I want to make the case so that a player with a Lv40 sword should never lose against a player with a Lv35 sword
The perfect example of a bad MMO, with progress depending exclusively on the time you spend on it. You just asked for AOC to be a bad MMO.
A bad MMO design is one in which gear is tied to online time, as opposed to how you use your online time.
If I am online 10 hours a week but make good use of that time gearing my character, I probably will (and should) have better gear than someone that spends 40 hours online talking shit in chat.
Character progression is a key, central aspect of any RPG, MMO based or not. If gear and levels don't matter, then your character progression is inherently broken.
A pve player would think this way. The main crux remains than gear is 40 to 50% of your max power. Thus, the actual disparity between gear is minimal at best. Granted, a white set compared to an orange set would see a lot of power gain but a mid tier set would be far more beneficial against an orange set.
Furthermore, guaranteed outcomes mean there is no point in playing the game. How would you feel if all your raids could be completed in 1 shot due to gear? Same issue applies to pvp. Why should we have gimped pvp where skill does not matter?
Why should we have gimped pvp where skill does not matter?
Fine, have a gear normalized arena.
The point of the game is to be out in the world, participating in the larger server society and economy.
The only reason to be a part of that society and economy is to gain power.
If you aren't gaining much in the way of power, why particiapte in the game at all? Why even have an open world game rather than just a lobby based arena?
Why should we have gimped pvp where skill does not matter?
Fine, have a gea rnormalized arena.
The point of the game is to be out in the world, participating in the larger server society and economy.
The only reason to be a part of that society and economy is to gain power.
If you aren't gaining much in the way of power, why particiapte in the game at all? Why even have an open world game rather than just a lobby based arena?
I mean, gaining power is literally the point.
There are different forms of power. In a game with no 1vs1 balance what is the point in personal power exactly? Power comes from playing the game and promoting your guild activities. Sure, you could duel or do arena but these activities are quite by the way side compared to controlling streets, markets, resources, castles etc.
Yet, skill is personal power. You should understand that raiders do not go into the hardest encounters with the best gear at first. Skill and competence are all that matters. Yes, sometimes gear means an encounter can't be conquered but overall, you have to pass encounters to get the best equipment.
Thus, personal power is a byproduct of guild or social power and not the reverse.
skills should also not be the only factor that matters, especially in an rpg. there are many things that matter in pvp, the question is how much importance you give to each one?
skills should also not be the only factor that matters, especially in an rpg. there are many things that matter in pvp, the question is how much importance you give to each one?
I don't believe Steven agrees for one reason, how cam you have an encounter that only 9% of a server can conquer if all you need is a gear check for said encounter.
Yet, skill is personal power. You should understand that raiders do not go into the hardest encounters with the best gear at first.
Imma stop you right there.
You can't really talk about PvE and PvP in the same way in regards to this.
The main reason for this is that by literal design, in PvP you have access to every single skill, spell, ability, stat and effect you could possibly face - yet in PvE that is not true.
However, if you want to get right down to it, in top end raiding gear absolutely matters. As I've said many, many times, gear in top end raiding acts functionally as a key. You could be the best player in the game, but if you don't have the right gear, you aren't making it more than 10 seconds through that encounter.
Yes, you do need to be a good player - but you also need to have that gear. There is literally no point in having one without the other.
When you transition down to content that doesn't have mechanics that you don't have access to as a player (ie, PvP), that skill starts to matter less, as dealing with those factors you don't have access to yourself is where the difference between good players and less good players comes in to play.
Yet, skill is personal power. You should understand that raiders do not go into the hardest encounters with the best gear at first.
Imma stop you right there.
You can't really talk about PvE and PvP in the same way in regards to this.
The main reason for this is that by literal design, in PvP you have access to every single skill, spell, ability, stat and effect you could possibly face - yet in PvE that is not true.
