Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: =AQ= UpdateQuest Ideas

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= UpdateQuest Ideas
Page 6 of 6«<23456
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
11/30/2020 18:52:09   
JaneMark
Member

Any news on potential more house updates? Sky Castle with max bean stalk has 2 open plots of land with nothing to fill it with. Also the museum has been teasing us for ages.
Post #: 126
11/30/2020 22:08:12   
OG Ranger
Member
 

Fairwind Springs, Crossroads, Protector Set Quest, All the Paxia Stuff.
AQ  Post #: 127
9/12/2021 23:08:30   
PD
Member

Been a long time but this is somewhat necessary as an extra commentary on my Extra Characters Thread. Some armors that should possibly be looked into getting updated for the purposes of filling in equipment gaps that currently exist and thus contribute to much of the unplayability early on:

Shadow of Doubt: Needs standardized tiers like 15 * tier. Ultimon technically fills this niche, but that is not available until around level 100, and is still probably the hardest questline in the game bar a few exceptions. Updating this would give players a good filler for Dark/Light, and compression is something that really needs to be assessed.

Mystery Mail: Would also provide the rare coverages of Dark/Light that isn't MC/Rare/Premium while providing skill attacks and a substitution until one can actually get Ultimon.

Desert Conquerer: Could have its lean changed (currently mid-defensive, should probably either be updated to Neutral or FO) and tiers adjusted so that it's the standard 15 * tier. Could serve useful as we have very few water armors that are truly F2P that also have light coverage.

Cyclone Wyvern Rider / Nightmare Wyvern Rider: Would give us an option besides Axemaster's Burden, and a source of accessible Poison. And another Darkness Option.

Dragon Forms: From Law of the Dragons. Would give us at least the minimal 8 elemental coverages. Updating the Tiers would do that.

Salvation Armor: Would provide another alternative to Tempest Power Armor.

AntiGuardian: Would provide Darkness coverage as contrary to a lot of peoples' beliefs, it's actually quite rare when it's not premium, MC or rare.

Boreal Bolt: Could possibly get its lean updated to either FD or Neutral, and then provide resistances to Wind + Energy. Would provide useful substitutions for Fujin and Thunder until you're at the max level or just don't want to use those.

As a rule of thumb, it should be that every element that has an MC-set represented by it should also have MC items that aren't MC-set locked as alternatives for the point of item choices.




Also, of course it needs not be said again but Solaris, Alnaphar (Fire/Dark/Light), Nova Knight (Fire), Nemesis (Ice), Epig (Earth), and Ubear (Fire) need updates for MC touch-ups and would serve good candidates for filling in equipment gaps.

< Message edited by PD -- 9/13/2021 1:37:33 >
AQ MQ  Post #: 128
9/17/2021 11:25:47   
Ninjaty
Member

Personally, I'd like for an area to be a hub of old, unupdated quests, so that they can still be played in their original incarnations (without graphical changes to backgrounds, NPCs or monsters, without level scaling, etc.). Exactly as they were. These wouldn't be for farming, nor for any meaningful challenge, but simply for those who'd be interested in replaying them, or those curious to see how far the game has come since.

The new versions should still exist, of course, but it would be nice to have the option to just replay content as it used to be, so collecting it all in one location might be the way to go.

As it stands now, whenever an old quest is updated, I just feel sad about what has been lost to time. Something I might have used to enjoy, that I can now never enjoy the same way again.

< Message edited by Ninjaty -- 9/17/2021 11:28:34 >
Post #: 129
9/18/2021 15:31:55   
Rastaban
Member
 

I'm looking at the estate item shop at the moment and I can't help but feel like it should be better organized and that this will be even more important with future updates. Maybe a shop for universal items and separate ones for the various terrains or house types.

Assuming I'm allowed to post about this in this topic.
Post #: 130
9/28/2021 5:57:18   
Citrocet
Member
 

I'd personally love to see all outdated quests/items (the gear especially) be revamped, like most gear i come across maxes out sometimes even at lvl 60. it would be great to be able to rock the older sets at lvl 150 without taking the huge stat differentials for the "fashion" :)

Just recently came back to the game after about 12 years and would love to use up-to-date, nostalgic gear.

imagine the necronomicon book at lvl 150? D: :D
Post #: 131
10/2/2021 23:42:10   
thhappycanoeist
Member

I feel the 50k Z-token Champion sets need to be massively buffed. Disappointing for them to be less useful than 2500 Z-token package items
Post #: 132
10/3/2021 2:52:14   
OG Ranger
Member
 

Especially the Griffin Pet. It has the potential to be so good too.
AQ  Post #: 133
10/3/2021 5:34:24   
Dr Disrespect
Helpful!


An update to the Savage Werewolf and Predatory Vampire forms (and all their subsequent re-colors) would be very nice taking into consideration the fact that they have been powercrept hard, cost a UR to obtain and keep getting re-released every year with a new paint job.

An update to the Destroyer Saga (parts 1, 2 and 3) would be much appreciated. Many players really like the original War Armor (a reward from the Destroyer Saga part 3 quest) and would love to be able to use it again.
Post #: 134
10/11/2021 17:23:17   
PD
Member

One thought I have to wonder - How many of these powercrept items would be considered viable or even excellent if not for the items that are considered problematic?

I think before we should go clamouring for updating everything to be competitive with the latest items, we should think about the items that need to be toned down before looking to update everything else upwards. It is an unpopular proposal, but I think it's a better use of time to first fixing the problematic items and/or putting them back to earth, and then from there, judging what needs to be updated. By any count there are thousands of items in the game, and mathematically speaking, it would be much more productive to bring the 100 or so most problematic items down before updating the other 1000's or so items that don't match the power levels of the most problematic items. Certainly there are items that by virtue of time need to be updated (particularly those that don't have updated tiers or use old balance numbers), but a lot of other items being suggested here would by any other context be still considered top-tier if they weren't constantly being compared to other problematic items and strategies.




One remark I'd like to note that seems to have gotten very little scrutiny:

quote:


FROM: Hollow

A lot more updates to older quests will be coming in 2021 and I'd like to see which popular quests players would like to see updated first.


This never happened, and 2021 is looking like more of the same, if not worse than the preceding years. Now it's noted 2022 is here to do this, but after hearing one promise like this being forgotten or just flatly broken, it's hard to put faith that 2022 will actually accomplish this given that 2021 was supposed to be the year everything in this thread happened. And I must say, the promises like making content forever unobtainable and preventing accessibility seems to be one that ALWAYS get upheld and get upheld as highest priority (even though such things are detrimental to the health of the game long term, and are objectively only held-in-trust for the happiness of AQ's Pearl-Clutching Faction), but something like this where it's promised and seems to have limitless tolerance for timing is only conditionally upheld and considered secondary in priority.

< Message edited by PD -- 10/11/2021 18:44:45 >
AQ MQ  Post #: 135
10/11/2021 21:05:25   
Cray
Lorekeeper

 

I would make the personal appeal to exercise at least as much benefit of the doubt as is required to not make assumptions of intent. There is certainly a discussion to be had about item rarity, and I am relaying the feedback about both the mechanical issues (Particularly for savage werewolf) and availability of rereleased items, mind.

However, regardless of any impressions making the schedule out to be driven by broken promises and a single-minded catering, the painfully simple fact of the matter is that this is purely a matter of team size. When a weekly release experiences any major inconvenience requiring additional work, it inevitably eats into the work of future releases. Consider how this applies to complex releases with myriad possible fracture points -- like T3 classes and their many technical, balance, and artistic considerations. When something goes significantly wrong in any respect, be it a bug, a balance concept, that is additional work being created -- Development and fixes both come from the same people.

Lighter, item-focused weeks (Or item clone releases) typically help to decompress this to afford the team more focus on the workload of permanent content and the many pending projects that we are excruciatingly aware of the wait for.
Post #: 136
10/11/2021 21:18:34   
Broccoli
Member

Where's the Ranger class that was mentioned here.
AQ  Post #: 137
10/11/2021 22:35:55   
Dr Disrespect
Helpful!


quote:

I am relaying the feedback about both the mechanical issues (Particularly for savage werewolf)...

Thanks a lot Cray!
Post #: 138
10/13/2021 9:19:36   
Zennistrad
Member

Man, I remember when the Predatory Vampire forms were the best offensive armors the game had. My how things change, eh?
AQ  Post #: 139
10/13/2021 9:25:40   
J9408
Member

^I remember that. The Savage Werewolf forms was also was consider powerful around that time as well.
Post #: 140
10/19/2021 2:15:23   
PD
Member

@Cray: I will reply, since acknowledged I did not (and usually do not make so to a personal fault) make it clear about the intent of my focus. Indeed, the staff is very limited on its resources and this is acknowledged near universally. We are indeed grateful for even the morsels of communication and directives guided to us. And it is my opinion, more often than not the staff can do no wrong in that it has its own obligations to meet before ours, and that you don't actually hold real obligations to us. Yet as a clarification, the focus of my post was on two assumptions that are usually held as truisms, assumptions that do grate me:

1. The first truism: That the staff listens to the community. And this is something that I hold to be true as well, and is reinforced by your reply to me. Yet there is very little introspection of what the implications are of this kind of admission. If this is a true statement, then the responsibility of the game's direction is at least partially influenced by the community. The staff still at the end of the days exercises a great latitude on presented feedback, but the very input is at the heart of the matter still influenced by the community. There is indeed no single-minded catering by the staff (which if you assumed that is what I meant, I did not. There is no conspiracy and I do not ever intent to say there was one), but there is legitimate questions of what gets presented, when, and who does the presenting. If nobody else ever raises a voice, then the only voice that gets heard is the only feedback that is ever presented. Otherwise, the other opinions that are never presented are less considered if ever. And generally, the ones who understand that are presented as greater opinion over that which is never presented. Though I have to admit, what is presented usually dismays me because most of the time the presented feedback is reducible to appeals to egoism instead of thinking beyond one's established position.

2. The second truism: That promises are upheld. Yet another truism that is confirmed:

quote:

It would be much easier to just bring all variants back when a new version returns, but if it has been said an item is gone forever or I gave a return date, that is what I will continue to honor.


Yet again the implications of this statement are also not fully explored. As I said before, AQ indeed reserves the right to make changes without our meaningful consent, yet it still chooses to make promises, and uphold them. And it is also admitted that it can be done and quite easily so, yet it is elected not to. Yet the upholding of promises in spite of the fact that it is acknowledged in a fell swoop that they could indeed make changes leads to many questions about why such decision-making is held. I could imagine a reality where changes would be easy to act on. Yet then I have to ask, what is the condition that makes things easy, and why? I generally do not like to insert motive, as I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Yet philosophically speaking honoring promises and obligations is usually associated with building trust and confidence for the purpose of leveraging the strength of said relations. As time goes on and there's less to make promises to, there's less and less reason to make these kinds of full-faith-and-credit statements, especially when it was always prefaced contractually we never have explicit right to the game, and there is reasoned consensus that necessary changes must occur for the long-term health of the product. What I am asking for in short, is a re-evaluation of doing these kinds of things in light of the facts that do exist now. The onus again, does not lie in staff catering to the egos. But there is a necessary conversation to be bad in having a critical evaluation of the why of this truism and whether the why is conductive to the premise of handing these kinds of arrangements out.

< Message edited by PD -- 10/19/2021 2:24:52 >
AQ MQ  Post #: 141
10/19/2021 12:30:46   
thhappycanoeist
Member

Not sure if there's a similar item, but Love Potion makes vampire form > werewolf form. Thus,


Mogloween Rare

Potion of Dread

EFFECT
Increases END by the listed amount.
Click on it to attempt to Fear* the monster (1 turn, 100% chance of being unable to act for 1 turn.). This costs «Fear» SP† and doesn't cost a turn. The monster can resist with a save at a +0 bonus**:

Level: PowLvl vs MonsterLvl
Major: YourEND vs MonsterCHA
Minor: YourCHA vs MonsterLUK

**You take a sip of the potion, and your foe is terrorized by your fearsome aura!
**You take a sip of the potion, but your foe isn't bothered.
*†Not enough SP! «» SP required!
Post #: 142
10/19/2021 13:02:57   
Lord Markov
Member

quote:

Yet again the implications of this statement are also not fully explored. As I said before, AQ indeed reserves the right to make changes without our meaningful consent, yet it still chooses to make promises, and uphold them. And it is also admitted that it can be done and quite easily so, yet it is elected not to. Yet the upholding of promises in spite of the fact that it is acknowledged in a fell swoop that they could indeed make changes leads to many questions about why such decision-making is held. I could imagine a reality where changes would be easy to act on. Yet then I have to ask, what is the condition that makes things easy, and why? I generally do not like to insert motive, as I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Yet philosophically speaking honoring promises and obligations is usually associated with building trust and confidence for the purpose of leveraging the strength of said relations. As time goes on and there's less to make promises to, there's less and less reason to make these kinds of full-faith-and-credit statements, especially when it was always prefaced contractually we never have explicit right to the game, and there is reasoned consensus that necessary changes must occur for the long-term health of the product. What I am asking for in short, is a re-evaluation of doing these kinds of things in light of the facts that do exist now. The onus again, does not lie in staff catering to the egos. But there is a necessary conversation to be bad in having a critical evaluation of the why of this truism and whether the why is conductive to the premise of handing these kinds of arrangements out.

Sketchy ethics presented here aside, Hollow did say some months (or longer) ago, in a presumably now-deleted thread, that they would be avoiding making promises of items going permanently rare going forward, and ever since then, that's been what we've seen. While I do believe staff should honor the older promises (and I applaud Hollow for saying they will do so), I also agree with his decision to "gatekeep" as little as possible going forward. Mechanics should be as generally accessible to all players as possible, and not having to reskin art all the time to avoid breaking old promises is a step in the right direction to make this possible.
AQ  Post #: 143
10/21/2021 0:58:39   
Dreiko Shadrack
Member

Create a spell separate from Big Dictionary that emulates Panoply, we have Edoc Imanok sure but that's not an MP spell.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 144
10/21/2021 2:11:58   
RobynJoanne
Member
 

@Dreiko
Edoc Imanok has an MP version. Do you mean an MRM spell that's not QC like Panoply?
Post #: 145
10/21/2021 11:12:32   
Dreiko Shadrack
Member

Oooh, didn't know it had an mp version.
But yes, non QC too.
AQ DF MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 146
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion >> RE: =AQ= UpdateQuest Ideas
Page 6 of 6«<23456
Jump to:



Advertisement




Icon Legend
New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition