grade really doesn't matter in terms of what arbitrary number it is assigned. What matters is the same thing, materials, time investment, reward for effort. How does it feel, in short. The runes should be attempted to a fix, or re-tooled as an end-game horizontal progression system related to specific planets and/or non combat related benefits. «or benefits specific to combat in dungeons or other various PvE environments» They don't even technically need to be in the place of gem-stones. They could be added as a second slot, or a system unto themselves. Meaning base gem-stones could remain useful, Artisan mains [myself included] can milk that well dry cause it won't take long especially given they aren't destroyed upon removal anymore. TL:DR I don't care what the number is, I care how long it takes and if my time can be wasted by breaking. Color doesn't matter, we have glow-dyes/painters for that. Gems and Runes don't have to be in the same slot, and runes don't have to be gemstones at all, could be entirely separate system, even non-combat related / dedicated to planetary boons / dungeon boons. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shid0x Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 The number does matter, you don't want the actual refining act to become redundant nor be discouraging for newer players. If its too high then it can become confusing, that's why i liked 9. Everyone gets the stakes, everyone directly understands the journey. Same goes for stats, many MMO's actually went through a stat squish recently because when numbers get too high it gets more confusing, you can easily transfigure that to refines or gems, it quickly loses meaning. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vile Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 (edited) I would like to believe the average reasonable person can quantify 9 and 20 mentally, which some level of ease. The reason games like WoW and others do level/damage downscaling is because of two primary factors [that they listed themselves]. Damage downscaling because the human brain loses track of values very quickly after 6 digits, or so. So mentally the difference in 6,300,786 and 630,078 when you have less than a second to take it in among other visual stimulus is practically zero. The other being that it's very hard to not break your games balance or run your creative well dry, thinking of unique and impactful ways to reward each level up, when you have 100+ levels. And yes, even ROSE suffers from this. Which is why the Developers most likely wanted a lower static level cap, so they can give you more per level, and you can feel that oomph each time you gain a level. So I would argue that the difference between +9 and +20 if they both took the same time to achieve & gave the same power influence, is functionally similar and the difference in impact is small enough that it perceptually doesn't matter. But perception is bias, and bias is derivative of subjectiveness. What you "feel" is impactful enough and what I "feel" is impactful enough is not always going to be the same. «A small part of me also thinks that this is another one of those "It was this way in iRose and iRose first therefore better version by default errgo 9 is better than anything else." I have nothing to base it on other than a hunch though so, take it with a grain of salt, I don't plan to defend that thought myself» Edited January 17, 2022 by OwlchemistVile typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnasty Posted January 17, 2022 Author Share Posted January 17, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, OwlchemistVile said: I would like to believe the average reasonable person can quantify 9 and 20 mentally, which some level of ease. The reason games like WoW and others do level/damage downscaling is because of two primary factors [that they listed themselves]. Damage downscaling because the human brain loses track of values very quickly after 6 digits, or so. So mentally the difference in 6,300,786 and 630,078 when you have less than a second to take it in among other visual stimulus is practically zero. The other being that it's very hard to not break your games balance or run your creative well dry, thinking of unique and impactful ways to reward each level up, when you have 100+ levels. And yes, even ROSE suffers from this. Which is why the Developers most likely wanted a lower static level cap, so they can give you more per level, and you can feel that oomph each time you gain a level. So I would argue that the difference between +9 and +20 if they both took the same time to achieve & gave the same power influence, is functionally similar and the difference in impact is small enough that it perceptually doesn't matter. But perception is bias, and bias is derivative of subjectiveness. What you "feel" is impactful enough and what I "feel" is impactful enough is not always going to be the same. «A small part of me also thinks that this is another one of those "It was this way in iRose and iRose first therefore better version by default errgo 9 is better than anything else." I have nothing to base it on other than a hunch though so, take it with a grain of salt, I don't plan to defend that thought myself» The more levels there are, the less meaning a level becomes. Stat-wise, if a +9 would be the same as a +20, then the jump between 8-9 are huge compared to 19-20. That's the main reason why I think +9 (or +10) is enough for each level to have a meaningful upgrade in stat compared to the level below and above. Let's put this into perspective. For a +20 system, each level for a weapon adds +10 in attack power. So at max level you can have +200 attack power. Players would barely care going for +20 if +19 is just 10 less attack power and the stakes are too high. For a +10 system (easier comparison than +9), each level would instead add roughly +20 attack power. This makes going from +9 to +10 a lot more valuable because