However, if you want to get right down to it, in top end raiding gear absolutely matters. As I've said many, many times, gear in top end raiding acts functionally as a key. You could be the best player in the game, but if you don't have the right gear, you aren't making it more than 10 seconds through that encounter.
Yes, you do need to be a good player - but you also need to have that gear. There is literally no point in having one without the other.
When you transition down to content that doesn't have mechanics that you don't have access to as a player (ie, PvP), that skill starts to matter less, as that is where the difference between good players and less good players comes in to play.
Good luck getting said gear without the guild or social structures in place. I've raided enough to know that BiS gear comes from the hardest encounters. You do not need bis gear to clear the hardest encounters though.
If we are talking about encounters with no progression then I agree with your stance. Bis gear is required for the challenge modes. However, for bis gear acquisition you do not start with bis gear.
I've raided enough to know that BiS gear comes from the hardest encounters. You do not need bis gear to clear the hardest encounters though.
Well, yes - that would be a chicken or egg situation if that were the case, wouldn't it?
Developers can't make an encounter that is the hardest in the game both drop the best gear in the game and also require the best gear in the game in order to kill it, can they?
However, none of what you are talking about now has any relation at all to what George was talking about. All you are saying now is that gear does indeed provide power to players.
I've raided enough to know that BiS gear comes from the hardest encounters. You do not need bis gear to clear the hardest encounters though.
Well, yes - that would be a chicken or egg situation if that were the case, wouldn't it?
Developers can't make an encounter that is the hardest in the game both drop the best gear in the game and also require the best gear in the game in order to kill it, can they?
However, none of what you are talking about now has any relation at all to what George was talking about. All you are saying now is that gear does indeed provide power to players.
It does have direct correlation to what George is saying. George wants there to be a bigger gap between gear tiers. Not just gear tiers but gear level too. My point is there is not going to be such a disparity because the game is pvx.
I do not know if there will be pve challenge modes in Ashes. What I do know is bis gear will compliment the skill but not eradicate the skill. In a large vs large scenario a personal boost of 1% will mean little.
On a small scale a 1% personal boost might make a difference but hard counters already exist, thus, gear means little in such circumstances. In rock, paper, scissors a player does not automatically win because the player wears gloves.
My point is there is not going to be such a disparity because the game is pvx.
This isn't a reason.
Source; Archeage.
Yes, skill mattered, but progression via gear was always a means to overcome skill (build didn't matter too much because everyone could be any build - using your build as an excuse was literally calling yourself a shit player).
skills should also not be the only factor that matters, especially in an rpg. there are many things that matter in pvp, the question is how much importance you give to each one?
I don't believe Steven agrees for one reason, how cam you have an encounter that only 9% of a server can conquer if all you need is a gear check for said encounter.
pve has a set difficulty and its usually more predictable. skill matters too but matters less than in pvp, and your character power matters more than your power as a human player. also, lack of skills is easier to overcome by training and repetition. but also your allies can be a factor on whether you kill the boss or not.
this allow you to increase the difficulty, but its not necessarily related to how fast you can react, move. or press your buttons. the difficulty could be a strategy issue? team composition issue, memorization issue? for example, beating the computer in hard difficulty in starcraft 1 is completely different than beating the computer in hard difficulty in civilization, and they are both strategy games.
given enough time and practice, anybody can kill the boss, if its killable.
also, it could be that only 9% of the players will even get the gear needed to begin with. shrugs.
My point is there is not going to be such a disparity because the game is pvx.
This isn't a reason.
Source; Archeage.
Yes, skill mattered, but progression via gear was always a means to overcome skill (build didn't matter too much because everyone could be any build - using your build as an excuse was literally calling yourself a shit player).
A lot of builds were shunned and the linear power gaps were substantial in Archeage. It was not a pvx game labelled a pvx game. Ashes is an actual pvx game. I'd say Archeage is more like a pvp mmo than a pvx mmo. Even archeage 2 isn't labelled pvx.
skills should also not be the only factor that matters, especially in an rpg. there are many things that matter in pvp, the question is how much importance you give to each one?
I don't believe Steven agrees for one reason, how cam you have an encounter that only 9% of a server can conquer if all you need is a gear check for said encounter.
pve has a set difficulty and its usually more predictable.
I'm glad you said "usually" there - that one word takes your whole post from being something I would have argued against to being something I agree with.
If we are talking about just bulk volume, most PvE is indeed predictable and low skill - I just want to point out that when I'm talking about PvE content, I'm talking about the parts of it that necessitate that "usually" qualifier.
skills should also not be the only factor that matters, especially in an rpg. there are many things that matter in pvp, the question is how much importance you give to each one?
I don't believe Steven agrees for one reason, how cam you have an encounter that only 9% of a server can conquer if all you need is a gear check for said encounter.
pve has a set difficulty and its usually more predictable. skill matters too but matters less than in pvp, and your character power matters more than your power as a human player. also, lack of skills is easier to overcome by training and repetition. but also your allies can be a factor on whether you kill the boss or not.
this allow you to increase the difficulty, but its not necessarily related to how fast you can react, move. or press your buttons. the difficulty could be a strategy issue? team composition issue, memorization issue? for example, beating the computer in hard difficulty in starcraft 1 is completely different than beating the computer in hard difficulty in civilization, and they are both strategy games.
given enough time and practice, anybody can kill the boss, if its killable.
also, it could be that only 9% of the players will even get the gear needed to begin with. shrugs.
Yes, I understand about mechanics. There are three things that are skill based; dps checks, hps checks and threat checks. These notions can be inherent or hidden. The rest is pretty straightforward. I don't know about specific encounters in Ashes having not seen any. However, if there is no skill involved the rest of the mmo community will laugh at our top guilds.
My point is there is not going to be such a disparity because the game is pvx.
This isn't a reason.
Source; Archeage.
Yes, skill mattered, but progression via gear was always a means to overcome skill (build didn't matter too much because everyone could be any build - using your build as an excuse was literally calling yourself a shit player).
A lot of builds were shunned and the linear power gaps were substantial in Archeage. It was not a pvx game labelled a pvx game. Ashes is an actual pvx game. I'd say Archeage is more like a pvp mmo than a pvx mmo. Even archeage 2 isn't labelled pvx.
Yeah, a lot of builds were shunned - 90% of them in fact. However, you have complete freedom to change your build at any point in time to anything at all that you wanted, so no one ever had the excuse of their build being poor - you picked your build, you are free to change your build, if you have a poor build it is 100% on you.
The reason Archeage and Archeage 2 aren't labeled as PvX is because the developer and publisher don't consider it required to make up their own bullshit term to market the game to people the game isn't being aimed at.
Ashes as we currently understand it is more PvP than Archeage.
My point is there is not going to be such a disparity because the game is pvx.
This isn't a reason.
Source; Archeage.
Yes, skill mattered, but progression via gear was always a means to overcome skill (build didn't matter too much because everyone could be any build - using your build as an excuse was literally calling yourself a shit player).
A lot of builds were shunned and the linear power gaps were substantial in Archeage. It was not a pvx game labelled a pvx game. Ashes is an actual pvx game. I'd say Archeage is more like a pvp mmo than a pvx mmo. Even archeage 2 isn't labelled pvx.
Yeah, a lot of builds were shunned - 90% of them in fact. However, you have complete freedom to change your build at any point in time to anything at all that you wanted, so no one ever had the excuse of their build being poor - you picked your build, you are free to change your build, if you have a poor build it is 100% on you.
The reason Archeage and Archeage 2 aren't labeled as PvX is because the developer and publisher don't consider it required to make up their own bullshit term to market the game to people the game isn't being aimed at.
Ashes as we currently understand it is more PvP than Archeage.
I don't think Ashes is more pvp than Archeage. Archeage is faction based and you can't do anything but pvp the other faction. In Ashes you could war with a guild on Monday and do a dungeon with the same guild on Sunday...also, pvx is a valid term in mmorog language. Just because you think it's bullshit doesn't mean its not valid.
I don't think Ashes is more pvp than Archeage. Archeage is faction based and you can't do anything but pvp the other faction.
In Archeage, major portions of the game world were PvP free. Of those that weren't, most of the rest had periods that were PvP free. If you owned land other than in Auroria, it was PvP free. There was no gain to be had by killing players other than for packs, so there was no incentive to PvP anyone most of the time.
The most consternation and frustration most players felt in Archeage was in relation to bridge blocking - PvP was a somewhat minor consideration outside of running packs, or PvP events.
Ashes absolutely is more PvP than that.
The term PvX is bullshit because even Steven can't define it in any meaningful way. His definition of it includes both Archeage and WoW (PvP servers). It is meaningless aside from the fact that some people want it to have meaning - even though they can't actually agree on what that meaning is.
I want to make the case so that a player with a Lv40 sword should never lose against a player with a Lv35 sword
The perfect example of a bad MMO, with progress depending exclusively on the time you spend on it. You just asked for AOC to be a bad MMO.
Yes I agree. A level 35 should be able to kill a lvl 40 with skill. The gap is almost negligible unless IS mess up the linear pathway.
I'm going to steer the discussion back to this point for a second.
Assuming Intrepid create a leveling system with perfectly linear power progression, Lanchester's law would still indictate that the odds increase in favor of the side with more power would essentially be following a square root trajectory, rather than a linear one.
In order to create a system where someone with a 12.5% deficit in level has any real chance, Intrepid would need to essentially make a system where leveling is less than linear, which leads to the issue of an eventual parabola - which would be bad.
Yeah I get your points but levelling after 25 is horizontal. Even augments are horizontal last I heard, thus, the crux of the matter is the fact that serious power gain will not happen after 25.
Therefore, a 35 to 40 match up should be fairly similar in stats except perhaps health and mana. Certainly not much better because secondary class does not boost stats per say.
We can debate these facets all day but the fact remains the concepts used in Ashes are pretty unique for better or worse. It is unlikely a base level of gear will give much power increase at such a small level gap. Otherwise, the disparities would be huge at top end.
Yeah I get your points but levelling after 25 is horizontal. Even augments are horizontal last I heard.
Nope to both.
Vertical progression persists to the level cap (an almost but not quite direct quote from Steven).
Also, augments are vertical progression. While some may have a cost of sorts associated with them, they each make you more powerful.
Edit to add, the most detailed discussion Steven has ever had about horizontal progression is in relation to balancing leveling with economic activity, it isnt in relation to outright combat power of a character.
Yeah I get your points but levelling after 25 is horizontal. Even augments are horizontal last I heard.
Nope to both.
Vertical progression persists to the level cap (an almost but not quite direct quote from Steven).
Also, augments are vertical progression. While some may have a cost of sorts associated with them, they each make you more powerful.
Nope. The augments are horizontal. Tell me how an augment is vertical when the stats are not added to? How is a charge turned into a teleport a vertical progression? Just because you are fixated on vertical progression does not mean vertical progression is inherent.
1
Options
chibibreeMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
As someone who is bad at PvP, I think that having gear only be about 50% of the reason someone is able to win against another person is a great idea. I think learning how to play your class and the nuances between secondaries should be something that gets explored and played with to find new ways to combat another player's class.
I felt happier when I got better at my class and working with others by learning how to better use my skills. The time spent pouring over my build and understanding it far outweighs the shiny new piece of gear I got. The gear comes and goes, but if I don't know how to play my class effectively, then the gear shouldn't matter.
Ultimately, coming from someone who played a lot of WoW and the age of "I'll run you through dungeons", people "had the gear" but they were often bad at the raid because they didn't learn how to actually do it. They were just carried.
I think the same can be said about PvP. If you rely more solely on gear, then it becomes a crutch instead of an accessory.
From playing Eve online for 16 years, I've become very accustomed to pvp with stuff on the line. This is how Ashes will develop:
At the start of the server lifetime, pve power levelers will be the most powerful players. Then after a while the holistic player that both plays pve and pvp, and spends time and energy in crafting will become the most powerful. Then when most of the people know what to do, the organizations that both do pvp and pve and where their members specialize and support each other will become the people that own and control the nodes and surrounding regions.
Since most of the best gear will become part of crafting, you will see dedicated pve players run certain area's protected by dedicated pvp players. These pvp players will be provided by their organization by a gear replacement program, as in eve all successful organizations have a ship replacement program for their pvp pilots. As the server ages and matures, the gear that can be replaced by those organizations will become ever more powerful. Further more each organization will have certain gears specifically designed for certain classes / specs and will be able to mass produce them. For the pve players this means that they will be able to do the most challenging content with relative safety, only the npc's will have to be looked at, their pvp section will secure the area, by killing all non allied members. And the pvp players will be refunded their losses for the service they provide. And since the organization controls the beast value farm spots and dungeons, they get a lot of pvp to enjoy themselves in.
In addition, with the ability to mitigate corruption gain by declaring war on nearby nodes and guilds, and the control of the area to easily farm off corruption, gear loss will NOT be a deterrent for a pvp player.
How does this tie in with the topic of gear power? As you can imagine, in the later stages of the server, the biggest controlling organizations, will control sections of the area, they will be at war or allied with other parts, but will definably have an infrastructure to obtain crafting materials that are not home grown. In this regard these strongest organizations will determine who will be able to get the best gear, and that will only be themselves and their closest allies. If you add a big gear value to the effectiveness of pve or pvp players, you only incentivize the big organizations to hold a closer lit on the best gear.
So no having a huge gear curve will be detrimental to the game. Ideally you will want each aspect of character power progression have a similar amount of impact. This ensures that people not only will be incentivized to do multiple aspects of the game, it also allows for new groups to use a different avenue to try and gain equal power to be able to combat the ruling organization.
From playing Eve online for 16 years, I've become very accustomed to pvp with stuff on the line. This is how Ashes will develop:
At the start of the server lifetime, pve power levelers will be the most powerful players. Then after a while the holistic player that both plays pve and pvp, and spends time and energy in crafting will become the most powerful. Then when most of the people know what to do, the organizations that both do pvp and pve and where their members specialize and support each other will become the people that own and control the nodes and surrounding regions.
Since most of the best gear will become part of crafting, you will see dedicated pve players run certain area's protected by dedicated pvp players. These pvp players will be provided by their organization by a gear replacement program, as in eve all successful organizations have a ship replacement program for their pvp pilots. As the server ages and matures, the gear that can be replaced by those organizations will become ever more powerful. Further more each organization will have certain gears specifically designed for certain classes / specs and will be able to mass produce them. For the pve players this means that they will be able to do the most challenging content with relative safety, only the npc's will have to be looked at, their pvp section will secure the area, by killing all non allied members. And the pvp players will be refunded their losses for the service they provide. And since the organization controls the beast value farm spots and dungeons, they get a lot of pvp to enjoy themselves in.
In addition, with the ability to mitigate corruption gain by declaring war on nearby nodes and guilds, and the control of the area to easily farm off corruption, gear loss will NOT be a deterrent for a pvp player.
How does this tie in with the topic of gear power? As you can imagine, in the later stages of the server, the biggest controlling organizations, will control sections of the area, they will be at war or allied with other parts, but will definably have an infrastructure to obtain crafting materials that are not home grown. In this regard these strongest organizations will determine who will be able to get the best gear, and that will only be themselves and their closest allies. If you add a big gear value to the effectiveness of pve or pvp players, you only incentivize the big organizations to hold a closer lit on the best gear.
So no having a huge gear curve will be detrimental to the game. Ideally you will want each aspect of character power progression have a similar amount of impact. This ensures that people not only will be incentivized to do multiple aspects of the game, it also allows for new groups to use a different avenue to try and gain equal power to be able to combat the ruling organization.
The idea that small groups would have a chance against big, organized, smart, controlling guilds if they had X Y Z in their favour (in this post case, lesser gear power), is wrong. The only way to tackle big is for you to make alliances and become big.
I also made numerous topics on how to counter big guild power, such as not many guild management tools, limitations on boats and freeholds and others over the years which I forget.
I also disagree that PvE players will be strong in the beginning.
Mmo players will be strong at the beginning and always. Raiding is an mmo activity. Doing a pve activity doesnt define you. Heck, I wouldnt call raiding an open world boss a pve activity.
Mmo players will raid and fight for the raids as well as grind spots from day one.
Comments
A pve player would think this way. The main crux remains than gear is 40 to 50% of your max power. Thus, the actual disparity between gear is minimal at best. Granted, a white set compared to an orange set would see a lot of power gain but a mid tier set would be far more beneficial against an orange set.
Furthermore, guaranteed outcomes mean there is no point in playing the game. How would you feel if all your raids could be completed in 1 shot due to gear? Same issue applies to pvp. Why should we have gimped pvp where skill does not matter?
Fine, have a gear normalized arena.
The point of the game is to be out in the world, participating in the larger server society and economy.
The only reason to be a part of that society and economy is to gain power.
If you aren't gaining much in the way of power, why particiapte in the game at all? Why even have an open world game rather than just a lobby based arena?
I mean, gaining power is literally the point.
There are different forms of power. In a game with no 1vs1 balance what is the point in personal power exactly? Power comes from playing the game and promoting your guild activities. Sure, you could duel or do arena but these activities are quite by the way side compared to controlling streets, markets, resources, castles etc.
The more personal power you or anyone in your guild has, the more guild power your guild has.
Good luck controlling anything with a whole pile of people with no personal power.
Thus, personal power is a byproduct of guild or social power and not the reverse.
I don't believe Steven agrees for one reason, how cam you have an encounter that only 9% of a server can conquer if all you need is a gear check for said encounter.
You can't really talk about PvE and PvP in the same way in regards to this.
The main reason for this is that by literal design, in PvP you have access to every single skill, spell, ability, stat and effect you could possibly face - yet in PvE that is not true.
However, if you want to get right down to it, in top end raiding gear absolutely matters. As I've said many, many times, gear in top end raiding acts functionally as a key. You could be the best player in the game, but if you don't have the right gear, you aren't making it more than 10 seconds through that encounter.
Yes, you do need to be a good player - but you also need to have that gear. There is literally no point in having one without the other.
When you transition down to content that doesn't have mechanics that you don't have access to as a player (ie, PvP), that skill starts to matter less, as dealing with those factors you don't have access to yourself is where the difference between good players and less good players comes in to play.
Good luck getting said gear without the guild or social structures in place. I've raided enough to know that BiS gear comes from the hardest encounters. You do not need bis gear to clear the hardest encounters though.
If we are talking about encounters with no progression then I agree with your stance. Bis gear is required for the challenge modes. However, for bis gear acquisition you do not start with bis gear.
Developers can't make an encounter that is the hardest in the game both drop the best gear in the game and also require the best gear in the game in order to kill it, can they?
However, none of what you are talking about now has any relation at all to what George was talking about. All you are saying now is that gear does indeed provide power to players.
It does have direct correlation to what George is saying. George wants there to be a bigger gap between gear tiers. Not just gear tiers but gear level too. My point is there is not going to be such a disparity because the game is pvx.
I do not know if there will be pve challenge modes in Ashes. What I do know is bis gear will compliment the skill but not eradicate the skill. In a large vs large scenario a personal boost of 1% will mean little.
On a small scale a 1% personal boost might make a difference but hard counters already exist, thus, gear means little in such circumstances. In rock, paper, scissors a player does not automatically win because the player wears gloves.
This isn't a reason.
Source; Archeage.
Yes, skill mattered, but progression via gear was always a means to overcome skill (build didn't matter too much because everyone could be any build - using your build as an excuse was literally calling yourself a shit player).
pve has a set difficulty and its usually more predictable. skill matters too but matters less than in pvp, and your character power matters more than your power as a human player. also, lack of skills is easier to overcome by training and repetition. but also your allies can be a factor on whether you kill the boss or not.
this allow you to increase the difficulty, but its not necessarily related to how fast you can react, move. or press your buttons. the difficulty could be a strategy issue? team composition issue, memorization issue? for example, beating the computer in hard difficulty in starcraft 1 is completely different than beating the computer in hard difficulty in civilization, and they are both strategy games.
given enough time and practice, anybody can kill the boss, if its killable.
also, it could be that only 9% of the players will even get the gear needed to begin with. shrugs.
A lot of builds were shunned and the linear power gaps were substantial in Archeage. It was not a pvx game labelled a pvx game. Ashes is an actual pvx game. I'd say Archeage is more like a pvp mmo than a pvx mmo. Even archeage 2 isn't labelled pvx.
If we are talking about just bulk volume, most PvE is indeed predictable and low skill - I just want to point out that when I'm talking about PvE content, I'm talking about the parts of it that necessitate that "usually" qualifier.
That's all, carry on.
Yes, I understand about mechanics. There are three things that are skill based; dps checks, hps checks and threat checks. These notions can be inherent or hidden. The rest is pretty straightforward. I don't know about specific encounters in Ashes having not seen any. However, if there is no skill involved the rest of the mmo community will laugh at our top guilds.
Yeah, a lot of builds were shunned - 90% of them in fact. However, you have complete freedom to change your build at any point in time to anything at all that you wanted, so no one ever had the excuse of their build being poor - you picked your build, you are free to change your build, if you have a poor build it is 100% on you.
The reason Archeage and Archeage 2 aren't labeled as PvX is because the developer and publisher don't consider it required to make up their own bullshit term to market the game to people the game isn't being aimed at.
Ashes as we currently understand it is more PvP than Archeage.
I don't think Ashes is more pvp than Archeage. Archeage is faction based and you can't do anything but pvp the other faction. In Ashes you could war with a guild on Monday and do a dungeon with the same guild on Sunday...also, pvx is a valid term in mmorog language. Just because you think it's bullshit doesn't mean its not valid.
In Archeage, major portions of the game world were PvP free. Of those that weren't, most of the rest had periods that were PvP free. If you owned land other than in Auroria, it was PvP free. There was no gain to be had by killing players other than for packs, so there was no incentive to PvP anyone most of the time.
The most consternation and frustration most players felt in Archeage was in relation to bridge blocking - PvP was a somewhat minor consideration outside of running packs, or PvP events.
Ashes absolutely is more PvP than that.
The term PvX is bullshit because even Steven can't define it in any meaningful way. His definition of it includes both Archeage and WoW (PvP servers). It is meaningless aside from the fact that some people want it to have meaning - even though they can't actually agree on what that meaning is.
I'm going to steer the discussion back to this point for a second.
Assuming Intrepid create a leveling system with perfectly linear power progression, Lanchester's law would still indictate that the odds increase in favor of the side with more power would essentially be following a square root trajectory, rather than a linear one.
In order to create a system where someone with a 12.5% deficit in level has any real chance, Intrepid would need to essentially make a system where leveling is less than linear, which leads to the issue of an eventual parabola - which would be bad.
Therefore, a 35 to 40 match up should be fairly similar in stats except perhaps health and mana. Certainly not much better because secondary class does not boost stats per say.
We can debate these facets all day but the fact remains the concepts used in Ashes are pretty unique for better or worse. It is unlikely a base level of gear will give much power increase at such a small level gap. Otherwise, the disparities would be huge at top end.
Nope to both.
Vertical progression persists to the level cap (an almost but not quite direct quote from Steven).
Also, augments are vertical progression. While some may have a cost of sorts associated with them, they each make you more powerful.
Edit to add, the most detailed discussion Steven has ever had about horizontal progression is in relation to balancing leveling with economic activity, it isnt in relation to outright combat power of a character.
Nope. The augments are horizontal. Tell me how an augment is vertical when the stats are not added to? How is a charge turned into a teleport a vertical progression? Just because you are fixated on vertical progression does not mean vertical progression is inherent.
I felt happier when I got better at my class and working with others by learning how to better use my skills. The time spent pouring over my build and understanding it far outweighs the shiny new piece of gear I got. The gear comes and goes, but if I don't know how to play my class effectively, then the gear shouldn't matter.
Ultimately, coming from someone who played a lot of WoW and the age of "I'll run you through dungeons", people "had the gear" but they were often bad at the raid because they didn't learn how to actually do it. They were just carried.
I think the same can be said about PvP. If you rely more solely on gear, then it becomes a crutch instead of an accessory.
Yeah. Hence why a hybrid class might be gimped if secondary class doesn't seed stats.
Just like there shouldn't be a level 35 sword.
What level should the sword in the stone be?
At the start of the server lifetime, pve power levelers will be the most powerful players. Then after a while the holistic player that both plays pve and pvp, and spends time and energy in crafting will become the most powerful. Then when most of the people know what to do, the organizations that both do pvp and pve and where their members specialize and support each other will become the people that own and control the nodes and surrounding regions.
Since most of the best gear will become part of crafting, you will see dedicated pve players run certain area's protected by dedicated pvp players. These pvp players will be provided by their organization by a gear replacement program, as in eve all successful organizations have a ship replacement program for their pvp pilots. As the server ages and matures, the gear that can be replaced by those organizations will become ever more powerful. Further more each organization will have certain gears specifically designed for certain classes / specs and will be able to mass produce them. For the pve players this means that they will be able to do the most challenging content with relative safety, only the npc's will have to be looked at, their pvp section will secure the area, by killing all non allied members. And the pvp players will be refunded their losses for the service they provide. And since the organization controls the beast value farm spots and dungeons, they get a lot of pvp to enjoy themselves in.
In addition, with the ability to mitigate corruption gain by declaring war on nearby nodes and guilds, and the control of the area to easily farm off corruption, gear loss will NOT be a deterrent for a pvp player.
How does this tie in with the topic of gear power? As you can imagine, in the later stages of the server, the biggest controlling organizations, will control sections of the area, they will be at war or allied with other parts, but will definably have an infrastructure to obtain crafting materials that are not home grown. In this regard these strongest organizations will determine who will be able to get the best gear, and that will only be themselves and their closest allies. If you add a big gear value to the effectiveness of pve or pvp players, you only incentivize the big organizations to hold a closer lit on the best gear.
So no having a huge gear curve will be detrimental to the game. Ideally you will want each aspect of character power progression have a similar amount of impact. This ensures that people not only will be incentivized to do multiple aspects of the game, it also allows for new groups to use a different avenue to try and gain equal power to be able to combat the ruling organization.
The idea that small groups would have a chance against big, organized, smart, controlling guilds if they had X Y Z in their favour (in this post case, lesser gear power), is wrong. The only way to tackle big is for you to make alliances and become big.
I also made numerous topics on how to counter big guild power, such as not many guild management tools, limitations on boats and freeholds and others over the years which I forget.
I also disagree that PvE players will be strong in the beginning.
Mmo players will be strong at the beginning and always. Raiding is an mmo activity. Doing a pve activity doesnt define you. Heck, I wouldnt call raiding an open world boss a pve activity.
Mmo players will raid and fight for the raids as well as grind spots from day one.
(PvX)