The sentiment just comes from a similar place. I would like to play a game where "What you see is what you get" other than tabletop warhammer... I don't see the trend. More often, I encounter people who want/expect the opposite.
The trend right now is towards more of the "look however you want" kind of thing. Some people are fine with this, but many want what I am talking about.
This is why I see it happening. Most successful MMO's break a trend, they don't just follow them all.
As to the mount thing, people wanting to collect them is fine. Developers putting them in the game is fine. Developers forcing people that want them to kill top end raid encounters content cycle after content cycle is not fine.
The top end of any activity in an MMO (the top half, really) should be for the people that want to do that activity, and no one else.
The sentiment just comes from a similar place. I would like to play a game where "What you see is what you get" other than tabletop warhammer... I don't see the trend. More often, I encounter people who want/expect the opposite.
The trend right now is towards more of the "look however you want" kind of thing. Some people are fine with this, but many want what I am talking about.
This is why I see it happening. Most successful MMO's break a trend, they don't just follow them all.
As to the mount thing, people wanting to collect them is fine. Developers putting them in the game is fine. Developers forcing people that want them to kill top end raid encounters content cycle after content cycle is not fine.
The top end of any activity in an MMO (the top half, really) should be for the people that want to do that activity, and no one else.
Breaking the trend does not equal success, though. Crowfall broke the trend, Wildstar broke the trend, That MMORPG with a show on the Sci-fi channel... That broke the trend. Where are those games now?
Right now, the two most successful MMOs are just stroking each other's dicks. Waiting to see what the other does and taking what works and trying to make it better. "Look however you want" has been a big part of it. Every time a restriction is lifted in WOW or FFXIV the communities' cheers.
FFXIV is so successful it had to stop sales this week. Think about that. No MMORPG has ever had to stop sales because sales numbers are too high. Early this year, they ran out of new CD keys... FFXIV, is an example of a game that only follows the trends.
I think any game that tries to go against "look how you want" is going to have a hard time. I agree, there are people out there that want what you want. I even want to see it myself in a few games. I just don't think those games will ever be large or the next big thing. Not when cosmetics are such a good business model.
It's kind of like asking Americans to give up cars and embrace public transportation. There are a lot of people out there that would like to see it. My self included, but I am not giving up my car any time soon.
I think any game that tries to go against "look how you want" is going to have a hard time.
If they make the game not PvP focused, they will have less of a hard time than Crowfall, Wildstar, or indeed Ashes.
This doesn;t mean it will be an instant success - of course it doesn't.
However, if someone out there is stupid enough to think that Crowfall would ever have been successful (it literally never had a chance at being successful as an MMORPG), then there is no reason at all to think the same couldn't happen with literally any other game concept, let alone one that actually has a chance of being successful.
As to your analogy of public transport, yeah, obviously that isn't going to happen. However, it isn't going to happen because of how poor public transport is in most of America. Before you tell people to do that, you need to first build an acceptable public transport system, both hyper-locally (as in, moving a few blocks), locally (across town), and cross country.
Build them up to the point where they are cost effective, convenient, clean, comfortable, timely, widespread and not cramped, and you have a chance of convincing people to leave their car at home.
Likewise, in a game, if you give people the tools they need to be able to make their character look good, the vast majority of people won't care if it doesn't look exactly how they want. As long as you have made a system where players do have options, the number of people that are going to care that their Ebony armor has to look like Ebony armor rather than looking like a silk robe is really minimal.
Likewise, in a game, if you give people the tools they need to be able to make their character look good, the vast majority of people won't care if it doesn't look exactly how they want. As long as you have made a system where players do have options, the number of people that are going to care that their Ebony armor has to look like Ebony armor rather than looking like a silk robe is really minimal.
Like, really minimal.
I find the opposite to be true. When I make a character in Diablo 2 I don't give a shit what they look like because I have no options. If I want to play Sorc in D2 I am a girl, If I want to play in D2R I am an uglier girl... I don't give a shit because I play D2/D2R for the game play and I never had or was told I would have choices.
Modern MMORPGs tend to give me a lot more choice in how I look. So I find myself caring a lot more about the little things I can't change. Something as simple as the Elfs in FFXIV having slightly longer necks makes the race unplayable to many(self included). If the sorc in D2 had the same neck, no one would give a shit.
It was not a problem in D2 because you did not have a better option. Ashes is saying they want to give us a lot of options. They have given us the cookie, but not the glass of milk. They are giving us options and restrictions at the same time, so the restrictions stand out.
If players have access to a dye called "Ebony" and the tool tip says "it's the darkest dye in the game.". Then you put it on your armor, and it's only slightly darker than a middle of the road grey. People will be upset about that small detail. It is going to be more infuriating than not having the choice at all.
Likewise, in a game, if you give people the tools they need to be able to make their character look good, the vast majority of people won't care if it doesn't look exactly how they want. As long as you have made a system where players do have options, the number of people that are going to care that their Ebony armor has to look like Ebony armor rather than looking like a silk robe is really minimal.
Like, really minimal.
I find the opposite to be true. When I make a character in Diablo 2 I don't give a shit what they look like because I have no options. If I want to play Sorc in D2 I am a girl, If I want to play in D2R I am an uglier girl... I don't give a shit because I play D2/D2R for the game play and I never had or was told I would have choices.
Modern MMORPGs tend to give me a lot more choice in how I look. So I find myself caring a lot more about the little things I can't change. Something as simple as the Elfs in FFXIV having slightly longer necks makes the race unplayable to many(self included). If the sorc in D2 had the same neck, no one would give a shit.
It was not a problem in D2 because you did not have a better option. Ashes is saying they want to give us a lot of options. They have given us the cookie, but not the glass of milk. They are giving us options and restrictions at the same time, so the restrictions stand out.
If players have access to a dye called "Ebony" and the tool tip says "it's the darkest dye in the game.". Then you put it on your armor, and it's only slightly darker than a middle of the road grey. People will be upset about that small detail. It is going to be more infuriating than not having the choice at all.
Yeah, in games where the look is the look and nothing else. people will bitch over small details associated with how things look.
When the look is a product of the function, there isn't that same scope - much as is the case in D2. In D2, you look like the gear and character you have.
End of story.
Because people know this to be the case, it is not an issue, even for people that enjoy playing around with how they look in other games.
Yeah, in games where the look is the look and nothing else. people will bitch over small details associated with how things look.
When the look is a product of the function, there isn't that same scope - much as is the case in D2. In D2, you look like the gear and character you have.
End of story.
Because people know this to be the case, it is not an issue, even for people that enjoy playing around with how they look in other games.
I guess you should be thankful this month's cosmetic pack did not come with a giant candy cane axe for a weapon skin.
Selling cosmetics is a sure fire way to convince me that looking cool and self-expression is more important than things looking like what they are... Which is the case for Ashes and Most MMORPGS. MO2 is the only current MMORPG I can think of that doesn't do this. I love it, but MO2 ain't winning any popularity contests.
People don't know that DPS meters are a rising tide that lifts all boats... They see it as a tool for toxicity instead of a tool for improvement. I think the day DPS meters are universally seen as a tool for good might be the same day that everyone agrees that things looking like what they are is of high importance.
But then again, i'm not some selfish manchild that only thinks about myself.
Rofl - whatever points you argued were lost with this. 😆
Not really. Were you offended
After i had done it, i did think i could have left that out. But, i didn't want to power up the PC again, just to edit it. And i forgot about it the next day.
But i still don't see a reason as to remove a race, or perhaps a class, later on, if we looked at polls for that. Just because they aren't so popular..
You seriously belive that most people that want to give this game a go/is going to play this game, visits the forums or participated on those polls?
I addressed that already. I said the polls are not the ground truth. They just show a trend that I have seen. I also have only seen 1-2 people on this forum excited about nikua. One of them admitted to liking them because they are: "the underdogs". I also said I could be crazy, post one. A hot take is not meant to be a scientific white paper. It's my take based on what I have seen.
And i don't care if a very small percentage, wants to play them. They said they are part of the races, so they should be there at release. But then again, i'm not some selfish manchild that only thinks about myself.
Plus some might change their oppinion on what they want to play when racials are in/at release
We had that discussion and I agreed. Go read one of Justvines posts in this thread. I don't think Ashes should change anything because of promises and sales made. I am just asking the general question... Why put all of this work into something that is not going to be valued as much as say.. Tulnar.
We also discussed racials a lot. Which is why the discussion has been about accurate visual representation for a while now. Because, in the case of Ashes, having racials is kind of stupid when you can use a cosmetic to put a paper bag on any race whos face you don't like. Which is why I think for Ashes you might as well just have "backgrounds" you pick from that are separate from race appearance. I don't think it will happen, but it makes more sense.
After i had done it, i did think i could have left that out. But, i didn't want to power up the PC again, just to edit it. And i forgot about it the next day.
Lol! Nope - just pointing out the obvious, and maybe some irony. 😆
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Speaking of Diablo, Path of Exile is a Diablo clone that's an MMORPG (well, I'm not quite sure how "massively multiplayer" it is, but I think it's generally considered an MMO). They are pretty canny in that by default even with high end gear you look like a crazy hobo with a sword casting magic spells. So everything is free to play unless you care about how you look, in which case you can buy cosmetics just like Ashes of Creation. And I won't lie, I've dropped some cash on nice-looking gear to make my characters look like adventurers fighting evil and not the weird guy at the bus stop who yells at himself.
I love it, but MO2 ain't winning any popularity contests.
It isn't, but not because of anything cosmetic.
I'm not saying everyone needs to agree. Not everyone agrees that PvP in an MMO is a good thing, yet look how many games are trying and failing to make that work.
I love it, but MO2 ain't winning any popularity contests.
It isn't, but not because of anything cosmetic.
I'm not saying everyone needs to agree. Not everyone agrees that PvP in an MMO is a good thing, yet look how many games are trying and failing to make that work.
Just Crowfall ATM, All the other ones are dead or living in their niche.
The "What you see is what you get" focus seems like it would be more of a Pantheon thing, but I hardly hear anything about that game anymore.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I personally would prefer if races lost all stats and we picked them for the lore/aesthetics. I really hate races with stats because instead of optimising just the class, ppl optimise everything and you start getting majority masses
As for human sized bosses, I'm all for them. Who in here thought against Zenos and won? That guy is a human sized badass who beats the living shit out of you and your friends quite a few times. Guy is a dick but he is strong af and when you fight him, he feels like an elite boss who's human sized. Bosses don't need to be huge to have impact. To the contrary, human sized bosses from personal experience have greater impact
I personally would prefer if races lost all stats and we picked them for the lore/aesthetics. I really hate races with stats because instead of optimising just the class, ppl optimise everything and you start getting majority masses
On the other hand, having most players choosing the "better" race for a class for stats, reinforce the stereotype that lore often try to tag the races with. Dwarves = fighter. Elves = archers.
This, in turn, allows people who like to play against types to choose an unusual race/class combo. You can't do that if their isn't a type in the first place. It has advantages in a PvP context if people expect a certain class because they see a specific race. They approach the fight with a set of tactics in mind but then have to change everything on the spot because that's not how you fight against the class that is in front of them.
As for human sized bosses, I'm all for them. Who in here thought against Zenos and won? That guy is a human sized badass who beats the living shit out of you and your friends quite a few times. Guy is a dick but he is strong af and when you fight him, he feels like an elite boss who's human sized. Bosses don't need to be huge to have impact. To the contrary, human sized bosses from personal experience have greater impact
That fight was 1v1... I mostly skip the story, but I do remember the 1v1s. I think you fight him other times in like 4-man groups. I can't remember a raid where you fight him, and he's normal-sized. There were a few small bosses early in FF, but they realized it doesn't really work that well.
I personally would prefer if races lost all stats and we picked them for the lore/aesthetics. I really hate races with stats because instead of optimising just the class, ppl optimise everything and you start getting majority masses
On the other hand, having most players choosing the "better" race for a class for stats, reinforce the stereotype that lore often try to tag the races with. Dwarves = fighter. Elves = archers.
There is nothing wrong if someone playing a class that doesn't follow a stereotype. Better to expect racial/class stereotypes than have stats that force you into optimising
I personally would prefer if races lost all stats and we picked them for the lore/aesthetics. I really hate races with stats because instead of optimising just the class, ppl optimise everything and you start getting majority masses
On the other hand, having most players choosing the "better" race for a class for stats, reinforce the stereotype that lore often try to tag the races with. Dwarves = fighter. Elves = archers.
There is nothing wrong if someone playing a class that doesn't follow a stereotype. Better to expect racial/class stereotypes than have stats that force you into optimising
You are basically saying that you think players should be free to pick a race they like based on the games lore, and then throw that lore away to be the class they want, with no penalty at all.
If you want to stick to the games lore, there should be stats to each race - if not a lock on some race/class combinations.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't think races should have stats.
I do think races should have augments though. And the augments should be unique and interesting, and generic enough to be useful to any role. And needless to say, they should be balanced... We don't want a race that can teleport and another one that adds sparkly effects.
I do think races should have augments though. And the augments should be unique and interesting, and generic enough to be useful to any role. And needless to say, they should be balanced... We don't want a race that can teleport and another one that adds sparkly effects.
I actually loved when races were stat specific in WoW. I love the augment idea but I also fully support racial base stats and possibly even class locking although I admit it seems kind of silly to class lock in a game with 64 variants of classes
If they are going with racial stats, I would actually like to see them double down on it some. For example, a dwarf or orc killing 500 elves would get a small increase in their racial stats. And a Tulnar would get an increase in stats by killing 500 elves. The elves would also get racial stat increases by killing 500 elves, as would the humans.
You are basically saying that you think players should be free to pick a race they like based on the games lore, and then throw that lore away to be the class they want, with no penalty at all.
Yes! Throw that lore out! Individuals are individuals!
In the game, "lore" is just history and culture. It has nothing to do with individuals.
Characters are individuals.
I appreciate and respect American history as an American, but I am way more likely to get into a story about Roman history.
To use the class analogy, I would be way more interested in learning the way a Roman soldier fought over the way a Civil War Soldier fought. Some Americans really like Samurai and would gladly learn their ways over any other combatant. No one is going to say an able-bodied American would have penalties in learning to be a Samurai if given the chance. It just sounds stupid.
If we just bar races from being able to do certain things well, then we are just creating restrictions that make the world more bland.
An orc with a big club is very predicable compared to an orc with a rapier...
An orc with a big club is very predicable compared to an orc with a rapier...
An Orc with a rapier is still probably going to try and hit you over the head with it.
I'm going to ignore the comment about an American Samurai. I am sure you understand that the difference between an American human and a Japanese human is not the same as the difference between an Elf and a Tulnar.
A far better analogyl would be that an ox is far more suited to pulling a plow than a trout is.
While we talk about different races in game, it is more accurate to consider this game to have four species, and some of those species have multiple races within them.
An Orc with a rapier is still probably going to try and hit you over the head with it.
A pointless stereotype.
I'm going to ignore the comment about an American Samurai. I am sure you understand that the difference between an American human and a Japanese human is not the same as the difference between an Elf and a Tulnar.
I don't agree that there should be any difference from a player prospective. If you said as a whole Elves are weaker than Tulnar that may be true in the same sense that women have less muscular bodies than men. Is your body stronger than any of the strongest women? I doubt it. There is nothing saying an elf cant be yoked out of their minds. There is nothing saying a Tulnar can't be smarter than an Elf.
A far better analogyl would be that an ox is far more suited to pulling a plow than a trout is.
It's not better. In fact, you purposely exaggerated to make your point sound more reasonable than it is.
While we talk about different races in game, it is more accurate to consider this game to have four species, and some of those species have multiple races within them.
Five species... I don't think we know that they are "species". Maybe half-elf and half orc exists. If interbreeding is possible, then everyone is at least closely related genetically. To the point that I would expect Individuals to be capable of reaching the same heights when it comes to max stats or abilitys.
Verra is a world with rich and diverse cultures. Much of its important history has been dominated by the major races. Humans of the coast and plains, Orcs within the hills and the marshes, Elves in the forest and the riverlands, and the esteemed Dwarves of the mountains. The major races have held dominance through countless wars and skirmishes between the lesser races of Verra. Decades may pass between these flareups of violence. There are many minor races on Verra. Some of the minor races exist in makeshift villages or tribes if you will. Some of the major villages among the minor races are comprised primarily of the Giants, less reputable sects of Human, Gnomes, and Halflings. The Halflings are not Halflings in a traditional sense but actually half-bloods of different races.[6] – Steven Sharif
That last bit is significant. "half-bloods of different races." To me, this really blows the lid off the idea that races are so different that it should restrict player choices.
That last bit is significant. "half-bloods of different races." To me, this really blows the lid off the idea that races are so different that it should restrict player choices.
Lions and tigers are different species. They are vastly different animals. Tigers are larger, faster and stronger on average.
These are different species of the same genus. They can breed.
horses and donkeys are different species. They are vastly different animals. Horses can be both larger and smaller than donkeys when fully grown, as well as both faster and slower.
These are different species of the same genus. They can breed.
Species in Verra being able to reproduce with each other does not suddenly mean any differences between the them have to disappear. If it doesn't work that way in real life, there is no need for it to work that way in biology.
Lets go back to that plow. If we take the above example of a horse vs a donkey. A Clydesdale would be able to pull that plow significantly longer than any donkey on the planet. No matter what you do with donkeys as a species, they will never be able to match a Clydesdale in this regard. The same thing when putting a donkey up against a champion racehorse. A donkey simply can not run that fast - the fastest ever recorded donkey is almost a third the speed of the fastest horse.
Yet not only can these two animals breed, but the breeding between these two species is so common that people forget that when you have a female horse and a male donkey, the resultant animal is called a mule.
To add to that, mules were specifically bred because they were more patient than the horse (important with agricultural work), and smarter than the donkey. These two species themselves were lacking these traits, and so interbreeding the species was the means to solve it - not eradicating the differences between the two species that could breed with each other. Sure, mules were not as good at agricultural work as a good horse was - they are not as strong and do not have the same endurance. However, their more amicable nature makes up for this in a good number of situations.
If you said as a whole Elves are weaker than Tulnar that may be true in the same sense that women have less muscular bodies than men. Is your body stronger than any of the strongest women? I doubt it. There is nothing saying an elf cant be yoked out of their minds. There is nothing saying a Tulnar can't be smarter than an Elf.
This is very much an all or nothing approach. It is ignoring any chance of nuance.
Lets imagine a very basic game. Characters have 10 to all stats at creation, gender reallocates some of those stats, and then players have 5 stat points to allocate as they wish.
Next we assume that males gain a point in strength, and lose one in wisdom. Females gain one point in charisma, and lose one in strength.
Now if we assume two players, one playing a male and one playing a female both put all five of their points in strength, the male will have 16, the female will have 14. This means that a female that puts everything in to being a strong as they can be will be stronger than most male characters, but only 87.5% as strong as the strongest males - in this game.
In order to provide some real world context to this, if we look at Olympic weightlifting records, the record male total is 473kg, while the record female lift is 333kg.
Now, I couldn't lift either of these, and I am going to assume no one posting here could either. As such, both of these people are stronger than any of us are, yet the strongest female is only lifting about 70% of what the strongest male is lifting.
Translate that back to a game (because I KNOW someone is going to get triggered by the above - sorrynotsorry). The strongest elf should be stronger than most Tulnar, but not stronger than the strongest Tulnar.
The smartest Tulnar should be smarter than than most Elves, but not smarter than the smartest elf.
You points only potentially work for outlining the most of the most "X" traits. Player characters are never the most of the most anything in good RPGs. If they were, that would be boring. Imagine a DM telling a wizard player that he is the smartest and most powerful wizard in the world. That sounds like an awful campaign to me, there would have to be some sort of major twist to that to make it remotely exciting.
The smartest Tulnar and the Smartest Elf should be NPCs. Players should all operate in the same spectrum of heroic enough to want to stand up for the little guy, but weak enough to where there is always something to struggle against. Otherwise, it's just not interesting.
Within the spectrum of power a player can obtain, it is not unreasonable to imagine that a human is as strong as an ork if a female of any race is as strong as a male of that race...
To me, it seems crazy to have your opinion for a game like Ashes, where almost nothing in the game is what it is visually.
In MO2 where the game was designed around genetic differences to the point that changing the weight of your character changes how they move. Your opinion makes sense.
MO2 tells you visual differences are important to the game. Ashes tells you the exact opposite in many ways.
Via the Ashes character creator, the smallest skinniest female human is just as strong as the largest, most muscular male human. They will have the same stats and potential. They can be the exact same character if you give them the exact same build. The difference visually could be more than an elf male and a human male. It has already been shown in game that the only way to tell if something is even an elf or human is to zoom in on their ears.
Ashes also sales you the ability to change the way your race looks with racial skins. Change the way your gear looks with cosmetics. Change your mount, your boat, the shit on your land, random ass pets... Literally nothing in Ashes is what it is. Skill cosmetics may be a thing in Ashes at some point, seeing how well that works for PoE.
At what point do we stop this madness where we think accurate visual representation is important in Ashes or any game that has a cosmetic cash shop for that matter?
They already sold the ability to look like a god-damn angel. Do we really care if that angel has the stats of a nikua or an orc? No, because it's not the way things work in Ashes. They have already told us this shit is not important with the racial cosmetics.
Comments
This is why I see it happening. Most successful MMO's break a trend, they don't just follow them all.
As to the mount thing, people wanting to collect them is fine. Developers putting them in the game is fine. Developers forcing people that want them to kill top end raid encounters content cycle after content cycle is not fine.
The top end of any activity in an MMO (the top half, really) should be for the people that want to do that activity, and no one else.
Breaking the trend does not equal success, though. Crowfall broke the trend, Wildstar broke the trend, That MMORPG with a show on the Sci-fi channel... That broke the trend. Where are those games now?
Right now, the two most successful MMOs are just stroking each other's dicks. Waiting to see what the other does and taking what works and trying to make it better. "Look however you want" has been a big part of it. Every time a restriction is lifted in WOW or FFXIV the communities' cheers.
FFXIV is so successful it had to stop sales this week. Think about that. No MMORPG has ever had to stop sales because sales numbers are too high. Early this year, they ran out of new CD keys... FFXIV, is an example of a game that only follows the trends.
I think any game that tries to go against "look how you want" is going to have a hard time. I agree, there are people out there that want what you want. I even want to see it myself in a few games. I just don't think those games will ever be large or the next big thing. Not when cosmetics are such a good business model.
It's kind of like asking Americans to give up cars and embrace public transportation. There are a lot of people out there that would like to see it. My self included, but I am not giving up my car any time soon.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
This doesn;t mean it will be an instant success - of course it doesn't.
However, if someone out there is stupid enough to think that Crowfall would ever have been successful (it literally never had a chance at being successful as an MMORPG), then there is no reason at all to think the same couldn't happen with literally any other game concept, let alone one that actually has a chance of being successful.
As to your analogy of public transport, yeah, obviously that isn't going to happen. However, it isn't going to happen because of how poor public transport is in most of America. Before you tell people to do that, you need to first build an acceptable public transport system, both hyper-locally (as in, moving a few blocks), locally (across town), and cross country.
Build them up to the point where they are cost effective, convenient, clean, comfortable, timely, widespread and not cramped, and you have a chance of convincing people to leave their car at home.
Likewise, in a game, if you give people the tools they need to be able to make their character look good, the vast majority of people won't care if it doesn't look exactly how they want. As long as you have made a system where players do have options, the number of people that are going to care that their Ebony armor has to look like Ebony armor rather than looking like a silk robe is really minimal.
Like, really minimal.
I find the opposite to be true. When I make a character in Diablo 2 I don't give a shit what they look like because I have no options. If I want to play Sorc in D2 I am a girl, If I want to play in D2R I am an uglier girl... I don't give a shit because I play D2/D2R for the game play and I never had or was told I would have choices.
Modern MMORPGs tend to give me a lot more choice in how I look. So I find myself caring a lot more about the little things I can't change. Something as simple as the Elfs in FFXIV having slightly longer necks makes the race unplayable to many(self included). If the sorc in D2 had the same neck, no one would give a shit.
It was not a problem in D2 because you did not have a better option. Ashes is saying they want to give us a lot of options. They have given us the cookie, but not the glass of milk. They are giving us options and restrictions at the same time, so the restrictions stand out.
If players have access to a dye called "Ebony" and the tool tip says "it's the darkest dye in the game.". Then you put it on your armor, and it's only slightly darker than a middle of the road grey. People will be upset about that small detail. It is going to be more infuriating than not having the choice at all.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Hahaha, yeah, I'd have to learn to keep my mouth shut then, wouldn't I?!
Something something piper perri surrounded meme...
Hahaha, that gave me a surprise when I searched to find out who that was! Glad I wasn't on my work PC!
NEVER!!!
Wouldn't be any fun with out some good trash talking.
Yeah, in games where the look is the look and nothing else. people will bitch over small details associated with how things look.
When the look is a product of the function, there isn't that same scope - much as is the case in D2. In D2, you look like the gear and character you have.
End of story.
Because people know this to be the case, it is not an issue, even for people that enjoy playing around with how they look in other games.
I guess you should be thankful this month's cosmetic pack did not come with a giant candy cane axe for a weapon skin.
Selling cosmetics is a sure fire way to convince me that looking cool and self-expression is more important than things looking like what they are... Which is the case for Ashes and Most MMORPGS. MO2 is the only current MMORPG I can think of that doesn't do this. I love it, but MO2 ain't winning any popularity contests.
People don't know that DPS meters are a rising tide that lifts all boats... They see it as a tool for toxicity instead of a tool for improvement. I think the day DPS meters are universally seen as a tool for good might be the same day that everyone agrees that things looking like what they are is of high importance.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Not really. Were you offended
After i had done it, i did think i could have left that out. But, i didn't want to power up the PC again, just to edit it. And i forgot about it the next day.
But i still don't see a reason as to remove a race, or perhaps a class, later on, if we looked at polls for that. Just because they aren't so popular..
Not everybody has bought cosmetics
Lol! Nope - just pointing out the obvious, and maybe some irony. 😆
It isn't, but not because of anything cosmetic.
I'm not saying everyone needs to agree. Not everyone agrees that PvP in an MMO is a good thing, yet look how many games are trying and failing to make that work.
Just Crowfall ATM, All the other ones are dead or living in their niche.
The "What you see is what you get" focus seems like it would be more of a Pantheon thing, but I hardly hear anything about that game anymore.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
https://visionaryrealms.com/further-funding-acquired-for-pantheon-rise-of-the-fallen/
It has been in development for a few years longer than Ashes and still isn't quite into the Alpha yet.
On the other hand, having most players choosing the "better" race for a class for stats, reinforce the stereotype that lore often try to tag the races with. Dwarves = fighter. Elves = archers.
This, in turn, allows people who like to play against types to choose an unusual race/class combo. You can't do that if their isn't a type in the first place. It has advantages in a PvP context if people expect a certain class because they see a specific race. They approach the fight with a set of tactics in mind but then have to change everything on the spot because that's not how you fight against the class that is in front of them.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
There is nothing wrong if someone playing a class that doesn't follow a stereotype. Better to expect racial/class stereotypes than have stats that force you into optimising
You are basically saying that you think players should be free to pick a race they like based on the games lore, and then throw that lore away to be the class they want, with no penalty at all.
If you want to stick to the games lore, there should be stats to each race - if not a lock on some race/class combinations.
I do think races should have augments though. And the augments should be unique and interesting, and generic enough to be useful to any role. And needless to say, they should be balanced... We don't want a race that can teleport and another one that adds sparkly effects.
I actually loved when races were stat specific in WoW. I love the augment idea but I also fully support racial base stats and possibly even class locking although I admit it seems kind of silly to class lock in a game with 64 variants of classes
Yes! Throw that lore out! Individuals are individuals!
In the game, "lore" is just history and culture. It has nothing to do with individuals.
Characters are individuals.
I appreciate and respect American history as an American, but I am way more likely to get into a story about Roman history.
To use the class analogy, I would be way more interested in learning the way a Roman soldier fought over the way a Civil War Soldier fought. Some Americans really like Samurai and would gladly learn their ways over any other combatant. No one is going to say an able-bodied American would have penalties in learning to be a Samurai if given the chance. It just sounds stupid.
If we just bar races from being able to do certain things well, then we are just creating restrictions that make the world more bland.
An orc with a big club is very predicable compared to an orc with a rapier...
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
An Orc with a rapier is still probably going to try and hit you over the head with it.
I'm going to ignore the comment about an American Samurai. I am sure you understand that the difference between an American human and a Japanese human is not the same as the difference between an Elf and a Tulnar.
A far better analogyl would be that an ox is far more suited to pulling a plow than a trout is.
While we talk about different races in game, it is more accurate to consider this game to have four species, and some of those species have multiple races within them.
A pointless stereotype.
I don't agree that there should be any difference from a player prospective. If you said as a whole Elves are weaker than Tulnar that may be true in the same sense that women have less muscular bodies than men. Is your body stronger than any of the strongest women? I doubt it. There is nothing saying an elf cant be yoked out of their minds. There is nothing saying a Tulnar can't be smarter than an Elf.
It's not better. In fact, you purposely exaggerated to make your point sound more reasonable than it is.
Five species... I don't think we know that they are "species". Maybe half-elf and half orc exists. If interbreeding is possible, then everyone is at least closely related genetically. To the point that I would expect Individuals to be capable of reaching the same heights when it comes to max stats or abilitys.
That last bit is significant. "half-bloods of different races." To me, this really blows the lid off the idea that races are so different that it should restrict player choices.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Lions and tigers are different species. They are vastly different animals. Tigers are larger, faster and stronger on average.
These are different species of the same genus. They can breed.
horses and donkeys are different species. They are vastly different animals. Horses can be both larger and smaller than donkeys when fully grown, as well as both faster and slower.
These are different species of the same genus. They can breed.
Species in Verra being able to reproduce with each other does not suddenly mean any differences between the them have to disappear. If it doesn't work that way in real life, there is no need for it to work that way in biology.
Lets go back to that plow. If we take the above example of a horse vs a donkey. A Clydesdale would be able to pull that plow significantly longer than any donkey on the planet. No matter what you do with donkeys as a species, they will never be able to match a Clydesdale in this regard. The same thing when putting a donkey up against a champion racehorse. A donkey simply can not run that fast - the fastest ever recorded donkey is almost a third the speed of the fastest horse.
Yet not only can these two animals breed, but the breeding between these two species is so common that people forget that when you have a female horse and a male donkey, the resultant animal is called a mule.
To add to that, mules were specifically bred because they were more patient than the horse (important with agricultural work), and smarter than the donkey. These two species themselves were lacking these traits, and so interbreeding the species was the means to solve it - not eradicating the differences between the two species that could breed with each other. Sure, mules were not as good at agricultural work as a good horse was - they are not as strong and do not have the same endurance. However, their more amicable nature makes up for this in a good number of situations.
This is very much an all or nothing approach. It is ignoring any chance of nuance.
Lets imagine a very basic game. Characters have 10 to all stats at creation, gender reallocates some of those stats, and then players have 5 stat points to allocate as they wish.
Next we assume that males gain a point in strength, and lose one in wisdom. Females gain one point in charisma, and lose one in strength.
Now if we assume two players, one playing a male and one playing a female both put all five of their points in strength, the male will have 16, the female will have 14. This means that a female that puts everything in to being a strong as they can be will be stronger than most male characters, but only 87.5% as strong as the strongest males - in this game.
In order to provide some real world context to this, if we look at Olympic weightlifting records, the record male total is 473kg, while the record female lift is 333kg.
Now, I couldn't lift either of these, and I am going to assume no one posting here could either. As such, both of these people are stronger than any of us are, yet the strongest female is only lifting about 70% of what the strongest male is lifting.
Translate that back to a game (because I KNOW someone is going to get triggered by the above - sorrynotsorry). The strongest elf should be stronger than most Tulnar, but not stronger than the strongest Tulnar.
The smartest Tulnar should be smarter than than most Elves, but not smarter than the smartest elf.
You points only potentially work for outlining the most of the most "X" traits. Player characters are never the most of the most anything in good RPGs. If they were, that would be boring. Imagine a DM telling a wizard player that he is the smartest and most powerful wizard in the world. That sounds like an awful campaign to me, there would have to be some sort of major twist to that to make it remotely exciting.
The smartest Tulnar and the Smartest Elf should be NPCs. Players should all operate in the same spectrum of heroic enough to want to stand up for the little guy, but weak enough to where there is always something to struggle against. Otherwise, it's just not interesting.
Within the spectrum of power a player can obtain, it is not unreasonable to imagine that a human is as strong as an ork if a female of any race is as strong as a male of that race...
To me, it seems crazy to have your opinion for a game like Ashes, where almost nothing in the game is what it is visually.
In MO2 where the game was designed around genetic differences to the point that changing the weight of your character changes how they move. Your opinion makes sense.
MO2 tells you visual differences are important to the game. Ashes tells you the exact opposite in many ways.
Via the Ashes character creator, the smallest skinniest female human is just as strong as the largest, most muscular male human. They will have the same stats and potential. They can be the exact same character if you give them the exact same build. The difference visually could be more than an elf male and a human male. It has already been shown in game that the only way to tell if something is even an elf or human is to zoom in on their ears.
Ashes also sales you the ability to change the way your race looks with racial skins. Change the way your gear looks with cosmetics. Change your mount, your boat, the shit on your land, random ass pets... Literally nothing in Ashes is what it is. Skill cosmetics may be a thing in Ashes at some point, seeing how well that works for PoE.
At what point do we stop this madness where we think accurate visual representation is important in Ashes or any game that has a cosmetic cash shop for that matter?
They already sold the ability to look like a god-damn angel. Do we really care if that angel has the stats of a nikua or an orc? No, because it's not the way things work in Ashes. They have already told us this shit is not important with the racial cosmetics.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.