Completely disregarding player skill because your gear is higher is called being gear carried, in PvE and PvP.
Gear is literally an indicator of what you have accomplished in a game.
If a game puts in some big boss mob, and I am able to kill it and you are not, I should have an edge over you just because of that fact.
If a game has a strong economic side and I am able to earn more money than you, I should have an edge over you just because of that fact.
If a game has a community focus, and I have friends that hand me gear, I should have an edge over you just because of that fact.
In each of the above three cases, it is someone playing the game better than you. You can tell they are playing the game better than you because they have better gear than you.
If they are playing the game as a whole (as in, all aspects of the game combined) better than you, why do you think you should be able to beat them?
Sure. As long as it's just "an edge" and not "I auto-win every fight even though I may suck or you may be better than me" sort of thing. Having an edge is completely different from being unequivocally gear carried.
The casuals who are just here to play a game and enjoy themselves.... probably want something worthwhile to obtain. And probably dont care about the further depth of the combat and so on.
Then I highly encourage easy and recommended classes for those people to select, otherwise it's just tarnishing the potential depth of the multiplayer experience.
If there is a frustration from a casual, from tid bits of combat that happen rarely, as PvP or very difficult PvE does, then they can relax for a while on another game or chill out with life like they usually do, I cannot fathom why the complete experience almost, if not all, has to be a walk in the park!
Because MMOs live or die based almost entirely on constant engagement.
If you quit League for a year and come back, you know that the 'only' thing other people gained over you is skill. If the game got too stressful to maintain your own skills, you just work your way back skill wise while facing challenges of equal difficulty, often with the same friends you played with before, whether they quit or not. Your friends don't have to 'catch you up' in any way other than 'ok let's play' and teaching you about the current meta or guiding your flows.
Persistent World. No Resets.
This means that you quitting Ashes for a year, or worse, your whole friend group doing so, means you come back both out of practice and 'behind the curve'. But there's no matchmaking, so the 'casual' player has no reason to come back.
Casual MMO players need to either have tons of nostalgia triggers (Ashes might provide this well) or a good reason to log in consistently.
Then I highly encourage easy and recommended classes for those people to select, otherwise it's just tarnishing the potential depth of the multiplayer experience.
If there is a frustration from a casual, from tid bits of combat that happen rarely, as PvP or very difficult PvE does, then they can relax for a while on another game or chill out with life like they usually do, I cannot fathom why the complete experience almost, if not all, has to be a walk in the park!
I think you're missing my point with this.
I think high end, top level gear should be just that. It should be impressive. I dont think casuals care where the end all be all is anyways, but having it be there makes there be something to aim for.
I dont think "easy recomended classes" helps anything in the over all either, as hard core players then just get to be very powerful without the effort, and then if you argue well make other classes better but require skill, then youve now made something pointedly against casuals... casual focus should be early game balance, and exploration/quest interaction. Ever balancing pvp or end game lvl pve with casuals in mind is somewhat pointless...... as the casuals you are trying so hard to protect dont play that content.
I think the real question on protecting the casuals, is how do we keep top lvl try hard from ganking the dad loging in for 2 hours every sunday... and its not by nerfing the try hards, or buffing the casual... its the social interaction in game. The since of community. If you're a try hard in your node, you should be watching out for and protecting your casuals as they pay taxes to your node.
I want to bring attention back to, this thread being over power level of end game gear, or gear in general. And how it affects casuals, and my opinion is it doesnt.
I recommend watching at least 4 minutes after the time is marked, soo many wrong information and ideas based on 0 facts in this thread.
And WHY would you want to "protect" casuals?
Protecting means giving benefits, it is literally that.
IN a PVP situation Steven wants 3 things to factor in:
1) Your SKILLPLAY(how GOOD you are)
2)Your Build/class (How GOOD you create your character for that matchup)
3)Your Gear (How much time you invested to be strong.
He already stated long ago more than once that he want all these 3 things (its on this video that I posted above there too btw).
Steven dosent want a CASUAL game, the game is based on Risk vs Reward.
Steven dosent want a themepark game to make easier if you dont have time.
Steven dosent want a game where everyone wins.
He even mentioned in his last live, Ashes of Creation is a game that few will WIN and many will Lose.
That is how it works, for someone to win, others must lose.
This is how competition works, either you like it or not.
But if you dont like it is totally fine, but as STEVEN already said, ASHES OF CREATION IS NOT A GAME FOR EVERYONE.
It is NOT being created to be a game for everyone.
Also please note this is not even my opinion, what I stated above are either direct quotes or what Steven already said multiple time.
No idea why people keep posting daily a lot of "ideas" thinking that he will change his game just because you dont agree with him.
You dont have to agree with him, and thats totally fine, but probably the game that you seek and want to play will not be AoC if thats the case.
I think there isn't an issue with the gear increase until all is tested and Intrepid would make the adjustment they deem necessary.... They are focused for all players and therefore would try to make life in the game okay for casual and hardcore players. These gears you're talking about are actually mostly player created and drops only make for a very small %, so all casual players need to do is to make sure they are getting enough money to get what they need cause hardcore players also need money to keep their gear up to standard.... So I think the gear thing won't affect casual players
Guys. Lets read the name of the thread... "protecting our casuals: gear."
Its a discussion prompt, on how gear and its potency can be a turn off for casual players as players with more time invest will obviously have the better gear.... on that point, my part of this discussion was, i dont believe gear potency effects casual players in a worse way that inpotent gear...
I feel like even bringing casuals up, and trying to see from their perspective has caused this discussion to lack any real talk about gear in general. And its more become people upset by the thought of caring about the casual players at all. There will be casual players. The reason for discussion exists. The ability to dicuss ideas exists. My stance is, build a good game and not worry about the casuals. The the counter arguments to that are... ashes isnt for everyone...?
Because its an mmo. If you want your server to have enough population to not be shut down. You want to protect your casuals. Not through a mechanic based way, but in a social player to player way
Guys. Lets read the name of the thread... "protecting our casuals: gear."
Its a discussion prompt, on how gear and its potency can be a turn off for casual players as players with more time invest will obviously have the better gear.... on that point, my part of this discussion was, i dont believe gear potency effects casual players in a worse way that inpotent gear...
I feel like even bringing casuals up, and trying to see from their perspective has caused this discussion to lack any real talk about gear in general. And its more become people upset by the thought of caring about the casual players at all. There will be casual players. The reason for discussion exists. The ability to dicuss ideas exists. My stance is, build a good game and not worry about the casuals. The the counter arguments to that are... ashes isnt for everyone...?
Yes, this is what the creator and owner actually said.
Going against his own words I dont think make that much sense.
Nobody is forced to agree with him, there is people who does not like that for sure.
But a game for everyone is what themepark tries to be, and it is not the case here.
EDIT1: otherwise this would bring lot of other things:
We could have "protection our casuals: travel time":
And then a long discussion on how it is not fair to make people to have to travel long distances taking soo much time to meet their friends who are on different region, and they only have 1-2 hours per day to play, so having to travel that much is making life hard for them, therefore we need a fast travel to appeal this audience.
No idea why people keep posting daily a lot of "ideas" thinking that he will change his game just because you dont agree with him.
You dont have to agree with him, and thats totally fine, but probably the game that you seek and want to play will not be AoC if thats the case.
Very true, Intrepid Studio is building a game that should be able to fit all, it's not one-sided in any spectrum (it is pvx, okay for solo and group play, not focused on grind so works well for both casual and hardcore), there is enough gameplay within the game so any idea that would change the main structure of the game is not going to be implemented. Also any idea involving gameplay(game mechanics) is only useful when they are being tested so waiting until Alpha 2 Is out is something we should all do, but I understand that we are all excited for the game to come out and just want to talk about the game and I think those of us that are more informed should understand that as well.
Because its an mmo. If you want your server to have enough population to not be shut down. You want to protect your casuals. Not through a mechanic based way, but in a social player to player way
The OP complained about GAP between casual and hardcore player.
This is suppose to happen. Thats why those hardcore invested so much time.
But as I mentioned, STEVEN wants those 3 things to matter in a PvP situation. (Link with his actual words also linked).
Please do note that I'm not even mentioning that this is my liking or my opnion.
While I do like most of his ideas, there are also some that I dislike.
BTW, Steven dont even want any kind of "normalization/equalization" in-game.
If he wanted a place where everything is fair, he would even need to remove skillplay.
Because being GOOD dosent mean only having good gear (at least not in AoC), but also having
decent build for what you want to do and also being good at the game itself with mechanics etc
And again, this is according to his OWN words, also in this same video.
I mean, its a forum, to discuss ideas.... you should voice every idea you believe to be relevant if it lines up with what steven has said or not... thats how finished products are made. Thats what ashes is... ideas colliding and being put together. I agree trying to tailor mechanics to suit casuals is not the way to make a good game. But im not going to complain about people taking part in the discussions of idea around the game. Thats the whole reason for the forums
And as much as I agree with what Steven says, I also want this game to survive for longer than 2 months. And usually, your casuals is what's keeping a game alive. I really hope Intrepid can satisfy as many people as they can w/o giving up their core design directions, but they'll know who and how to satisfy thanks to these kinds of discussions. And considering that testing phases access costs money, which most likely leads to a more hardcore testing audience - we wouldn't know too much of the casual POV just through testing. So this discussion is quite valuable imo.
2
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think the real question on protecting the casuals, is how do we keep top lvl try hard from ganking the dad loging in for 2 hours every sunday... and its not by nerfing the try hards, or buffing the casual... its the social interaction in game. The since of community. If you're a try hard in your node, you should be watching out for and protecting your casuals as they pay taxes to your node.
I want to bring attention back to, this thread being over power level of end game gear, or gear in general. And how it affects casuals, and my opinion is it doesnt.
I disagree with this point as it seems to assume all "casuals" want to do is non-combat related tasks. Sure, there are people who would be happy just fishing or chopping trees all day but i'm sure there is a group of people who like combat and would want to participate in combat activities but don't have the time to progress at the same rate as hardcore players.
The point of this thread is for those people. People who want to be a part of sieges, caravan raids, pirating, etc. but due to the vertical progression, they would have to invest months into the game before they could participate in those activities. Vertical progression should be curved in a way that it doesn't require a large time investment to be able to play with/against the people at the top.
If people think that the video goes against this premise, he says he wants those 3 things (gear, skill, build) to decide combat. He doesn't say he wants gear to decide combat and those other 2 to be tie breakers. I also don't see 40-50% mentioned in the video as being much different from 20-30% asked for in this thread.
I think you two just have difference views on RPing. I like having one character that is playing the role that I want to play. And I stick to that character and his role for a long time. You seem to like trying out different roles. Both playstyles are RPing in a Game, and both styles are valid. And some games encourage your style (FF14), while other games encourage one character style (L2).
It's fine to like having one character.
I understand individuals enjoying just sticking to one character.
I said I don't understand what it means for an RPG to encourage players sticking with just one character.
All RPGs I'm aware of encourage a player playing multiple characters - in variety of ways.
Choosing not to play multiple characters is a valid path for fun. Sure.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This would be what i would think would turn off a casual... if everything ends up taking strategy, and forethought, and effort, it stops being a game.
I mean... I think strategy and effort as the game aspects of an RPG.
I play RPGs more for the RP than the game stuff.
I primarily want to experience virtually living through a Fantasy or Sci-Fi world in a 3D open world with masses of other players. I don't particularly care about the competitive aspects. And I don't necessarily want the challenges to be difficult.
I'm a Casual Challenge/Hardcore Time player.
Ombwah - one of the new Lead Quest Designers hopes to someday release a Multiplayer Evolving Online World.
Where living in the world is the goal rather than "playing a game".
The casuals who are just here to play a game and enjoy themselves.... probably want something worthwhile to obtain. And probably dont care about the further depth of the combat and so on.
I'd say I want depth and breadth to classes and character development.
That can include combat, although combat is a low enough interest that I prefer to avoid combat.
I'm a carebear. I'd rather use abilities and Charisma skills to avoid combat. Brains over Brawn.
But if combat is included as content, combat should certainly have both depth and breadth.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Also casuals can look to hard core players and think, i could get that powerful. They can see there is something to achieve. Which i think is a driving force in games like this. Why nerf the high end destination of playing for the people not willing to commit and get to that destination? Id be more likly to stop playing knowing there is nowhere to go as gear doesnt get that much better, than i would be from being intimidated by other players power lvl
LMAO
As a Casual Challenge/Hardcore Time player, that is not quite the thought process, I think.
Maybe competitive players are driven by comparing themselves to the achievements of hardcore players.
I just strive to build the various characters I have along each character's interests.
And some characters aren't interested in having the best gear.
My main in EQ2 was a Ratonga slave who adventured in starting rags, where her only gear was Jewelry Crafted by her Kerran master. Plus a Staff for a weapon.
RPGs are based on The Hero's Journey, where you basically start as a relatively weak peon and eventually become a powerful hero - but that's not really by comparison to other player characters.
Progression is a driving force in RPGs, certainly. That progression could be horizontal, rather than vertical.
Best when progression is both vertical and horizontal. And best when there are many categories of progression.
I dunno that gear has to be the primary form of progression.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Then I highly encourage easy and recommended classes for those people to select, otherwise it's just tarnishing the potential depth of the multiplayer experience.
If there is a frustration from a casual, from tid bits of combat that happen rarely, as PvP or very difficult PvE does, then they can relax for a while on another game or chill out with life like they usually do, I cannot fathom why the complete experience almost, if not all, has to be a walk in the park!
What are you even talking about??!!??
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The point of this thread is for those people. People who want to be a part of sieges, caravan raids, pirating, etc. but due to the vertical progression, they would have to invest months into the game before they could participate in those activities. Vertical progression should be curved in a way that it doesn't require a large time investment to be able to play with/against the people at the top.
If people think that the video goes against this premise, he says he wants those 3 things (gear, skill, build) to decide combat. He doesn't say he wants gear to decide combat and those other 2 to be tie breakers. I also don't see 40-50% mentioned in the video as being much different from 20-30% asked for in this thread.
Assuming you are talking about Casual Time players, investing months into a game is not the only way to obtain decent gear for your level. That's what friends are for.
But, yeah, there are many Hardcore Challenge/Casual Time players who were once Hardcore Challenge/Hardcore Time players back in their 20s. And they, for sure, would want to be able to obtain gear that allows them to be competitive in Ashes battlegrounds.
Of course, these are spectra, rather than hard categories, so there will be players along the middle of each spectrum rather than just folks at the far extremes.
Next step : "Casuals can't be mayor/king nor have flying mount" - "They can't farm open world boss because vilain hardcore player are killing it"...
The : "I can't win because he is outgearing me. But, i'm sure i'm better than him" is nonexistant in 2022.
Best players are always the ones who play a lot (so in MMORPGs the most geared one too).
If some players can't accept this fact. They shouldn't play MMORPGs but skill oriented with scaling games like FPS/MOBA.
This would be what i would think would turn off a casual... if everything ends up taking strategy, and forethought, and effort, it stops being a game.
This is precisely what I NEED in a game for it to feel like a game. Without strategy, forethought and effort all I'm doing is pressing buttons on my mouse and keyboard.
And as much as I agree with what Steven says, I also want this game to survive for longer than 2 months.
We all do, that is why we are all here discussing things.
You see Ashes survival as being related to its PvP performance. I see it as being related to its PvE performance.
Even if the game puts PvE first and leaves PvP to the background, I believe the PvP will be better than if they attempt to prioritize PvP.
If they prioritize PvP, only PvP players will play. As such, the game is doomed to the same fate as every other game that has only attracted the PvP crowd.
If they put PvE playera first, that means PvE players will play the game more. This means more PvP targets for PvP'ers.
I see no logic behind why PvP in Ashes could sustain the game. This has rarely ever happened, and there has never been a PvP game in the West that has had the sustained population retention that a game like Ashes would need to remain viable for 5 years.
Basically, history and evidence suggests that anyone wanting Ashes to have a long viable life should be arguing for a strong PvE game, so that PvP'ers have something to PvP over.
Disgusting mentalities, I'm sorry. Simply the west doesn't deem mmorpg's that have only raid and roaming around quest PvE fun enough, ofc with WoW before 2010 there was literally no other competition in the market from other genre's, so great evidence of success you damn fools...
1 million unique players bombed New World, Ashes can take them all in and impress them with its wonder instead of like NW being locked in some bubble of "opt in and opt out" and a super half baked economy, which a lot of western mmo's suffer from.
The stubbornness to continue being away from Korea mmo philosophy and their unique success is staggering, I'm glad I'm not as closed minded as you two.
Meanwhile 10's of millions of players playing FPS/Moba/Sport games, a good portion of them I bet would love a change of pace, instead of looking at something like WoW and thinking "cartoon, old, no combat (visually), it got competition? ("arena only") ye fuk that".
I recommend watching at least 4 minutes after the time is marked, soo many wrong information and ideas based on 0 facts in this thread.
And WHY would you want to "protect" casuals?
Protecting means giving benefits, it is literally that.
IN a PVP situation Steven wants 3 things to factor in:
1) Your SKILLPLAY(how GOOD you are)
2)Your Build/class (How GOOD you create your character for that matchup)
3)Your Gear (How much time you invested to be strong.
He already stated long ago more than once that he want all these 3 things (its on this video that I posted above there too btw).
Steven dosent want a CASUAL game, the game is based on Risk vs Reward.
Steven dosent want a themepark game to make easier if you dont have time.
Steven dosent want a game where everyone wins.
He even mentioned in his last live, Ashes of Creation is a game that few will WIN and many will Lose.
That is how it works, for someone to win, others must lose.
This is how competition works, either you like it or not.
But if you dont like it is totally fine, but as STEVEN already said, ASHES OF CREATION IS NOT A GAME FOR EVERYONE.
It is NOT being created to be a game for everyone.
Also please note this is not even my opinion, what I stated above are either direct quotes or what Steven already said multiple time.
No idea why people keep posting daily a lot of "ideas" thinking that he will change his game just because you dont agree with him.
You dont have to agree with him, and thats totally fine, but probably the game that you seek and want to play will not be AoC if thats the case.
While you're right, he said those things and feels that way.
If the game doesn't have enough for everyone, or has too high of barrier to entry for people behind the curve, or is too one sided against the casuals for them to have fun...
Then game will fail.
I'm not just saying that to just be negative. This game looks like it will be designed in a way that requires bigger and more active populations. Since the growth and potential decay of nodes is effectively based off of player activity. If people do nothing but get crushed by the try'hards they're going to quit and find something more enjoyable to spend there time on. I don't know if that top 10% of winners will be able to play without the other 90% losers if they all pack up and go find something more rewarding. The game will have to give even the losers something to keep them working forward.
Think of it with a game like LoL, if you logged in and only lost matches every time you played how long do you think you would actually play the game?
I don't think anyone is saying IS needs to change their whole gameplan, just that there has to be some middle ground...
Personally I just don't want ashes to do what Wildstar did, and scare off majority of their potential player base by being too targeted towards high end players....
I don't think anyone is saying IS needs to change their whole gameplan, just that there has to be some middle ground...
Personally I just don't want ashes to do what Wildstar did, and scare off majority of their potential player base by being too targeted towards high end players....
This, BUT. Gear might as well be the deciding factor in EITHER situation.
If the Combat is simplistic but balanced for 8, then gear might as well decide it, because simplistic combat is moreso about how it feels for the obvious things to happen. If it feels satisfying, it won't matter that there's not much skill involved.
If the Combat is complex but balanced for 8, then the less skilled players are going to NEED gear to be weird to have a chance at deciding it. This applies to PvE moreso than PvP, but it's still the same. High level gamers are terrifying relative to the distance in ability between them and players with less time to dedicate or who are just trying to enjoy being in a world.
At least when things are just 'ok, well this sucks, that guy wins when we start bashing each other's heads in because his sword does Fire damage every 5 hits' the answer is 'I need to get some Fire Defense gear', as opposed to the sort of things people have to go through for skill-competitive games.
Afaik Wildstar wasn't even targeted toward high-playtime gamers, it was targeted at high-skill gamers, and everyone else noped out of there REAL quick.
Meanwhile 10's of millions of players playing FPS/Moba/Sport games, a good portion of them I bet would love a change of pace, instead of looking at something like WoW and thinking "cartoon, old, no combat (visually), it got competition? ("arena only") ye fuk that".
These players do not want a persistent world PvP game.
They play the games they play specifically BECAUSE there is no persistent world. Non-persistance is literally how ou put player skill up against player skill.
Persistent world games are literally where you put player accomplishment up against player accomplishment. This is the literal reason for having it.
Ashes absolutely will not pull any significant number of MOBA, FPS or sports game players. If the game focuses on PvP to the extent you are assuming/suggesting, it will pull literally that same one million players that New World attracted, which is the same one million that Albion attracted, which is the same one million that BDO attracted, which is the same one million that Archeage attracted, suich is the same one million that thought Crowfall would be the next big thing, which is the same one million that will go to the next game after Ashes.
The stubbornness to continue being away from Korea mmo philosophy and their unique success is staggering, I'm glad I'm not as closed minded as you two.
This comment made me laugh.
Yes, you are closed minded. Tou are the one saying Western MMO's need to be more like Korean MMO's deapite the fact that Korean MMO's exist for players that want that, and also despite the fact that such games have proven to not be nearly as successful in the west as they are in Korea.
I (we) have our eyes open, are looking around at what is and is not successful in the West, and are commenting on that. You have your eyes closed, are adamant that the Korean way is the only way, and are branding anyone that doesnt agree with you as being closed minded.
I recommend watching at least 4 minutes after the time is marked, soo many wrong information and ideas based on 0 facts in this thread.
And WHY would you want to "protect" casuals?
Protecting means giving benefits, it is literally that.
IN a PVP situation Steven wants 3 things to factor in:
1) Your SKILLPLAY(how GOOD you are)
2)Your Build/class (How GOOD you create your character for that matchup)
3)Your Gear (How much time you invested to be strong.
He already stated long ago more than once that he want all these 3 things (its on this video that I posted above there too btw).
Steven dosent want a CASUAL game, the game is based on Risk vs Reward.
Steven dosent want a themepark game to make easier if you dont have time.
Steven dosent want a game where everyone wins.
He even mentioned in his last live, Ashes of Creation is a game that few will WIN and many will Lose.
That is how it works, for someone to win, others must lose.
This is how competition works, either you like it or not.
But if you dont like it is totally fine, but as STEVEN already said, ASHES OF CREATION IS NOT A GAME FOR EVERYONE.
It is NOT being created to be a game for everyone.
Also please note this is not even my opinion, what I stated above are either direct quotes or what Steven already said multiple time.
No idea why people keep posting daily a lot of "ideas" thinking that he will change his game just because you dont agree with him.
You dont have to agree with him, and thats totally fine, but probably the game that you seek and want to play will not be AoC if thats the case.
While you're right, he said those things and feels that way.
If the game doesn't have enough for everyone, or has too high of barrier to entry for people behind the curve, or is too one sided against the casuals for them to have fun...
Then game will fail.
I'm not just saying that to just be negative. This game looks like it will be designed in a way that requires bigger and more active populations. Since the growth and potential decay of nodes is effectively based off of player activity. If people do nothing but get crushed by the try'hards they're going to quit and find something more enjoyable to spend there time on. I don't know if that top 10% of winners will be able to play without the other 90% losers if they all pack up and go find something more rewarding. The game will have to give even the losers something to keep them working forward.
Think of it with a game like LoL, if you logged in and only lost matches every time you played how long do you think you would actually play the game?
I don't think anyone is saying IS needs to change their whole gameplan, just that there has to be some middle ground...
Personally I just don't want ashes to do what Wildstar did, and scare off majority of their potential player base by being too targeted towards high end players....
I agree, but the thing is, winning is not the same for everyone.
We have for example:
Harcore PvP players, for them winning is about being better in PvP.
Hardcore PvE players, for them winning is about being faster in PvE content, or doing First stuff like that.
For lot of players they dont really care about "winning" in PvP or PvE, they just want to have fun with their friends in dungeons, doing social in cities, "skin" competition.
In basically any big mmorpg the "hardcore" players are minority, and for sure we can't sacrifice the whole game just to make them feel better, otherwise they sooner or later will be left alone.
But the thing is in AoC we have WAYY more things to do besides being the best in PvP or PvE.
We will have those players focused in Crafting, and they will be extremely necessary for both PvE and PvP players for example.
We will have players who may like a bit PvP but they are dont want or dont have too much time to play.
But they can still be really useful in Sieges for example, as Steven already said by helping to repair structures and manage siege weapons.
Or maybe grouping together in a lot of players to help protect a caravan, or maybe doing in groups caravans.
Ashes is also not being designed to have overpowered players, so we are not suppose to expect one hardcore player fully geared to wipe parties alone, so numbers will be a factor for sure.
Also in some nodes, you can help develop them or even beying mayor by being the players who most contributed with quests (divine nodes if i'm not mistaken) the mayor is chosen based on quest contribution.
Even tho I not explicit said but thats what I meant.
The game dont have to give extra advantages for players to feel part of it because it already HAS many mechanics which will include all casuals.
Even in this forum we have players that already said, for them Winning is about looks for example.
Besides how "hardcore" this game may seem with lot of these mechanics of PvP, skillplay, death penalty I really do believe the game has a LOT of potential for casual players.
And you are totally right, the game does need stable population to work, but this is also why the game has many other mechanics besides those I mentioned above.
I agree, but the thing is, winning is not the same for everyone.
The thing with subjective winning or losing (achieving a goal you set for yourself) is that it will be impacted by by objective winning or losing (someone attacking you).
Sure, some players will prefer to craft - they will still need to deal with PvP though. If they have their materials stored in the bank and go to pick them up to craft with, someone could attack them while they are en route and take half of those materials. Even if you are within a node, you are still subject to PvP.
So sure, you may say "just have all your materials in your freehold and craft there". The problem is, you need to transport those materials to your freehold in order for them to get there.
Now, while winning may be subjective for many people, losing is more objective than that. If you lose more materials than you are able to afford to purchase, that is a fairly objective case of losing.
Comments
Because MMOs live or die based almost entirely on constant engagement.
If you quit League for a year and come back, you know that the 'only' thing other people gained over you is skill. If the game got too stressful to maintain your own skills, you just work your way back skill wise while facing challenges of equal difficulty, often with the same friends you played with before, whether they quit or not. Your friends don't have to 'catch you up' in any way other than 'ok let's play' and teaching you about the current meta or guiding your flows.
Persistent World. No Resets.
This means that you quitting Ashes for a year, or worse, your whole friend group doing so, means you come back both out of practice and 'behind the curve'. But there's no matchmaking, so the 'casual' player has no reason to come back.
Casual MMO players need to either have tons of nostalgia triggers (Ashes might provide this well) or a good reason to log in consistently.
I think you're missing my point with this.
I think high end, top level gear should be just that. It should be impressive. I dont think casuals care where the end all be all is anyways, but having it be there makes there be something to aim for.
I dont think "easy recomended classes" helps anything in the over all either, as hard core players then just get to be very powerful without the effort, and then if you argue well make other classes better but require skill, then youve now made something pointedly against casuals... casual focus should be early game balance, and exploration/quest interaction. Ever balancing pvp or end game lvl pve with casuals in mind is somewhat pointless...... as the casuals you are trying so hard to protect dont play that content.
I think the real question on protecting the casuals, is how do we keep top lvl try hard from ganking the dad loging in for 2 hours every sunday... and its not by nerfing the try hards, or buffing the casual... its the social interaction in game. The since of community. If you're a try hard in your node, you should be watching out for and protecting your casuals as they pay taxes to your node.
I want to bring attention back to, this thread being over power level of end game gear, or gear in general. And how it affects casuals, and my opinion is it doesnt.
Minute 54:35 of the video
I recommend watching at least 4 minutes after the time is marked, soo many wrong information and ideas based on 0 facts in this thread.
And WHY would you want to "protect" casuals?
Protecting means giving benefits, it is literally that.
IN a PVP situation Steven wants 3 things to factor in:
1) Your SKILLPLAY(how GOOD you are)
2)Your Build/class (How GOOD you create your character for that matchup)
3)Your Gear (How much time you invested to be strong.
He already stated long ago more than once that he want all these 3 things (its on this video that I posted above there too btw).
Steven dosent want a CASUAL game, the game is based on Risk vs Reward.
Steven dosent want a themepark game to make easier if you dont have time.
Steven dosent want a game where everyone wins.
He even mentioned in his last live, Ashes of Creation is a game that few will WIN and many will Lose.
That is how it works, for someone to win, others must lose.
This is how competition works, either you like it or not.
But if you dont like it is totally fine, but as STEVEN already said, ASHES OF CREATION IS NOT A GAME FOR EVERYONE.
It is NOT being created to be a game for everyone.
Also please note this is not even my opinion, what I stated above are either direct quotes or what Steven already said multiple time.
No idea why people keep posting daily a lot of "ideas" thinking that he will change his game just because you dont agree with him.
You dont have to agree with him, and thats totally fine, but probably the game that you seek and want to play will not be AoC if thats the case.
Its a discussion prompt, on how gear and its potency can be a turn off for casual players as players with more time invest will obviously have the better gear.... on that point, my part of this discussion was, i dont believe gear potency effects casual players in a worse way that inpotent gear...
I feel like even bringing casuals up, and trying to see from their perspective has caused this discussion to lack any real talk about gear in general. And its more become people upset by the thought of caring about the casual players at all. There will be casual players. The reason for discussion exists. The ability to dicuss ideas exists. My stance is, build a good game and not worry about the casuals. The the counter arguments to that are... ashes isnt for everyone...?
Because its an mmo. If you want your server to have enough population to not be shut down. You want to protect your casuals. Not through a mechanic based way, but in a social player to player way
Yes, this is what the creator and owner actually said.
Going against his own words I dont think make that much sense.
Nobody is forced to agree with him, there is people who does not like that for sure.
But a game for everyone is what themepark tries to be, and it is not the case here.
EDIT1: otherwise this would bring lot of other things:
We could have "protection our casuals: travel time":
And then a long discussion on how it is not fair to make people to have to travel long distances taking soo much time to meet their friends who are on different region, and they only have 1-2 hours per day to play, so having to travel that much is making life hard for them, therefore we need a fast travel to appeal this audience.
Very true, Intrepid Studio is building a game that should be able to fit all, it's not one-sided in any spectrum (it is pvx, okay for solo and group play, not focused on grind so works well for both casual and hardcore), there is enough gameplay within the game so any idea that would change the main structure of the game is not going to be implemented. Also any idea involving gameplay(game mechanics) is only useful when they are being tested so waiting until Alpha 2 Is out is something we should all do, but I understand that we are all excited for the game to come out and just want to talk about the game and I think those of us that are more informed should understand that as well.
The OP complained about GAP between casual and hardcore player.
This is suppose to happen. Thats why those hardcore invested so much time.
But as I mentioned, STEVEN wants those 3 things to matter in a PvP situation. (Link with his actual words also linked).
Please do note that I'm not even mentioning that this is my liking or my opnion.
While I do like most of his ideas, there are also some that I dislike.
BTW, Steven dont even want any kind of "normalization/equalization" in-game.
If he wanted a place where everything is fair, he would even need to remove skillplay.
Because being GOOD dosent mean only having good gear (at least not in AoC), but also having
decent build for what you want to do and also being good at the game itself with mechanics etc
And again, this is according to his OWN words, also in this same video.
I disagree with this point as it seems to assume all "casuals" want to do is non-combat related tasks. Sure, there are people who would be happy just fishing or chopping trees all day but i'm sure there is a group of people who like combat and would want to participate in combat activities but don't have the time to progress at the same rate as hardcore players.
The point of this thread is for those people. People who want to be a part of sieges, caravan raids, pirating, etc. but due to the vertical progression, they would have to invest months into the game before they could participate in those activities. Vertical progression should be curved in a way that it doesn't require a large time investment to be able to play with/against the people at the top.
If people think that the video goes against this premise, he says he wants those 3 things (gear, skill, build) to decide combat. He doesn't say he wants gear to decide combat and those other 2 to be tie breakers. I also don't see 40-50% mentioned in the video as being much different from 20-30% asked for in this thread.
I understand individuals enjoying just sticking to one character.
I said I don't understand what it means for an RPG to encourage players sticking with just one character.
All RPGs I'm aware of encourage a player playing multiple characters - in variety of ways.
Choosing not to play multiple characters is a valid path for fun. Sure.
I play RPGs more for the RP than the game stuff.
I primarily want to experience virtually living through a Fantasy or Sci-Fi world in a 3D open world with masses of other players. I don't particularly care about the competitive aspects. And I don't necessarily want the challenges to be difficult.
I'm a Casual Challenge/Hardcore Time player.
Ombwah - one of the new Lead Quest Designers hopes to someday release a Multiplayer Evolving Online World.
Where living in the world is the goal rather than "playing a game".
I'd say I want depth and breadth to classes and character development.
That can include combat, although combat is a low enough interest that I prefer to avoid combat.
I'm a carebear. I'd rather use abilities and Charisma skills to avoid combat. Brains over Brawn.
But if combat is included as content, combat should certainly have both depth and breadth.
As a Casual Challenge/Hardcore Time player, that is not quite the thought process, I think.
Maybe competitive players are driven by comparing themselves to the achievements of hardcore players.
I just strive to build the various characters I have along each character's interests.
And some characters aren't interested in having the best gear.
My main in EQ2 was a Ratonga slave who adventured in starting rags, where her only gear was Jewelry Crafted by her Kerran master. Plus a Staff for a weapon.
RPGs are based on The Hero's Journey, where you basically start as a relatively weak peon and eventually become a powerful hero - but that's not really by comparison to other player characters.
Progression is a driving force in RPGs, certainly. That progression could be horizontal, rather than vertical.
Best when progression is both vertical and horizontal. And best when there are many categories of progression.
I dunno that gear has to be the primary form of progression.
But, yeah, there are many Hardcore Challenge/Casual Time players who were once Hardcore Challenge/Hardcore Time players back in their 20s. And they, for sure, would want to be able to obtain gear that allows them to be competitive in Ashes battlegrounds.
Of course, these are spectra, rather than hard categories, so there will be players along the middle of each spectrum rather than just folks at the far extremes.
Its not going to be a gearless vs the best.
Even a casual will end up with items of their level that are probably average at worst. Who holds onto the worst in slot version of their items?
We're talking a guy with 40% power increase from gear vs a guy with 50% power increase
Compaired to:
A guy with 20% power increase vs a guy with 30% increase.
It would be more important that the classes "100% power level" line up balance wise before adding the gear to it in the first place.
The : "I can't win because he is outgearing me. But, i'm sure i'm better than him" is nonexistant in 2022.
Best players are always the ones who play a lot (so in MMORPGs the most geared one too).
If some players can't accept this fact. They shouldn't play MMORPGs but skill oriented with scaling games like FPS/MOBA.
This is precisely what I NEED in a game for it to feel like a game. Without strategy, forethought and effort all I'm doing is pressing buttons on my mouse and keyboard.
You see Ashes survival as being related to its PvP performance. I see it as being related to its PvE performance.
Even if the game puts PvE first and leaves PvP to the background, I believe the PvP will be better than if they attempt to prioritize PvP.
If they prioritize PvP, only PvP players will play. As such, the game is doomed to the same fate as every other game that has only attracted the PvP crowd.
If they put PvE playera first, that means PvE players will play the game more. This means more PvP targets for PvP'ers.
I see no logic behind why PvP in Ashes could sustain the game. This has rarely ever happened, and there has never been a PvP game in the West that has had the sustained population retention that a game like Ashes would need to remain viable for 5 years.
Basically, history and evidence suggests that anyone wanting Ashes to have a long viable life should be arguing for a strong PvE game, so that PvP'ers have something to PvP over.
A primary focus on PvP would just be an FPS in disguise.
@Noaani
Disgusting mentalities, I'm sorry. Simply the west doesn't deem mmorpg's that have only raid and roaming around quest PvE fun enough, ofc with WoW before 2010 there was literally no other competition in the market from other genre's, so great evidence of success you damn fools...
1 million unique players bombed New World, Ashes can take them all in and impress them with its wonder instead of like NW being locked in some bubble of "opt in and opt out" and a super half baked economy, which a lot of western mmo's suffer from.
The stubbornness to continue being away from Korea mmo philosophy and their unique success is staggering, I'm glad I'm not as closed minded as you two.
Meanwhile 10's of millions of players playing FPS/Moba/Sport games, a good portion of them I bet would love a change of pace, instead of looking at something like WoW and thinking "cartoon, old, no combat (visually), it got competition? ("arena only") ye fuk that".
While you're right, he said those things and feels that way.
If the game doesn't have enough for everyone, or has too high of barrier to entry for people behind the curve, or is too one sided against the casuals for them to have fun...
Then game will fail.
I'm not just saying that to just be negative. This game looks like it will be designed in a way that requires bigger and more active populations. Since the growth and potential decay of nodes is effectively based off of player activity. If people do nothing but get crushed by the try'hards they're going to quit and find something more enjoyable to spend there time on. I don't know if that top 10% of winners will be able to play without the other 90% losers if they all pack up and go find something more rewarding. The game will have to give even the losers something to keep them working forward.
Think of it with a game like LoL, if you logged in and only lost matches every time you played how long do you think you would actually play the game?
I don't think anyone is saying IS needs to change their whole gameplan, just that there has to be some middle ground...
Personally I just don't want ashes to do what Wildstar did, and scare off majority of their potential player base by being too targeted towards high end players....
This, BUT. Gear might as well be the deciding factor in EITHER situation.
If the Combat is simplistic but balanced for 8, then gear might as well decide it, because simplistic combat is moreso about how it feels for the obvious things to happen. If it feels satisfying, it won't matter that there's not much skill involved.
If the Combat is complex but balanced for 8, then the less skilled players are going to NEED gear to be weird to have a chance at deciding it. This applies to PvE moreso than PvP, but it's still the same. High level gamers are terrifying relative to the distance in ability between them and players with less time to dedicate or who are just trying to enjoy being in a world.
At least when things are just 'ok, well this sucks, that guy wins when we start bashing each other's heads in because his sword does Fire damage every 5 hits' the answer is 'I need to get some Fire Defense gear', as opposed to the sort of things people have to go through for skill-competitive games.
Afaik Wildstar wasn't even targeted toward high-playtime gamers, it was targeted at high-skill gamers, and everyone else noped out of there REAL quick.
Yeah, I read that a few times and have no idea what you’re trying to say. You seem upset though.
They play the games they play specifically BECAUSE there is no persistent world. Non-persistance is literally how ou put player skill up against player skill.
Persistent world games are literally where you put player accomplishment up against player accomplishment. This is the literal reason for having it.
Ashes absolutely will not pull any significant number of MOBA, FPS or sports game players. If the game focuses on PvP to the extent you are assuming/suggesting, it will pull literally that same one million players that New World attracted, which is the same one million that Albion attracted, which is the same one million that BDO attracted, which is the same one million that Archeage attracted, suich is the same one million that thought Crowfall would be the next big thing, which is the same one million that will go to the next game after Ashes.
Great plan for a long lived MMORPG!
This comment made me laugh.
Yes, you are closed minded. Tou are the one saying Western MMO's need to be more like Korean MMO's deapite the fact that Korean MMO's exist for players that want that, and also despite the fact that such games have proven to not be nearly as successful in the west as they are in Korea.
I (we) have our eyes open, are looking around at what is and is not successful in the West, and are commenting on that. You have your eyes closed, are adamant that the Korean way is the only way, and are branding anyone that doesnt agree with you as being closed minded.
Great work there, buddy. Thumbs up!
I agree, but the thing is, winning is not the same for everyone.
We have for example:
Harcore PvP players, for them winning is about being better in PvP.
Hardcore PvE players, for them winning is about being faster in PvE content, or doing First stuff like that.
For lot of players they dont really care about "winning" in PvP or PvE, they just want to have fun with their friends in dungeons, doing social in cities, "skin" competition.
In basically any big mmorpg the "hardcore" players are minority, and for sure we can't sacrifice the whole game just to make them feel better, otherwise they sooner or later will be left alone.
But the thing is in AoC we have WAYY more things to do besides being the best in PvP or PvE.
We will have those players focused in Crafting, and they will be extremely necessary for both PvE and PvP players for example.
We will have players who may like a bit PvP but they are dont want or dont have too much time to play.
But they can still be really useful in Sieges for example, as Steven already said by helping to repair structures and manage siege weapons.
Or maybe grouping together in a lot of players to help protect a caravan, or maybe doing in groups caravans.
Ashes is also not being designed to have overpowered players, so we are not suppose to expect one hardcore player fully geared to wipe parties alone, so numbers will be a factor for sure.
Also in some nodes, you can help develop them or even beying mayor by being the players who most contributed with quests (divine nodes if i'm not mistaken) the mayor is chosen based on quest contribution.
Even tho I not explicit said but thats what I meant.
The game dont have to give extra advantages for players to feel part of it because it already HAS many mechanics which will include all casuals.
Even in this forum we have players that already said, for them Winning is about looks for example.
Besides how "hardcore" this game may seem with lot of these mechanics of PvP, skillplay, death penalty I really do believe the game has a LOT of potential for casual players.
And you are totally right, the game does need stable population to work, but this is also why the game has many other mechanics besides those I mentioned above.
Sure, some players will prefer to craft - they will still need to deal with PvP though. If they have their materials stored in the bank and go to pick them up to craft with, someone could attack them while they are en route and take half of those materials. Even if you are within a node, you are still subject to PvP.
So sure, you may say "just have all your materials in your freehold and craft there". The problem is, you need to transport those materials to your freehold in order for them to get there.
Now, while winning may be subjective for many people, losing is more objective than that. If you lose more materials than you are able to afford to purchase, that is a fairly objective case of losing.