Welcome to Project: Gorgon!


Project: Gorgon is a 3D fantasy MMORPG (massively-multiplayer online role-playing game) that features an immersive experience that allows the player to forge their own path through exploration and discovery. We won't be guiding you through a world on rails, and as a result there are many hidden secrets awaiting discovery. Project: Gorgon also features an ambitious skill based leveling system that bucks the current trend of pre-determined classes, thus allowing the player to combine skills in order to create a truly unique playing experience.

The Project: Gorgon development team is led by industry veteran Eric Heimburg. Eric has over a decade of experience working as a Senior and Lead Engineer, Developer, Designer and Producer on successful games such as Asheron’s Call 1 and 2, Star Trek Online and other successful Massively Multiplayer Online Games.



User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Senior Member alleryn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Points
    1,457 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Glythe View Post
    . The fact that you can not use electricity on cold elementals is acceptable when they are pretty rare overall in lower level dungeons.
    Just a quick FYI i believe you are talking about a bug that was fixed in the Dec 20 (2019) patch:
    "Fixed a bug that caused Electricity Elementals and Cold Elementals to have the same damage-type vulnerabilitites/strengths"

  2.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #12
    Administrator Citan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    482
    Blog Entries
    26
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Points
    2,231 (0 Banked)
    Damage-type immunities are an important tool in my game-design toolbox. I started to write out an explanation, but it's turning out to be way too long. (I'm trying to post more on the forum, but my posts always take hours and I can't afford to stop working for hours... which is why I normally just lurk.) I'll try to organize my thoughts about immunities and turn it into a dev-blog at some point.

    For now, I'm not going to talk about immunities in particular, but I wanted to say a few things about damage types in general.

    The most important thing to know is that monsters' damage-type vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and immunities aren't particularly balanced yet. More content will smooth out some of the imbalances, and other imbalances will be fixed by changing monster types, but most of that type of thing will happen in late beta. In the short term, I'm mostly taking a hands-off approach because I think micromanaging this aspect of game balance would be bad. Here's why.

    Damage-type stats are broken up by "monster type" to make it easy to learn and remember their resistances. You can learn early on that skeletons are weak to Crushing damage, and that is true with both a level 1 skeleton and a level 125 skeleton. However, I haven't made level 125 content yet, so I don't know how many skeletons are going to be in it. If a lot of level 120 content takes place on Skeleton Island, then that sounds like a big buff to Crushing damage! But I won't know minutia like that until we get there.

    This kind of problem happens on a micro scale all the time: I look at an existing area of the game and say "hmm, there needs to be more herbivores here," and just like that, I'm subtly altering the "balance" of damage types based on how many of each type of monster spawns there.

    I change other types of things all the time (like ability damage, or specific gear mods, or whatever). But I feel like damage-type resistances are more broadly relevant than that. It feels like "player knowledge" that should be respected. If you've learned that skeletons are weak to Crushing, and you leave the game for six months, when you return and discover that's changed, it feels a little insulting, like the game didn't respect your previous learning. Actually, you wouldn't think twice about one or two little changes, but if the damage types are different every time you come back to the game, that just feels demoralizing somehow. There's a difference between "all the mods for Sword have been revised... again" and "all the monster damage types you learned over 200 hours of play have changed... again."

    So I don't want to constantly change monsters' damage type vulnerabilities. And right now isn't the time to focus on them. I'm struggling to explain why... how about this: imagine the game's balance as a tree. Its roots are the core game rules, the trunk is made up of all the combat skills, and the branches are all the game's dungeons and areas. The specific monsters in each area are leaves on those branches. Right now, not all the branches exist yet, and parts of the trunk are missing, and some of the roots are kinda scraggly... they may need to be replaced. Focusing too much on the leaves now seems shortsighted.

    My current plan is to make only a few surgical changes during beta, just fixing whatever is really broken. In late beta when I know more about the shape of the game's balance, I can do one big revamp of monster damage types. (Of course, I'm not planning to stop creating content, so things will likely get out of whack again pretty quickly... but it'll at least be at kinda balanced for a little while. Balance is hard.)

    ---

    Anyway, what concrete info can I give you? I can dredge up a lot of minor design goals -- the most obvious one is that Darkness and Fire damage are supposed to have more resistant/immune monsters than other damage types. But even those ideas aren't locked down and could change.

    There is one important over-arching design goal that won't change: I want the game to HEAVILY encourage players to have two damage types in their build, not just one. They can have a "main" damage type, but they should also have a secondary damage type that can be used in a pinch. Or barring that, some friends. I'll be keeping that goal in mind as I balance the game. (I have lots of reasons for that design goal, which I'll try to go into in a blog post, but suffice it to say that it isn't likely to change.)

    I also wanted to warn you that if you're choosing a damage type because very few monsters are resistant to it... I didn't do that intentionally. It may or may not be something that sticks around. By the way, I also haven't intentionally made lots of monsters resistant to Nature damage. That just happened organically, and I expect it'll work itself out in the level 100 area, which is full of demons.

    I'm open to making strategic changes to vulnerabilities right now, if a few surgical changes would make a big difference to game balance in the present moment. (I don't know what those surgical changes would be, off hand, but I'll be lurking if you have opinions.) Otherwise I'm content to wait until more of the game's content is added before making lots of broad changes.

    (And I've spent over three hours on this "short" post and I need to get back to work! I have edit-itis and I could spend many more hours trying to make this really concise and clear... but hopefully this is at least coherent! Forcing myself to stop editing.... now.)
    Last edited by Citan; 01-17-2020 at 06:22 AM.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Niph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    378
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Points
    1,418 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Citan View Post
    I'm open to making strategic changes to vulnerabilities right now, if a few surgical changes would make a big difference to game balance in the present moment.
    With Cold Elementals being now immune to cold, in Gazluk you can be attacked by 3 different types of monsters that are immune to cold damage, and some root you (elementals and skeleton casters). I used to handle it with psychology, but now with Cold Elementals that are found everywhere added to the mix it's no longer manageable. I suggest to make one of these mob types resistant only.

  4. #14
    Member Celerity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    43
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Points
    51 (159 Banked)
    Achievements First Post!
    In response to Citan, I think even just something as simple as fewer absolute immunities and instead ineffective/very ineffective would already go a long way.

    EDIT: After some more thought I've come up with some specific examples:

    I support Niph's idea, it doesn't make sense to me that the skeleton ice mages are immune to cold just because they use it, for comparison skeleton fire mages aren't suddenly immune to fire just for using fire magic and with ice slicks and ice elementals already immune and much of the rest very ineffective to cold in gazluk, I think it's fair to change immune -> very ineffective.

    I honestly think that yetis should go from immune -> ineffective against cold. Logically they're still living beings even if they're resistant to the cold with their fur, and gameplaywise being locked out of both kur tower and yeti cave makes getting exp in the 40s difficult for ice magic. This is better than changing kur tower, since you would have already had to clear kur tower to get ice magic and it fits with the theme of not being able to use the skill in the dungeon you acquired it similar to necromancy.

    Lamia boss in Winter Nexus for a total of 3/5 of the bosses being immune to cold should also be changed. Winter fae being immune makes sense unfortunately but with so many it just feels absolutely crippling. Other lamias aren't cold immune so I guess lore is despair puck was enhanced by winter fae but I don't like it gameplaywise.

    Necromancy is a harder one to say but maybe some changes to borghild or the necromancer's courtyard in kur tower could help? There are still skeletons in both but maybe making ghosts/ghouls/faces of death just ineffective/very ineffective against darkness. Noobs would still have issues getting to the necromancer's courtyard but it could be something I guess? I think serb and elt crypt being immune is fine since elt crypt is insignificant and you would have already cleared serb crypt to get necromancy. Other dungeons are also available at the same level as serb crypts such as carpal tunnels and ranalon den.

    Poison and nature could probably do with some changes but I didn't/don't use those damage types enough to comment. I guess some thoughts would be I don't understand why manticores and wasps are immune to poison just because they use it themselves but not sure how badly that affects gameplay which I think is main concern.

    If you want an example of where I think the resistances are good, look at fire magic, only 3 bosses in the game immune to it; Vagreef the fireproof, bonfire puck and the ancient fire elemental. This isn't nothing and there's certainly far more where it is very ineffective, but the ones that are immune are quite spaced out and reasonably obscure/optional. I think gk in general is also very well done with both Zuke's physical immunity and the golem's psychic immunity. It's not overdone and with the layout of the dungeon it's also not a requirement to do either of those bosses in any particular run. The rest of the mobs that are immune as far as I'm aware are only the electrical traps put down by the tacticians and the non-elite skeletons and gargoyles, which not only are limited throughout the dungeon but are also all relatively weak and so between your group members, easy to kill. I think it's also much more forgivable to put the immunities at higher levels because by then you should be able to have more flexibility, although I can see how it could still be crippling for a new 80 if they don't have the money to uncap their other skills, so it should still not be overly present. I also like the winter nexus spy portals since it's their entire design to be immune to most of types of damage but then get killed in 1 shot. They also only feature in a group dungeon which is good since it means you just have to come up with 1 of the 3 damage types they are weak to between your entire group and several side bar skills such as stake the heart and fish gut are also capable of achieving it.

    And just to be clear, where I think it is bad is when either an entirety/majority of a dungeon or multiple bosses in a particular dungeon are immune. Especially bad if there are no other alternative dungeons at that level.
    Last edited by Celerity; 01-18-2020 at 05:15 AM.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Glythe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Points
    403 (0 Banked)
    Thank you for taking time to respond Citan.

    If anything I just wanted to maybe help you be aware of what's in the game and where it could feel like a potential problem. Knowing that you intend for everyone to have 2 damage types is important. I personally like to build for 2-3 types because of places like winter nexus; it is almost gamebreaking if you go in there with a 6 man group and no one can kill the portals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Celerity View Post

    And just to be clear, where I think it is bad is when either an entirety/majority of a dungeon or multiple bosses in a particular dungeon are immune. Especially bad if there are no other alternative dungeons at that level.
    I support most of what Celerity said and overall I agree the game would feel a lot more fun as a whole if most of the immunities changed to highly ineffective in the low and mid tiers (and maybe for certain open world mobs - like some of the fae realm things; overall it feels like there is just too much immunity there). If you wanted mid tier bosses to be a bit tougher you could maybe give them a new attribute that makes them immune to certain types of moves - roots/snares/stun based on their resistance set without making them "physical immune". As a suggestion Zuke should probably become immune to unarmed positioning moves as well as stun from things like stun punches or shield bashes. I think most people would have no issue with lvl 80-100 bosses having immunities as that is the type of thing that makes different skillsets interesting.

    One idea I hope at some point that gets implemented in the game is critical weaknesses along the lines of what you might see in Dungeons and Dragons. Using cold on a white dragon is a really bad idea but using fire is excellent and deals double damage. For mobs that have an immunity it would make the game a lot more interesting if having an immunity meant they always had a critical weakness you could exploit. In the case of the Fae Realm maybe bees and plants should gain a critical weakness to fire.

    Some skills feel terrible to play because everybody ends up being immune or super resistant as a function of resistances not being in a balanced spread. I know we do not have the full game and cannot see everything you have planned. Overall it gives me a lot of comfort however to know that you know there is an issue and you plan to address it eventually.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Mbaums's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    118
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Points
    517 (0 Banked)
    A bit ago I was running ice magic+mentalism and when the highest zone I could do was Rahu/Ilmari, it rocked. Once I moved to Gazluk, it's possibly the worst combo imaginable. It felt like everything was resistant to something I did! But I think thats fine. Its a hard rock-paper-scissors balance that I think I first noticed in the Carpal Tunnel. I agree with the player knowledge thing, that its kind of untouchable. But I do think immune and resistant can be wiggled if you do choose to switch anything up. The solution I kind of expect to be taken is having ~2 options for zones at each of the pre-100 levels with different resistances being used.

    I do like the idea of having fire magic being balanced by having its resistance being more common place. But if darkness is in the same boat, I'm not sure that the balancing it around mob resistances argument makes sense. Just b/c darkness can't deal anywhere close to fire's damage, unless there is going to be a "darkness magic" skill, which sounds metal.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Glythe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Points
    403 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mbaums View Post
    I do like the idea of having fire magic being balanced by having its resistance being more common place. But if darkness is in the same boat, I'm not sure that the balancing it around mob resistances argument makes sense. Just b/c darkness can't deal anywhere close to fire's damage, unless there is going to be a "darkness magic" skill, which sounds metal.
    I saw a mention of it somewhere else that fire might be getting another nerf in the future. I just want to say I think against bosses fire is really quite nerfed already. The difference in how fire was before and how it is now is really devastating. It is quite terrible to have the boss do its rage attack over and over and over again. The class that really feels the pain here is Battle Chemistry as it is kind of built to do 3 aoe bursts and slowly burn the enemy to death. Fire has some gigantic hits that Battle Chemistry does not. Bears are one of your worst enemies as a chemist because you are forever getting their rage attack; Fire is a completely different show here because setting them on fire is an added bonus and not really the main event so to speak.

    As a whole Fire really breaks the ability of your team to control a monster's rage unless you have some people who are very strongly slotted to prevent rage. When you fight certain bosses this is can turn into a "we aren't going to fight that boss" situation.


    Looking at immunities specifically I really want to ask a question about a specific mob: Baruti.

    http://wiki.projectgorgon.com/wiki/Baruti

    Effective: Acid
    Ineffective : Piercing, Nature, Crushing, Slashing, Fire
    Immune: Darkness

    First let me interject with a praetermitto and say I don't even want to mention this guy's curse.... but that curse was enough to make a fiend want to quit the game if I was unable to fix it. That for me in terms of game design is a big red flag that this might be too much. Curses should matter and we often see that red text and expect to face roll the content; but maybe you could take a look at this boss some day in the future.

    Curses aside I would like to see this boss get a slight revision for balance purposes. I think it would be a good idea to update this boss with Holy damage from priest as an effective damage type. This would play well with the lore for holy being good against undead and the quest line in the new preston cave.

    I also do not think the Fire resistance for this boss is appropriate. Maybe there is a lore reason for it or maybe you just want fire and darkness - the two most resisted damage types to not have an easy time. If that is the case then it totally makes sense. Or maybe as a compromise you could make fire direct damage ineffective and the burning indirect damage component be "normal".

    From a D&D perspective I get that slashing works against a mummy and crushing is bad. Why is Fire bad in this case? It's dried out enemy wrapped in bandages. This reminds me of a bad elemental resistance profile when the Ice elementals in the past were immune to electricity but took damage from cold. You can do whatever you want in your game for resistances but people kind of have an idea of how certain monsters behave largely to D&D and similar games. Trolls are weak to fire (sometimes acid too). Mummies are usually weak to fire but I seem to recall a note that greater mummies have fire resistance due to some of the preservation mechanics involved in their creation.

    This is not a case of : I want my damage to be effective vs this boss but more of a "huh?" moment. I do not want to ever fight this boss again unless a friend of mine is cursed and is begging for help.

    Turning back at the topic of immunities I decided to completely ditch fire as a skill with the level 80 content. The damage in my opinion is not worth the rage cost. Even though there is great synergy with Battle Chemistry / Fire it doesn't make sense to me to try and play a single damage type - except for mowing throw low tier content. When I returned to the game and found new content waiting my Ice Magic was only level 55 and my fire Magic was fully researched. I plan on finishing fire to 80 for comparison and testing purposes but I think it will be safer as a whole to always have two damage types or maybe even "conflicting" damage types.

    It might be a very healthy thing for the game overall if players get a message sooner that putting everything into one type is a really bad idea. Maybe we could get a new zone in Eltibule to teach this to new players. Maybe there could be a "sulphur lake" cavern added to that zone that is a level 40ish area. If I were making a new area I would have it be essentially a place with all the mobs fire immune.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Glythe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    106
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Points
    403 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mbaums View Post
    I do like the idea of having fire magic being balanced by having its resistance being more common place. But if darkness is in the same boat, I'm not sure that the balancing it around mob resistances argument makes sense. Just b/c darkness can't deal anywhere close to fire's damage, unless there is going to be a "darkness magic" skill, which sounds metal.
    I saw a mention of it somewhere else that fire might be getting another nerf in the future. I just want to say I think against bosses fire is really quite nerfed already. The difference in how fire was before and how it is now is really devastating. It is quite terrible to have the boss do its rage attack over and over and over again. The class that really feels the pain here is Battle Chemistry as it is kind of built to do 3 aoe bursts and slowly burn the enemy to death. Fire has some gigantic hits that Battle Chemistry does not. Bears are one of your worst enemies as a chemist because you are forever getting their rage attack; Fire is a completely different show here because setting them on fire is an added bonus and not really the main event so to speak.

    As a whole Fire really breaks the ability of your team to control a monster's rage unless you have some people who are very strongly slotted to prevent rage. When you fight certain bosses this is can turn into a "we aren't going to fight that boss" situation.


    Looking at immunities specifically I really want to ask a question about a specific mob: Baruti.

    http://wiki.projectgorgon.com/wiki/Baruti

    Effective: Acid
    Ineffective : Piercing, Nature, Crushing, Slashing, Fire
    Immune: Darkness

    First let me interject with a praetermitto and say I don't even want to mention this guy's curse.... but that curse was enough to make a fiend want to quit the game if I was unable to fix it. That for me in terms of game design is a big red flag that this might be too much. Curses should matter and we often see that red text and expect to face roll the content; but maybe you could take a look at this boss some day in the future.

    Curses aside I would like to see this boss get a slight revision for balance purposes. I think it would be a good idea to update this boss with Holy damage from priest as an effective damage type. This would play well with the lore for holy being good against undead and the quest line in the new preston cave.

    I also do not think the Fire resistance for this boss is appropriate. Maybe there is a lore reason for it or maybe you just want fire and darkness - the two most resisted damage types to not have an easy time. If that is the case then it totally makes sense. Or maybe as a compromise you could make fire direct damage ineffective and the burning indirect damage component be "normal".

    From a D&D perspective I get that slashing works against a mummy and crushing is bad. Why is Fire bad in this case? It's dried out enemy wrapped in bandages. This reminds me of a bad elemental resistance profile when the Ice elementals in the past were immune to electricity but took damage from cold. You can do whatever you want in your game for resistances but people kind of have an idea of how certain monsters behave largely to D&D and similar games. Trolls are weak to fire (sometimes acid too). Mummies are usually weak to fire but I seem to recall a note that greater mummies have fire resistance due to some of the preservation mechanics involved in their creation.

    This is not a case of : I want my damage to be effective vs this boss but more of a "huh?" moment. I do not want to ever fight this boss again unless a friend of mine is cursed and is begging for help.

    Turning back at the topic of immunities I decided to completely ditch fire as a skill with the level 80 content. The damage in my opinion is not worth the rage cost. Even though there is great synergy with Battle Chemistry / Fire it doesn't make sense to me to try and play a single damage type - except for mowing throw low tier content. When I returned to the game and found new content waiting my Ice Magic was only level 55 and my fire Magic was fully researched. I plan on finishing fire to 80 for comparison and testing purposes but I think it will be safer as a whole to always have two damage types or maybe even "conflicting" damage types.

  9. #19
    Member Coglin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    85
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Points
    337 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Glythe View Post
    . First let me interject with a praetermitto and say I don't even want to mention this guy's curse.... but that curse was enough to make a fiend want to quit the game if I was unable to fix it. That for me in terms of game design is a big red flag that this might be too much.
    Now I and some folks in my circle LOVE this boss encounter for the exact reason you say "your friend" hates it and wanted to quit. If a single individual mob ruins his experience so much, why not ignore the mob? Get level appropriate assistance, or a minor panacea, and remove the curse, then move on. Petitioning to ruin my experience for the sake of "your friends" thin skin seems a bit excessive. I dislike the "threat of quitting the game if you do not make a change I want" way of going about things in a discussion on the forums.

    I enjoyed the need for my groups great adjustment in this mobs case.
    Coglin, Master Bard, subsequent druid. - Trader of Rowen Trading Company

  10. #20
    Senior Member poulter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Points
    539 (0 Banked)
    I guess one person's feast is another person's poison.

    I like that there are bosses in game that you have to 'respect' and can't steamroll /walk all over.

    As for Fire, it is my first choice skill for grinding in FR and I have soloed 4 bears at once using Fire /Druid (in level 70 max-crafted gear).



Thread Footer

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •