How is AoC going to incorporate all level of players in node warfare?

A little background: I'm a avid Eve online player, and many of the systems that AoC is going to have have similar like systems in Eve Online. Eve online however is not a level based system, and that is very good for its pvp playground. Due to Eve online's rock paper scissors systems and role dependancy and specialization options, new players can participate in, and sometimes even perform key roles in pvp. And more importantly no matter what skill level (both player skill and charactar skill point amount) they can all participate in attacking or defending someones home.

How will this be in ashes of creation? If i'm level 20, just got my first tiny house and membership of a node, what will i be able to do to defend my home? Will the level disparity between me and max level attackers make it that i have no chance? will i experiance a dissatisfying time, when i realize that the time and money my character has invested in his or her new home can't realisticly be defended because of level disparity, or will there be options to make yourself usefull?

Here are my suggestions:
Instead of a fixed amount of players, have it set to combined level. Eg 50 lvl 40 players attack, Total pool of levels is 200, the defending team can defend with 40 level 50 players, or 100 level 20 players (Or any combination resulting up to 200 level pool)
Siege weapon efficiency is independant of level or class. This will allow lower level players to partake without having to use immersion breaking scaling effects.
Battleground is split up in brackets of similar levels whenever possible.

When not all levels are equally important in node warfare, the game will become a must be max level to participate, wich will lead to stagnation, and ultimatly player decline and will prevent new player influx

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Depraved

NishUK wrote: »

@Noaani so you're basically up for another very hardcore mmorpg experience where gear and money decide your power tremendously.

Answer, you've been playing for 2 years as an Archer, new player joins the server and he is also an Archer+Mage sub type and heavy commits to his sub to save on augment and other costs as much as possible he loves PvP.
3 year point (he's been playing for 1 year and you 3), you both play the same hours and everyday, he is fed up he can't buy gold for gear to catch up to players 2 years ahead, fresh start server begins, tell him why shouldn't he join it.

The biggest question, why should new players join your server. Your preference has no care for competitive growth.

Also the Romans didn't have many months of years or training, this is a fantasy game so as far as everyone is concerned, we're all trained in the ways of Sparta like in the movie 300 and rng lucked not getting thrown off a cliff as a baby. Gear is good but does not make a man.

what about the player who spent years leveling and gearing up???

the issue isn't gear mattering. the issue is how much it matters.

regarding new players, there's always ways to get them up to speed and help them catch up with veterans without making gear not matter.

every now and then a thread pop ups offering a suggestion on how to make low level players relevant (or players who arent maxed out). if we keep giving incentives to lower levels, then whats the reason to level up or gear up? at some point no one gonna bother

NishUK

Depraved wrote: »

what about the player who spent years leveling and gearing up???

Oh that guy? He's had years of conquest, being a reliable skilled/knowledgable party/guild member and could of potentially used his gold for years INSTEAD of going through the rng rollercoaster of getting every single piece of gear to "+ godlike", the player instead uses their gold to raise the stats on his gear/augments by a fraction via crafting to amplify the utility/effectiveness of his playstyle (rng positive and negative effects always applied), upkeep of guild taxes, repair costs (especially of activated gear), cosmetically making his gear better looking outside of the "pay to cosmetic" store, many hard upgrades to mount and cart etc etc etc.

MANY ways to stop enchanting passively winning the game for you, it's just a matter of making it fun BUT it's very important to consider the first suggestion I said, positive AND negative bonuses because people naturally believe that the only way they can have fun is if they work towards something that is a direct improvement but that is an untested mentality for many.

edit - You know league players keep on playing because they're addicted only to a badge that showcases their merit right? There's millions of them!

Solvryn

daveywavey wrote: »

I'm fully expecting a skilled Level 30 to be able to beat a crappy Level 50 me. Just play and have fun.

I'm for it, if a players a trashcan they get to die.

Strevi

daveywavey wrote: »

I'm fully expecting a skilled Level 30 to be able to beat a crappy Level 50 me. Just play and have fun.

This could work fine if everybody would start at lvl 50 and level down to 30

Depraved

NishUK wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

what about the player who spent years leveling and gearing up???

Oh that guy? He's had years of conquest, being a reliable skilled/knowledgable party/guild member and could of potentially used his gold for years INSTEAD of going through the rng rollercoaster of getting every single piece of gear to "+ godlike" using his gold to raise the stats on his gear/augments by a fraction via crafting to amplify the utility/effectiveness of his playstyle (rng positive and negative effects always applied), upkeep of guild taxes, repair costs (especially of activated gear), cosmetically making his gear better looking outside of the "pay to cosmetic" store, many hard upgrades to mount and cart etc etc etc.

MANY ways to stop enchanting passively winning the game for you, it's just a matter of making it fun BUT it's very important to consider the first suggestion I said, positive AND negative bonuses because people naturally believe that the only way they can have fun is if they work towards something that is a direct improvement but that is an untested mentality for many.

edit - You know league players keep on playing because they're addicted only to a badge that showcases their merit right? There's millions of them!

fun is subjective. engaging is probably a better word.

people complain about skips or paying to skip, or expansions that let you skip old content. this is a skip, except it's free and it's not even an expansion, yet people want it? XDD

look at it this way. there are a lot of things to do in the game, as you just mentioned. so while you get to do all those things, and I don't, because I'm busy leveling and gearing up, you also get to be as impactful as me on pvp? so you get to spend all your gaming time making money, trading, leveling artisan skills, getting skins, etc and I can't do any of that because I want to be strong in PVP first and do those other things later. that's a slap to the face to me.

how about I spend all my time leveling and becoming stronger for PVP but the game gives me the option to get (or craft) the best gear without leveling my artisan skills? you wouldn't like that, do you? I could just focus on leveling and doing dungeons and PVP and still be able to compete with you in the market, who spent all his time working on his artisan skills. It doesn't seem fair.

remember that everybody will start at level 1 when the game goes live. lots of level 20-30 fighting in the first few sieges. everybody will be more or less equal.

NishUK

@Depraved Your not understanding the arguement I'm making, which can be summarised as many alternative reasons of why people would continue grinding in a game.

If also for instance you're not upgrading your horse and cart then you plan to hijack other peoples on resource takes? perhaps the game will have that but just incase you need to come up with a plan B or have an ally who does. If you make less money you are less comfortable in the game but it can be way more complex and different than just by power means.
You could set off in a dungeon without your healer for 30 minutes because they have a r/l emergency "I have good quality potions and the bard can spam weak heals and use my collection of high quality mp potions I have, hopefully our healer comes soon xD" would be a basic example of ingame comforts.
If you're ONLY looking to PvP and steal from players, literally the only thing you're prioritizing and still allowed by the system to win in your own category then that means the game is not advanced and there's just simply avenues of enjoyment that don't really on a combination of systems. We are long past the long and worn out game practices of WoW where only your raid gear OR pvp gear makes substanial differences and NPC's flood you with tokens for merely pacticapting and you're simply progressing in a simple manner, something like League of Legends has literally x100 times more needed player engagment than this in terms of progression where you need not only skill but discipline to progress through the ranks.

You also need to think about the "state of the game" after 3 months or so have settled and most of the players are properly acquianted to the server, the 3 months before hand of lvl disparities and the imbalancing that causes when certain classes gain certain skills is almost inconsequential.

daveywavey

Solvryn wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

I'm fully expecting a skilled Level 30 to be able to beat a crappy Level 50 me. Just play and have fun.

I'm for it, if a players a trashcan they get die.

Yep, I just tend to be terrible at 1v1 PvP. I've acknowledged my weakness, and when it comes up, I'll do my best! But I don't expect my level to save me! hahahaha

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

Noaani a 0.1% player on Archeage is 100% or more effective than a "1%" player and I'm not even joking, they had every reason to literally buy into more power.

This is actually horrendously untrue.

A lot of people thought this was the case, but the thing many of these people just didnt realize (didnt want to realize) is that most of those players that had really top end gear (even those that bought it) were actually really good at the game as well.

I knew a fair few people right at the top of the pile while I was playing Archeage, and most of them (note, not all) were able to easily beat me in a normalized setting - I was above average at PvP, making them significantly above average.

So many people would see these people with their gear score that was two or three times the average, watch them obliterate 3 or 4 players at the same time, and say it was only the gear. It wasnt, it was as much their ability as anything.

Most people dont want to hear that though. They dont want to believe that players can both be good AND have good gear. I fully expect you to argue this point, because you wont want to believe it.

Now, to be clear, if you are running around in celestial quality illustrious or tier 2 or 3 obsidian gear (basically someone that chases the 10%, or doesn't really give a shit about gear), and you come up against someone in tier 5 or 6 obsidian or ayanad gear that is epic or legendary (someone that chases the 0.1%), yeah, no amount of skill is likely to bridge that gap.

However, that is literally putting the best geared player against someone that put no effort at all in to gearing. That shouldnt be an even match - you should expect to at least put some effort in to gear.

At the same point in the game where the above would be the best geared player and someone that had not put any actual effort in to gearing, a player that put some effort in would have tier 4 or 5 obsidian at divine or epic (epic weapon, at the very least - someone chasing the 1%). With this gear, the winner in 1v1 vs that best geared player would indeed come down to player skill.

The original point I replied to was in regard with this point about gear was in relation to the hypothetical player and why they should keep playing the game when others have a two year head start. The basic and fact of diminishing returns is that reason - not just diminishing returns on gear upgrades, but diminishing returns on how many upgrades you can actually expect to get out of a given amount of wealth.

In leading up to my gear plateau (epic and divine obsidian), I was getting an upgrade of sorts every two or three days. Players at the top were getting much smaller upgrades once every two to three weeks - sometimes they would be months apart.

That is why your hypothetical new player joining the game after two years can keep playing - the very design of this kind of gearing system dictates that if they put in the same effort as me, they will eventually catch up to me (sooner, rather than later). The only reason they have for giving up is if they want to catch up to me, but don't have the desire to put in the same amount of effort that I did.

The question now becomes - should someone that puts literally no effort at all in to acquiring gear be able to beat someone that puts a whole lot of effort, or should it be expected that you need to put some effort in to gear in order to compete?

Strevi

Noaani wrote: »

The question now becomes - should someone that puts literally no effort at all in to acquiring gear be able to beat someone that puts a whole lot of effort, or should it be expected that you need to put some effort in to gear in order to compete?

Good question

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

edit - You know league players keep on playing because they're addicted only to a badge that showcases their merit right? There's millions of them!

You realize, I assume, that a big part of the argument here is that players not wanting things like gear and progression to matter is that they have other game genres to play.

Character progression is central to MMORPG's, it is all but a requirement of a game with a persistent world (I cant name one persistent world game without character progression). Players not wanting that,and all that come with it, can play other genres such as MOBA's.

That is kind of our point.

Solvryn

Noaani wrote: »

NishUK wrote: »

Noaani a 0.1% player on Archeage is 100% or more effective than a "1%" player and I'm not even joking, they had every reason to literally buy into more power.

Now, to be clear, if you are running around in celestial quality illustrious or tier 2 or 3 obsidian gear (basically someone that chases the 10%, or doesn't really give a shit about gear), and you come up against someone in tier 5 or 6 obsidian or ayanad gear that is epic or legendary (someone that chases the 0.1%), yeah, no amount of skill is likely to bridge that gap.

However, that is literally putting the best geared player against someone that put no effort at all in to gearing. That shouldnt be an even match - you should expect to at least put some effort in to gear.

An exquisite highlight to why gear shouldn't make up anymore than 30% of the player power, even less if I had my way.

ArcheAge had a lot of design flaws, and this was one of them.

A weapons purpose gives someone increased effectiveness, but it never that much unless the operator is of actual talent. It only matters to the best, not the average.

AA failed in this, because it gave entirely too much power.

Players should develop combat prowess before they worry about stats.

Noaani

Solvryn wrote: »

ArcheAge had a lot of design flaws, and this was one of them.

It is only a design flaw if you dont want to play an MMORPG.

If you are after fair fight after fair fight, where everything is equal within the confines of each fight, then yeah, the above would be a flaw.

However, that isnt an MMORPG, it is the description of a lobby game.

If you want an MMORPG, where there is a game world,a community, and an economy, and crafting, and property management, then it is only right that everything be tied in together.

It is only right that you are able to perform better in the economy if you are better at property management, more engaged in the community, better at PvP and better at crafting.

Likewise, it is only right that you are able to better perform property management if you are better at PvP, more engaged in the community and better at crafting.

Thus, if someone is better at crafting, better at the economy, more engaged in the community and better at land management, then all of those should feed in to their PvP prowess.

In a lobby game, none if the above is true. In an MMORPG, all of the above is a description of the genre.

If a game provides players with all of these activities, why should they not feed in to each other? If a player only wants to play one of them, they have many games that only offer that one aspect - MMORPG's are there to provide players with all of the above, in an inter-connected manner.

Solvryn

Noaani wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

ArcheAge had a lot of design flaws, and this was one of them.

Clipped.

Yeah dude. The OP wants to partake in PvP. Reducing gear effectiveness and mechanical aptitude reliance achieves that.

ArcheAge is a great example of gear being too powerful.

It doesn’t change anything for the top end players, they’ll still be the best.

Noaani

Solvryn wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

ArcheAge had a lot of design flaws, and this was one of them.

Clipped.

Yeah dude. The OP wants to partake in PvP. Reducing gear effectiveness and mechanical aptitude reliance achieves that.

ArcheAge is a great example of gear being too powerful.

It doesn’t change anything for the top end players, they’ll still be the best.

Archeage is a great example of gear being too powerful for people that only want to PvP, and dont want to play the rest of the game.

For people that played Archeage as an MMORPG, the power of gear was just fine. Not perfect, just fine.

If you only want to play one aspect of an MMORPG and not the whole thing, you should EXPECT to be behind everyone else.

If that MMO has several aspects to it that you are ignoring (economy, crafting, PvE etc), then you shouldnt expect to do much at all in PvP in that MMO.

Again, if a player just wants PvP, play a game that only offers PvP. Dont expect to be able to get a full experience if you are ignoring 75% of the game.

Kesthely

Solvryn wrote: »

The only time a lower level will not be slotted is in the case of castle siege.

I'm not concerned about Castle sieges though. That is a guild effort, and while important to player development it doesn't put player assets at risk. It is up to the guild to decide how to let guildmembers participate in a castle siege.

However, as stated earlier, both castle and node sieges will have in build systems for lower level players.

Solvryn

Noaani wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

ArcheAge had a lot of design flaws, and this was one of them.

Clipped.

Yeah dude. The OP wants to partake in PvP. Reducing gear effectiveness and mechanical aptitude reliance achieves that.

ArcheAge is a great example of gear being too powerful.

It doesn’t change anything for the top end players, they’ll still be the best.

Archeage is a great example of gear being too powerful for people that only want to PvP, and dont want to play the rest of the game.

For people that played Archeage as an MMORPG, the power of gear was just fine. Not perfect, just fine.

If you only want to play one aspect of an MMORPG and not the whole thing, you should EXPECT to be behind everyone else.

If that MMO has several aspects to it that you are ignoring (economy, crafting, PvE etc), then you shouldnt expect to do much at all in PvP in that MMO.

Again, if a player just wants PvP, play a game that only offers PvP. Dont expect to be able to get a full experience if you are ignoring 75% of the game.

If developers went by that logic there wouldn’t be any MMORPGs Farmers should go play a farm simulator, PvE only players should go play co op RPGs and PvPers should stick to PvP only games.

Doesn’t work, people are going to play to their preferences/role.

Noaani

Solvryn wrote: »

If developers went by that logic there wouldn’t be any MMORPGs Farmers should go play a farm simulator, PvE only players should go play co op RPGs and PvPers should stick to PvP only games.

You're kind of missing the point here - not sure if you just aren't getting it, or if you don't want to get it.

People that only want to farm have farming games to play - and many of them do play those games. However, some people that only want to farm also play MMO's and only play the farming content.

You know what these people (generally) don't do? They don't expect to be able to protect their farm or their produce from PvP. These people generally know and understand that if they are going to only play one aspect of the game, they will have issues with other aspects, and this will at times impact on the part of the game they are playing.

Doesn’t work, people are going to play to their preferences/role.

Absolutely. That is totally what people should do.

However, if you are only playing 25% of a game, you shouldn't be complaining if someone that is playing 50%, 75% or 100% of that game has some advantage that you do not have.

Keep in mind, you have full access to literally everything that any other player has access to. Your only reason for not getting better gear is you specifically making the choice to not get it.

Part of being a good player is having good gear. If you don't have good gear, you can't claim to be a good player. Not in an over all sense - you may be good at PvP, but if your gear is shit, you can't claim to be a good player.

Developers should not lessen their game as a whole just in order to allow you to ignore the parts of the game you want without consequence.

Instead of complaining that someone else has better gear than you, just shut up and get good. it *LITERALLY* is that simple.

Kesthely

Solvryn wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

ArcheAge had a lot of design flaws, and this was one of them.

Clipped.

Yeah dude. The OP wants to partake in PvP. Reducing gear effectiveness and mechanical aptitude reliance achieves that.

ArcheAge is a great example of gear being too powerful.

It doesn’t change anything for the top end players, they’ll still be the best.

Partake yes, and feel usefull, i never expect, a low level or lower geared to be on (close to) equal footing, thats just bad game design, what i do expect, and that is something that eve online accomplishes really well, is that newer players can be usefull.

I see it like this: an old player has had more time to aquicre gear and augments, and thus is able to play eg Fighter/Rogue as well as Fighter/Tank, and Fighter/Mage, due to having aquired the appropiate augments and gears to support that. He (or she) can choose wich build to play in what content to maximize efficiency, and thus increase the chance of "winning" a new player (who might also be max level) has not had time to aquire appropiate gear or augments, and is restricted to only one build. This will be less efficient in some content.

Lower level players however suffer from both not having build / gear / augment options, as well as less skill points available for the best skills, a lower health pool, and less damage or healing output. In order for them to feel usefull in some of the content, there will need to be objectives for them to do.

However in my opinion, some content should be restricted by level, eg taking a lvl 20 to a max level worldboss, should be a deprimend not an asset, since the boss will determine it as a player if not the rewards will be disporportionate.

Node sieges (and node sieges only in my opinion) should facilitate low level play because the assets of that low level player are also on the line. (all other systems are opt in) they don't need to be as efficient, or effective, but they do need to feel usefull.

Noaani

Kesthely wrote: »

Partake yes, and feel usefull, i never expect, a lowe level or lower geared to be on (close to) equal footing, thats just bad game design, what i do expect, and that is something that eve online accomplishes really well, is that newer players can be usefull.

Totally agree with you here, and I do think the way Intrepid plan to do siege weapons will accomplish most of this.

In function, it will be basically the same as how Archeage siege engines (and ship weapons) work. The damage is a factor of the weapon (and perhaps ammo), not the weapons user. If you as a player can aim the weapon and shoot it, you are as good at it as any other player that can also aim and shoot said weapon.

Solvryn

Noaani wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

If developers went by that logic there wouldn’t be any MMORPGs Farmers should go play a farm simulator, PvE only players should go play co op RPGs and PvPers should stick to PvP only games.

.

I understand your reasoning it’s just not going to work, you’re not grasping the large picture.

Players are not going to care why the guy who spends all day at the auction house just killed them.

They’re going to wonder why the guy who doesn’t have any mechanical acumen has killed them.

They’re going to dip, why? Because the guy who puts no time into their preference can kill them off of gear alone.

No one cares about the guy who plays 50% of the game, or 75% of the game. It’s a preference they chose, may they get all their entertainment value out of it.

Child Item