I think they are not implemented yet.

Once you hit power level 4+ there should be a 5% chance to get one from tarrot missions (said to me by a staff member) 

Not sure if that applies to the current build or next build of the game, although I assume the former as he was responding to someone about how to get a relic weapon.

Urg... really?

Power levels never cease to find another way to annoy me...

Not enough that I "finished" every system, including the P4 one... nah... now I must exchange my entire P1 gear for P4 gear to have a remote chance to get a Relic...

Seriously, that is a very bad system.

We should be rewarded for beating the challenge, not for having the right kind of gear when we beat the challenge...

And therein lies the root of much of my feedback. If grinders (even casual grinders like myself, only grinding because it's a 40k game) take umbrage with systems due to their grindiness...

What do some of the vocal opponents of changing that grind think will happen with fully casual players?

It's been the intention of the power level system since day 1. The reasoning behind just about every post I make and why I put such emphasis on incentive and motivation. Something it sounds like you just lost a chunk of.

No matter how long you spend optimising your gear it's ultimately still a levelling process that you have to go through. You can't skip levels. You need to grind those 4 gear sets just like everyone else as loot is always relevant to your level. Then another 16 of them.

Seems there are 4 days worth of Lag going on - but finally someone might respond to my question now :D 

"what will people look forward to as they level" 

Honestly? Not that, not if relics are going to be required for the basic endgame content (which as far as I can parse, they will be). Notice how casual guilds in an MMO lag behind, and often never even breach the actual endgame content because of how high the barrier to entry is?

Now, realize that this won't have the subscriptions to fall back on, and will require good word of mouth to thrive. Think about what the inevitable steam reviewbombing will do when casuals post negative reviews about how horrible the grind is just to experience the whole of the normal game, not the challenge content or anything like that. The casuals look forward to experience the content, not "gimme dat loot". Casuals don't care what they're wearing, they want to play the [expletive deleted] game. Setting the bar to entry too high will be a mistake.

It might not have been an issue a few years ago when casual players and trolls didn't have the power to sink a game day one just by spamming "NOT RECOMMENDED"--which is what casual players look at, not the reviews themselves. I have half a dozen pretty solid games that are dying because they were reviewbombed, because casual players see "MOSTLY NEGATIVE" and go "well, I'm not going to buy this".

So proponents of the grind need to be aware of the fact that their standpoint stands a high chance of killing the game long-term.

I am certainly not looking forward to this.

I also wont grind those 4 sets.

I just go straight for the next Sector (P5 most likely) with my optimized P1 gear instead of aiming to get that 5% chance in tarot missions now but with crappy P4 gear.

Once I maxed out on sectors I THEN farm for the 5% with all my fate saved to that point.

Heck I just let someone carry me in Coop.

This is imho an attrocious no-fun mechanic.

If I ever saw you online in the evenings when my net is up to the task, I'd bring you into coop since currently, the CR doesn't seem to have an effect on what drops, only your PL, so you'd keep getting what you needed.

You'd probably set me on fire for the rambling though.

While we don't know everything - It is certain that even if you get Brother to host a game in P5 - He isn't carrying you, both of you would have the same mission modifier applied and you will still be getting P2 gear. No matter if you are playing P8, you will still be getting P2 drops. The only thing that will unlock P5 stuff is going through P2-3-4. 

I can't speak of the exact mechanics but we know there will be criteria to be met before getting to the next level of content or "Tier" after the first 15-20 levels) we don't know what it is but I think it's pretty much a given that it'll mean players have worked through the content to unlock the next area. 

It's why during my posts i've described it as a leveling process, there is no inherent need to min/max as if it's "end game" when whatever you are farming has to be discarded in 4+ hours time. If you don't want to discard it I guess that's fine but you are literally pressing the pause button on your progress.

So far this system seems just to try to do things differently for the sake of doing it differently.

To this moment I have not seen a single advantage for it and in fact only disadvantages compared to the classic systems.

Lets just hope this one wont break it.

The advantage is that every player with an entire sub sector has gear with the same stat table. Meaning once you ignore the mission modifier via the host - the co op experience is far more enjoyable. No one gets carried and no one is left behind. Although Neocore haven't said this i'd that that - as well as the easy to control damage inflation (there isn't any on gear per Tier) are the two justifications for the system. Certainly very unique.

Personally I like the fact co op is actually co op - every other ARPG i've played it's "someone carrying someone" - unless you specifically make a point of not playing without the other player. 

Certainly has drawbacks though.

Well people still are carrying each other. Some people simply play better than others, some people will still have better gear within the variation - if only because they were lucky.

Imho a back-scaling mechanic as employed by many other games would have been sufficient.

Or go for the D3 system where the level up progression is only a small part of the game while the actuall game starts at max level and then pushing the limits.

Also the Solo experience should go first tbh, Coop comes second.

(Don't wanna imagine the Van Helsing games basing their game mechanics around coop... with that small playerbase...)

This game is also not competitive either, if someone has better stuff, let them have better stuff.

If everything boils down to everyone being just as powerful as the next one anyway - you pretty much killed ANY incentive to go forward from that point.

Well that's why i've been asking (without response) what player might look forward to while leveling. Thus far I can only see incentive to move to the next Tier of content which is several power levels away. 

As for some players being better than others there's nothing you can do about that. But having them do comparable damage is at least an interesting notion. Far different to D3 where you can literally do 100-1000% more damage thank a friend simply because you put in 10 hours more than him. The system is what it is though - Perhaps players will start talking about how to make it less painful - although i'm sure the developers will have some ideas. 

The question is rather easy to answer and has been rather often:

A linear progression system that lets you grow naturally without gating you into tiers.

There is a reason this has been tremendously successful in pretty much ALL ARPGs.

As for D3 that is a gross mismatch then. Just as in Martyr you will have to stick to people with relatively the same progress as you have.

Also still: Single Player experience goes before Multiplayer experience. They can not even guarantee that we will have plenty people to play coop with anyway and a game has to be solid on its own.

A mechanic that is a major pain in the bum for the odd chance of me playing with some random dude is simply not worth it imho.

Now it's fair if you want Single > Multi that's fair.

But it doesn't seem to be the aims of the developers. At least not from the features and game design which seem to at least encourage a community driven game. Certainly true that might put off some people, but it does give a good chance at keeping games alive - far more than lone wolves - Even Diablo knew this and gave bonuses to loot when in groups because they knew it was more effective for maintaining a healthy player base - Games that offer little encouragement to interact with others are usually the first to die, obviously with exceptions. People are the most interesting variable you can add to a game. At least for some.  

Sure chasing bigger weapons and bigger numbers might be one of the main reasons people play ARPG's now. Don't think anyone is going to argue with it being closely tied to the genre. But I think there is fair argument that it's also why a lot of ARPG's have failed to impliment a reasonable standard of community content and instead ended up with games that are simply frustrating to play.

Take D3 for eg. The odds of finding someone the same level and damage in are 1% - Resulting in a terrible levelling experience. One player always out performs the other to the degree that sitting at the mission start is the only way to survive. How long does it take to get to this point? Perhaps 30 minutes. Even their complex matchmaking based on achievement unlocks and 13 difficulty settings don't detract from the fact that every game is full of a mixture of boosters or under-geared freeloaders. Given these limitations honestly I think this is why a lot of players who want a solid multiplayer experience have moved over to other genres.

It's fair to say you don't like the idea of not having damage creep - it might not be a game well suited to lone wolf players. I guess it's also valuable feedback for them to hear. But given it's been in place for the past 6 months now it seems unlikely to change. My conclusion is that because Martyr is more of a levelling based game rather than end-game min/maxer - they have tried to pick the system that will allow both single player and multiplayer content without detriment to those who wish to play together.

Just my thoughts.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct, or my local loot table stuff is highly borked, because in my experience it doesn't matter what CR the mission is, when I broke PL2 I got PL2 gear from the drops, even on the couple Tarot runs with a host with PL1 gear.

To Fieser: I can't speak to the state of the community post Steam launch and then post 1.0 (though experience tells me it'll degrade rapidly), but currently the majority of "random dudes" are actually pretty fun to run with. I've had a fair bit of success linking up with Mortigar and some of the Ordo Obscura folks, they know their mechanics and don't randomly run off to odd corners to die. So it's not like an MMO PUG issue here (currently), Martyr players in my experience know "don't stand in the bad".

Which is better than I can say for some raiding guilds.

You have to break into P2 to get P2 loot table though. What I was saying is that playing P5 content still gives you P1 gear, even if you are P1. You can only Break P2 by collecting all the gear. Seems true though that once you progress you can degrade your gear without being punished. Not sure if that's intended. 

Yeah, I misread Moep's post entirely. I was parsing being carried while using "bad" P4 gear, thus getting P4 drops to get "The Set", not "skipping it to stick with optimized P1 gear". My mistake.

Do not mistake blunt criticism for "bad mouthing". Trust me, you'll know when I'm genuinely bad mouthing something.

Negative criticism is vital for a work in progress--if you receive (or only pay attention to) the positive criticism, you end up with the cash-grab that was StarForge (and the asset flip that was Reign of Kings). I've been doing this for a long while, and I wore the designer hat once upon a time myself.

Being a fan does not mean one should be a white knight and ignore the flaws present. And because this is an alpha build, there are quite a few of those.

Edit: I recognize your nick, I know you've heard me go on a tear in-game over something that was frustrating to cool down. This is mild compared to my in-the-moment rants. :P

You pretty much nailed it.

Negative criticism is actually a rather important tool and feedback and unlike many progressive schools teach the children, critisism does not even have to be constructive.

It is not necessary the Job of the Critique to tell someone how to do its job, but to judge it from their perspective.

Martyr is the first game in a while that I've even bothered to construct feedback for--too many alpha programs have left a sour taste in my mouth with moderators (not even dev staff, but volunteer moderators) deleting bug reports and banning reporters, closing down threads, and white knights flooding bug reports and critical viewpoint threads with death threats.

I paid to be here, I have just as much of a right to be heard as the people who see nothing wrong with any of it, or those who don't understand the mission statement for this particular Founder program intending to harvest feedback, both good and ill. That's something some of the posters and players don't seem to be tracking fully.

And even with my negative criticism, I still intend on purchasing at least two more copies to give to friends that are die-hard 40k fans, so clearly while I find issues with some of the mechanics, I actually like the game.

No one disagrees with giving criticism or feedback. But to defend EXADIUS I think there is a grey area between feedback and telling Neocore what to do. Sometimes these forums slip a little more towards the latter than people realise or intend. Always going to be the case when a game is based on a fantasy universe from peoples childhoods. 

It seems to me that in many cases, people are parsing strong suggestions as demands.

I certainly don't think highly enough of myself to assume that any of my feedback (other than the obvious bugs) should be taken as gospel. That's why I engage in lengthy discussions and pick the things apart so they have the benefit of multiple, refined viewpoints to draw on.

Exadius has been present for some of my whinging in general, where I'm blowing off steam after a particularly frustrating tile. I think my venting in-game has colored perceptions of what I post in the forums--while the former is formless growling before getting back to the business of smiting the Ruinous Powers, the latter is almost always formed opinions based on what I've garnered in-game after I've had a chance to work out whether I'm just being pissy or if there's a valid point to make. Such as our back and forth on crafting and how it fits into the game writ large.

There is a 5% chance on every tarrot mission to get one in the loot. I hope you have lots of fate.

Sorry to derail the post again. 

I am finding that Neo are doing an awsome job with their streams telling us the direction they are/want to go.

The difference to me between input and criticism is having idea's/input to fix an issue with it.

Trying to change the goals eg. Make it more like x game. When it is clear that it the direction is different to the plan to me is not help full.

It is still in Alpha if you don't want the pit falls wait until the full release.

Getting back to the post. Getting end game geared should not be 'easy' but every capped player should have the same chance to get if 'playing' the game. I like the idea of achievement based relic weapon rewards.

Amen to that !!

I find Constructive criticism (as opposed to just plain negative ranting) is the way to go, after all its what we are all here for to play/bug test which includes providing criticisms and kudos where applicable. 

As for Relics I am yet to taste their goodness, hopefully grind out some T4 tarot missions this weekend but I am still wondering if relics will be 'generic' like Artificer variants with unique modifiers (as I seen in the sample provided by Airsick Hydra on discord), or actually named (such as the likes of say diablo uniques/legendaries).

Imho the problem is that you think the opposite of Constructive Criticism is negative ranting, which in fact it is not necessarily.

To report a bug is also a sort of criticism and we also do not suggest a fix for that simply because we do not know the source code.

Saying a gameplay feature is no fun is very valid criticism too and you do not have to suggest a fix for that to make that kind of feedback valid or important. It simply is.

You wont see a professional musical or food critique either that explains the job of a composer or chef to them either.

Don't hold back--in order for balancing to really be effective, they need to know what your complaints and issues are. If you're fixing a machine, it works better when you know what the problem is (AdMech be damned, I like to know what I'm doing) than guessing and guessing until you get it right.

The more feedback they get, the better it will be in the long run--this includes negative criticism on features that don't feel "quite right" yet. That's why I put in a bunch of play-hours before I ended up writing my comprehensive feedback post--spending a lot of time dissecting a feature in-use makes it a lot easier for me to recognize whether it's a first impression, or a valid concern.

And, generally, a longer piece on why something feels wrong/is disliked is going to be more helpful than "I don't like this thing because reasons. Ok, go fix it!" That is spoken from experience. -_-

A music or food critique is also not part of that foods founding or devellpment they are purely there to judge we have game critiques for that.

Im not saying tell the devs how its done,  thats their job and they have the experience and training to effect it, but a simple example of how you think something could improve is far better than a 'that sucks' approach.

Its more in regard to seeing what the upcoming balancing pass will do I dare say Ill still put up a few ideas of my own for both the devs and fellow alpha testers to discuss (that and a very busy work schedule until mid october).

Adulting, it cuts into everyone's time. Would definitely make it difficult to dig into a game, for sure.

RE your reply to Fieser: I've put in some positive "you've done well", so I don't feel as though I need to add more of a word count to my comprehensive posts to slavishly explain why a solid feature is solid; while providing constructive (and comprehensive) criticism generally requires more depth to really... give a good solid reason beyond "I don't like it"; and can easily be mistaken for just pure "negative feedback".

If most of my Walls Of Text were just pure negative feedback rather than criticism, I wouldn't be putting in as much time as I am to work out why this or that feature feels off or doesn't seem to work for me. While I don't speak for Fieser, I have posted my own fair share of wordclumps that can be taken as negative rather than constructive.

Agreed Its just a personal thing for me really and besides I agree with Fieser in that not all criticism is necessarily negative besides where an issue is identified as blatantly potentially damaging for the game I completely agree with just the plain old that is bad approach. 

I do see a lot of personal opinions though which is fair enough we all have them, Id just like to see some more alternatives put forth by the founding members in conjunction with their concerns, someone out there could be sitting on a great idea that might not come to light if they just stay sitting on it.

Hahaha yeah it happens but its good that certain posts prompt discussion even if it goes a little off topic, but yes you hit it on the head with 2.

It is important to voice feedback in the end - pretty much any feedback as long as it happens within the rules of a mature community.

Saying: I dont like X for it does not feel "fun" or whatever is quite important feedback even if you can't come up with a solution yourself.

If someone got an Idea, nice to have, write it down, see where it goes. I do agree that they may come up with something fancy yet coming up with something fancy is not the prerequisite to be able to voice your personal view on a specific thing.

I personally do have quite the issue with the mentality that you always have to come up with something better or a solution if you critique something and ultimately this is imho a very bad trend of recent years.

As a customer you should be allowed to outright say: This is bad, I don't like it, without the need to fix it with the same breath.

I do not see myself as integral part of this project, I draw a very clear line between customer and provider. Kudos to them for listening yet ultimately the roles are still quite clear. Call my a cynic but I am very blunt to the PR approach of including customers to your "family"-brand or whatever you call it. Visiting marketing seminars may have done the rest for me.