Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
And, it would be nice to be able to determine fairly quickly whether you need to switch out the abilities/augments you have or because those mobs are too high in level.
Typically, enemy indicators are most important when trying to determine which mos to switch to because the mobs you were fighting now progress your xp slowly and you wish to find new mobs to focus on that provide decent xp, but aren't a level beyond your capabilities.
No, the player doesn't decide information's value, the game does.
The eye thing is to avoid the situation you were worried about. Knowing the exact level is still advantageous, making it the best way to play.
Doesn't necessarily have to be an exact.
Overall, I tend towards hard-core style.
Now, to elaborate:
"Intended Audience"
Not only a better player may be able to take on a stronger opponent, but also, something that's only achievable by a party of 8 at level 10 might be perfectly soloable at level 30, which will make some of these indicators moot.
In addition, I have full expectation that while a Priest might be able to take on a Zombie of significantly higher "level" (perhaps, only if said Priest has mastered the Undead-related skills) - a Hunter might have more luck with a higher "level" Bear.
This means that "intended level" indicators would have to be adjusted per class / skill-build.
And that's not even taking into account the variety of equipment, where say a cheeky Icicle Rapier or a set of Fire-Stone Armour would make fire-type monsters accessible at a significantly lower level than off-the-mill alternatives.
Unless, of course, Ashes plans to be so limiting that any character of specific level will have exactly same success against a specific monster, regardless of their class or skill build.
Or so one-dimentional that the "Attack Rating" will be the only defining quality of a weapon.
Or so streamlined that certain "level" is required to be able to hit a monster, with exponential miss chance of attacks / skills / spells based off such "level" difference. Like we see in some of the modern MMOs.
If any of the above is the reality of Ashes - then this simply will not be a game I am interested in, and then I won't mind any way in which it decides to indicate the enemies.
"Old School Style"
In addition, if there's any plan at all for monsters with same skin to be able to have different stats - then something akin to a level would be useful to distinguish between, say, lvl30 foxes that die from one firebolt and lvl31 foxes than don't.
Of course, another way would be to make lvl31 foxes slightly larger, or with slightly longer tails, or a little redder (a la Valheim), and it would be much more immersive than looking at a number on the nameplate.
At the same time, colour indicators comparing the monster to the player seem rather pointless to me, for reasons already stated in "Intended Audience" section.
"Hardcore"
NPC enemy's name displayed on target / mouse hover, perhaps a discreet HP stripe when HP is less than 100% (or not even that, I am not too picky as long as we have a class-specific skill to check HP of an enemy for boss fights and such), and off we go.
Immersive gameplay, mysterious new world, sense of discovery and achievement. What else is there to say.
Personally, I find indicators excessively handholding, and prefer exploration and surprise both in my single-player games and in MMORPGs.
At the same time, I do appreciate visual information provided via creature design.
Addressing some of the points other people brought up before me:
I personally see "fun" differently, because the situation this person describes sounds pretty cool to me.
A small unassuming chicken suddenly bocks me to death with its fire-breath?
That's cool !
Moreso, it will only happen the first time I encounter this new foe, and afterwards I'll be aware of the Chicken Danger and give it proper respect.
If a game doesn't ever surprise me - what's the fun?
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/333232/#Comment_333232
On contrary, it is very much possible to incorporate such subtle hints into NPC design.
NPCs that are significantly stronger than the player / group of players could behave more visually threatening:
They could scowl, show teeth, impatiently pace around (if animals) or swing their weapons (if humanoids), make agressive noises, and of course aggro by themselves from further distance.
As an opposite, significantly weaker NPCs could cower in fear, make whining / crying / scared noises, run away / hide, etc.
If an area has weaker and stronger monsters (as I hope it will often be) - stronger monsters could be comparatively bigger, brighter coloured, more spiky, etc. to indicate their comparative status.
This is of course only relevant for a significant difference in power, and will make little sense otherwise for reasons already mentioned.
PvP
Visual assessment
However due to costumes, some indicators might be needed. After all, how else am I to know that the person I am attacking with my firebolt is wearing the best available fire-resistance armour?
Even better so, have an option to disable costumes entirely when in PvP mode.
Imagine how immersive it would be to see someone wearing the fabled Red Dragon armour, and think to yourself "I see, perhaps my fire attacks won't do much against them, let's try ice instead - but wait, they are also wearing the Frost Werewolf cape, better retreat behind my Paladin's shield and let the Ranger deal with this opponent, as they don't pack much protection from arrows". Much more satisfying than spamming fire bolt at everything you see and hoping for the best.
Nameplates
Notes
Regadless of the end system, it would be great to be able to disable excessive visuals, because if you are repeatedly interacting with same mobs for their mats or exp - you already know well what they are, and visual clutter is only a distraction.
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/333269/#Comment_333269
This would be a great addition, and it can even be spread between classes: for example, Hunter can appraise wildlife, Priest can appraise the undead, Fighter can appraise the humanoids, etc.
This comment is also much appreciated, as it expresses many of the points I talk about, and much more concise than I possibly could:
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/334020/#Comment_334020
We really need to see what the combat is like before we can meaningfully evaluate the necessity of a level indicators.
(We also need to see what the UI is intended to look like).
It would be based on Node stages and ZOI.
I'll be honest, it's a scary thought. What it would mean is that the UI is simply not able to be adjusted in any way at all, as UI adjustments are players deciding what the value of specific information is. It would mean no map pins, and no marking other players or NPC's for your group or raid to see - as these are just ways of showing information that players value that the game isn't showing. It would mean no adjustment of nameplates to suit a players needs, technically it would also mean no ignore feature on chat, as that is a player deciding they don't value what a specific player says.
Is this REALLY the way you want an MMO to be designed?
I'm glad we agree. This leaves me unsure why you are arguing against it.
I mean, you say it is the best way to play...
Basic point is - why can we not just give players the option to chose how they want mob level presented? if the answer is "because all players would chose to have mob level and intended audience displayed", then that should answer your question as to which option is best, and should be implemented.
Any argument from that point on is an argument as to why you wish to hamstring every player in the game.
A mob that is suited for a group at level 10 may well be able to be soloed at level 30. This does not make the indicator that the mob is intended for a group moot - it means that indicator is working in conjunction with the level indicator to tell players that the mob is intended for a group of players at level 10.
If you are able to take that on at level 30 by yourself, have at it. No one is stopping you no one is saying you should or shouldn't be able to do that, but that doesn't alter the fact that the mob is intended for a group of players at level 10.
The notion that intended level would need to be adjusted by class is equally false. If you gain an ability that makes you able to fight undead significantly better, then you should be able to take on undead of a level or two higher than what you can take on of other mob types. The mobs indicated level does not need to be altered down to accommodate your strength in this area, the very suggestion that it would is both odd and at odds with literally every MMO ever.
What I am hoping for is a game design where specific area / mobs are not "intended" for lvl10s akin to a themepark (with the grand distinction that some "areas" are for parties), but that monsters are designed to be relevant across levels.
So that it is indended by design that lvl10 party and lvl30 solo (as an example) could co-exist in the same location, farming same monsters, both obtaining relevant experience, and gathering loot that's relevant not only at their respective levels (again, like themeparks do) but across the whole game.
This is an old school MMO design I am familiar with, and would love to see come back.
This clarification is only in relation to the part of my main comment that speaks about party/solo indicators.
Please refer to the initial comment for complete opinion:
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/334870/#Comment_334870
As a more elaborate example of a kind of situation I am talking about:
We have perhaps a couple of classes who are built around long range attacks - that is, Ranger and Mage.
Each of them will be able to take on such an enemy easily on much earlier levels (as soon as they can do some tangible damage at long range).
At the same time, other 6 classes will have to be of much higher lvl to withstand it at shorter range / kill it fast enough so that it doesn't have much chance to fight back / make use of long range weapon that doesn't work with their skill tree. However, they will also kill it much faster, or if the trees are clustered - kill few at a time, and therefore the exp / loot gained can still be relevant at that level.
Unless, of course, someone got their hands on an Extremely Rare Legendary Stick Of Long Range Damage At Any Level, in which case they can also go ham.
The main "design" of such creatures would be to provide long-range classes with a befitting opponent at low levels, to get the early feel of their class-specific strength (that is, long range). But also to provide anyone of sufficiently high level with a regular "come and hit me" target that gives reward proportionally to the speed of killing.
We can call it a lvl10 Spitting Tree because it is well suited for lvl10 Mages and Rangers, or we can call it lvl30 Spitting Tree because only at lvl30 the majority of players can kill it efficiently by regular smacking appropriate for their class. We can call it something inbetween, too, to confuse everyone. It's pretty arbitrary and doesn't really cover the "indended audience" in either case.
At the same time, in a themepark you can well expect the lvl10 monster to be easily killable by an average lvl10 player of any of their homogenous DPS classes, and entirely useless for anyone below lvl8 and above lvl12, and therefore there cannot possibly be any interesting design such as this, or any confusion about what "intended audience level" could mean.
In this context, I believe that if Ahses is trying to walk away from the themepark design - the "intended audience" based level indicator might not work well.
And, sure, there will be content designed for an 8-person group of Level 10 characters that a Level 30 character might be able to solo.
I don't understand what you think the devs mean when they say they are balancing combat for an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype. Intended level of the 8-person group is going to be a factor of that balance.
The level of that mob in your example is going to be based on the balance of an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype. And we should expect it to con as evenly matched for an 8-person group of characters the same level as the mob and con as significantly below the level of a solo character 20 levels higher.
There will also be some solo content designed to be an even match for characters that have the same level as the mob(s).
This is a matter of the range in which a mob rewards players that kill it, not a matter pertaining to indicators.
Even if Intrepid opt to do something along these lines, indicators are still important.
However, with Ashes being the PvX game that it is, you probably don't want content that is appropriate for level 10 players also being appropriate for level 30 players. That will never turn out well for those level 10 players.
At least knowing the mobs level (not necessarily the HP values) and if it's an elite/rare or boss level mob I think wouldn't break the RP people are looking for but also speed up the informed combat decisions you make out in the world and somewhat direct people to the right areas intended for their character and/or gear levels.
A dynamic bestiary system has been mentioned a few times and think that would be cool but instead of revealing mob level and hp values I think you could build that to give you a breakdown of what type of spells/attacks the mobs perform and what magic school or damage type they might be weak or strong against instead. Also it could be used for enemy lore purposes as well.
I love that you brought this up. It is a very interesting (and very offtopic
How to balance open world semi-sandbox, where we presumably want to have less kennel-based, more free-roaming approach, with the worldwide PvP aspect.
I did think about that a little, and in my opinion with current approach to the Corruption it might actually work out fine. Here are my thoughts, based on the earlier example that you quoted:
[expand to read]
Of course it's all very speculative at the moment, and highly depends on Intrepid's goal behind worldwide PvP / Corruption and related balancing.
I personally love the idea of more complex zone / enemy designs, such as the ones I described earlier, and hope to see such complexity realised in Ashes.
The Level 30 can farm in that area and gather up most of the loot without needing to attack the lower level characters. But, those Level 10s would be losing out on loot.
The thing is, you talk about corruption and such, but you seem to be forgetting that the way to get rid of corruption is to gain experience.
It is absolutely going to be worth it for players to gain some corruption in order to secure a farming location. The intent behind corruption is that farming location are often worth fighting over and gaining corruption.
It is not going to be worth it for level 30 players to go and kill level 10 players and then just move on - this is literally what corruption is there to prevent.
Having open world areas in which large level ranges are going after the same area may work in some games that are yet to be designed, but it will break Ashes.
---
The funny thing is that in your post, you talked about how lower level players may go after the lower end mobs in an area - how will they know which mobs are lower end without indicators to tell them as much?
My statement doesn't mean any of those things. I just said the importance of information is decided by the game. What part of that statement is saying something has to be removed?
To your second point, if ashes added more fast travel and you could teleport to anywhere you wanted to, you would use it for it's convince and advantage. Since fast travel gives you an advantage and if more of it was present, you would use it, should they add more of it to the game?
Just because people would use something if it's present doesn't mean it adds to the game or should be added to the game. Wall hacks and aim bots make it easier to play FPS games. Doesn't mean they should be added to them as default features.
I was asked my preference and gave it. You started this argument. As i have pointed out, I think you are exaggerating the difference it would make and if it's part of the game, it isn't hamstringing anyone.
I wasn't comparing them.
They made the argument that somethings convenience is a reason for it being added. I was using it as an example of something that would be convenient but they probably don't believe should be added.
You will note that I specifically said that any argument from that point on is an argument as to why you want to hamstring every player. This isn't me saying there are no longer any arguments, it is me saying that if you wish to keep arguing it, you need to overcome that fact.
This is something fast travel overcomes. Lets examine;
Fast travel has pros and cons. The major pro is that it makes it easier to play with your friends. Being able to get around the world faster is in itself not much of anything.
The major cons are that it allows players to more easily replace other players mid content, and it makes it easier to gather large scale forces in a short time for open world PvP (caravans and such).
So, the cons here easily out weight the pros.
This is what has not been demonstrated in relation to obfuscating basic mob information - there is no actual game wide benefit to it like there is to restricting fast travel.
You pros and cons list is subjective.
Some people may prefer being able to travel quick even if it means being zerged and others may plan on doing the zerging so they like the advantage. You are taking away that choice from them.
While I also prefer the restriction of fast travel, it is still a design choice that others may not prefer. It is the same thing as a design choice that would not show a mob's level in the interface.
You have admitted that you are fine with the obfuscating data when it comes to raid content and i'd imagine you think it's fine if some details for mob's abilities and stats is obfuscated.
As i have said and this thread asked, this is my preference. For me, it increases the focus on the game's visuals which i find beneficial to my experience in the game.
In this thread that asked for my preference, was i not allowed to give it because it's not the same as yours?
It is subjective in terms of whether people prefer one or the other, sure.
However, it is objective in terms of the impact it has on the game as a whole. There is no denying that fast travel makes it easier for groups to boot players and replace them mid content, and there is no denying that fast travel makes it easier to gather a large force quickly.
The point isn't to just do what the bulk of players want - the point is that if you are not doing what the bulk of players want, you need to have a damn good reason.
As I originallysaid - any argument made for not having indicators needs to be a strong argument as it is going up against hamstringing every player. That doesn't make it an automatic non-option, it means a damn good argument is needed.
A limit on fast travel has a damn good argument behind it. Sure, some disagree with it, but that isn't the point. The point is that there is a real reason behind it - it will alter the way players play the game, in a way that Intrepid - and most players - think is for the best. That reason is stronger than the reason to have fast travel.
There is so far no real reason to not have mob indictators. It won't see players alter the way they play the game in any positive manner. This is the argument that is missing.
The only real reason given for people not wanting indicators is that they want a clean screen. As you know, I am all about giving people all the UI options they could want - including removing indicators.
If you have the option to remove indicators and don't, 5hen you can't be all that worried about having a clean UI.
Everyone does not have to have the same preference.
Yes, there is an objective impact but whether that impact is good or bad is subjective. Ashes with more fast travel would be a different game than Ashes without.
The strength of an argument is subjective and both side needs to argue their points, not just one.
If you don't think my argument is strong then cool. Doesn't mean i'm not going state what i prefer in a thread that asked for my preference and make my argument for it. In the end, it's on the readers of our argument to come to their own conclusions.
And no, that is no reason i have been giving, at least not the full reason.
I prefer for there not to be solo/group indicators. Players should be able to discern base on colors/nameplates whether or not they stand a chance. If all the mobs in the area are elite and over my level I should be able to realize “I probably can’t do this solo, and this might be the entrance to a dungeon, I should get a group”.
The point is - the discussion on fast travel HAS that argument, the discussion on indicators does not.
It isn't that the argument isn't strong, it is that it doesn't exist. There is no objective impact on the game - it is a purely subjective matter.
Not only is it subjective - it is subjective where the opinion to have no indicators does not hold up at all once questioned (as you no doubt understand right now).