the stats differ more drastically. Edited January 17, 2022 by Gnasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vile Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 Do you compound the risk? You mentioned how if the "stakes are too high" going from 19 to 20 they might opt out. People opted out of 8's and 9's early on because the risk was too high. Do you compound the gathering time, and the material cost? Attempts can fail, gathering twice as many materials for a singular attempt might result in rolling double the materials into that fail. Some people are a bit superstitious, but when you get unlucky with a lower static, bigger chunk system, it hurts that much more. And it wastes that much more time. Technically yes, taking the same power and dividing it into bigger chunks will give you the bigger hit/upgrade. But there is more to it that I glossed over until the previous statements. There is merit to higher numbers, it can when done right, smooth out bad luck, average out RNG to be less spike intense & sadly yes that comes at the expense of those big chunks. I personally believe the middle ground is where it should be. Enough to feel the increase, but forgiving enough that you don't blow up an item, losing hours of time to material loss, or potentially days. But that's me personally, some people honestly believe that you should lose your gear if you die in some games, and I've seen comments in the past where players genuinely wanted there to be zero protection. If the chance for success was 5%, and you rolled and it failed, they honestly wanted you to lose your item, not just the refines, materials and or time. I don't want that, personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnasty Posted January 17, 2022 Author Share Posted January 17, 2022 Yes, that's exactly what I mean. From +8 to +9, people opted out because of the high risk of failure. But the price of success was a much higher stat unlike +19 to +20, resulting in a more valuable item if the stakes were on your side. I think we have opposite views on this topic. I understand your point, but I don't agree with it because I think items and their levels should feel more valuable at a given level. The more levels, the more complexity it is for players to understand the difference and they'll barely feel upgraded in comparison to their preceding or succeeding level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vile Posted January 17, 2022 Share Posted January 17, 2022 You could always apply the upgrades on a curve? Instead of 100 points across 20 levels in increments of 5, have it be something more like: +1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 stats [15 total] +6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 4 stats [20 stats, 35 total] +11, 12, 13, 4, 15: 5 stats [ 25 stats, 60 total] +16, 17, 18, 19: 6 stats [ 24 stats, 84 total] +20* = 16 stats. 100 total. If your fear is people won't max out their gear, you could hard bait it that way. But trust me, so long as going from 19 to 20 provided even a single stat, there'd be people who'd pursue it. The only reason they wouldn't would be if the success was so low, that it'd be effectively, or statistically, impossible. And I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in participating in a system that is intentionally infuriatingly low on RNG chance, as those are the biggest violators of respecting player time. I'd much rather have it be guaranteed success, given all material requirements met, and fee's paid. After all, if you truly believed that 5% success would average out, why not simply increase the material cost by 20x and have it be 100%. <Some might get lucky, yes, but others would have the polar opposite luck. I'd rather not alienate a player simply because "math" decided he needed to be the counter balance to someone being lucky>. *This doesn't need to be 20, or on the 20 scale I could replace it with 1-9 and the point would be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnasty Posted January 17, 2022 Author Share Posted January 17, 2022 (edited) If there is no luck in the equation, rich players will just be snowballing. That's the worst thing that could happen honestly. There has to be a combination of cost and luck. I do like the curve though, that's definitely something! Edited January 17, 2022 by Gnasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vile Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 I think it's fair that people who earn a lot of zulie get to use/spend it. I don't think it'd be fair to rewards those who work hard in combat, then turn around and punish those who work hard in econ. If you're talking about IRL rich players, then we'd be talking pay to win, and the Dev's specifically are against that practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlothnessMonster Posted February 6, 2022 Share Posted February 6, 2022 As with everyone else i feel ref 9 or 10 would be best 9 is what we all remember & well 10 is a nice rounded number lol. Gems 7 I also agree with but mostly because it is what i remember most However unline the majority I actually liked it when Eq broke on a failed attempt because what it meant was to actually have a refine 8 or 9 item everyone wanted it your either refined a bunch of crap with the aim of high refine of refined a good stated eq to a safe spot ect choices had to be made & the gamble was taken or not this also meant that you may take ages for a 2nd stated piece to try refine that 1 more level meaning u would still have 1 piece as backup, Artisans crafted eq was still wanted since if you broke stuff u needed to buy more and so on. As with above I would prefer it if the safe guards where taken away like the item mall boosters and we just stuck with using powders & so on to improve chances of success. As someone else above mentioned an Artisian being able to refine with a better chance then the NPC, This could definably be something to look into however it also involves trusting a random internet player with your "prized" item which also has its own risks that anyone who has played an mmo before will be well aware of 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sui Posted March 11, 2022 Share Posted March 11, 2022 Pitching in as well here and copying my feedback from Discord: How about requiring unique materials for each refinement level and making those drop from elite monsters, bosses and dungeons? Lower level bosses in Junon/Luna would then drop lower level refinement mats, while higher level Eldeon/Orlo bosses would drop the higher level mats. That way high levels need to keep farming in Junon/Luna for mats, keeping those areas alive and active, or they'll have to buy the mats from new adventures, giving those new players motivation to continue farming and help the economy. I think the catalyst like Lisent in iRose was a good example. At lower levels you use powders while at higher levels you needed Lisent to have a decent success rate. Lisent was harder to get, had different quality levels with different rarity, and only dropped in higher level areas from more difficult monsters. That system was great in my opinion, so I agree that if we just get rid of runes and go back to an older system that it will be in a much better spot. Also, I loved in the older rose that higher refined items shine brighter than others and think this should stay for whatever the max refinement level is going to be. The higher your items are refined, the brighter you should shine in a crowd, that's what makes it so fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Posted March 12, 2022 Share Posted March 12, 2022 lets keep item refine lvl at 9, maybe go up to 10 but make 9 to 10 harder to achieve to make it more of an achievement when you get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sjoerd Posted March 12, 2022 Share Posted March 12, 2022 Cap at (9) please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vile Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 On 2/6/2022 at 3:40 PM, SlothnessMonster said: As with everyone else i feel ref 9 or 10 would be best 9 is what we all remember ... Late response but I do just want to say, 9 isn't what we all remember. NA players had higher than tier-9 refines for over 8 years. And there are many, many NA players who are looking at this as getting the singular version of the game we had available to us back, and not "just another iRose private server experiment" or something akin to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vexoi Posted March 14, 2022 Share Posted March 14, 2022 3 minutes ago, OwlchemistVile said: Late response but I do just want to say, 9 isn't what we all remember. NA players had higher than tier-9 refines for over 8 years. And there are many, many NA players who are looking at this as getting the singular version of the game we had available to us back, and not "just another iRose private server experiment" or something akin to that. It's true, the max refine was +15 for the longest time. To be honest I like the different glow that items used to have a +13 to +15, it wasn't as ugly and overwhelming as +10. Other than the visual aspect of it, I think bringing it back to +15 max instead of +20, as well as implementing some changes to balance refining, it would be a good compromise. (I really liked your suggestion VIle, of making refining 100% success rates but requiring more ressources, equivalent to the average it currently requires with the % failure system. The RNG aspect of it was really not rewarding and based on a purely pay to win element. However, I would be okay with some chances of refining failing, without ever decreasing the refinement level or ever breaking the item.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlothnessMonster Posted March 16, 2022 Share Posted March 16, 2022 On 3/15/2022 at 12:22 AM, OwlchemistVile said: Late response but I do just want to say, 9 isn't what we all remember. NA players had higher than tier-9 refines for over 8 years. And there are many, many NA players who are looking at this as getting the singular version of the game we had available to us back, and not "just another iRose private server experiment" or something akin to that. Yes I do understand that the game went all the way upto ref20 at the end of its life span but i couldn't tell you about my 1st ref20 item and there where countless ones. I can however tell you what my 1st ref 9 was and how many pieces of eq i broke making it back then ref9 was a big achievement if you had a ref 8 you was awesome but if you had even 1 refine 9 you where seen as something better. I would love to see this kind of thought brought back to the refine system as no one cared if you had a refine 20 because everyone had them but back when items broke dealers not only sold more eq (because those refining them broke them) but those with ref9 where seen as something special Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirGar Posted March 16, 2022 Share Posted March 16, 2022 I say we stick with what we have now -max refine 20 Just like we're keeping the level 250 cap Focus on fixing bugs and duping... We'll all get used to it and, most importantly... Start playing!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlothnessMonster Posted March 16, 2022 Share Posted March 16, 2022 18 hours ago, SirGar said: I say we stick with what we have now -max refine 20 Just like we're keeping the level 250 cap Focus on fixing bugs and duping... We'll all get used to it and, most importantly... Start playing!!!!!!! Item refine will need to be adjusted regardless as it is currently geared towards pay to win items being mandatory which the dev's are removing. I think the system with powders & lisents improving the % chance to refine is fine but they will need to adjust what those %'s are going to be to suit a non pay to win game style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts