Weird concept: group size limited by total of levels instead of individual player

'There are local limits to what the Divine laws of association and the arcane fabric of the world will support when bent by the will of the powerful, or the many."

Morkastenn, independent warlock of the third era*

This is only an idea, which isn't that original considering it's quite common is some type of army vs. army tabletop games. The basic concept is you have a budget and each unit have a cost, some are weak and cheap while others are strong but cost more. So, applied to a MMO, that would mean the size of a group is limited by the total power (aka level) of the constituents rather than a fix number of players. The cost for a group spot doesn't have to be 1:1 of a level, it can be adjusted to a power progression curve, range/tier of levels given the same values, gear score, or any other power measuring metric relevant in the eyes of the developers. The idea is only that the more powerful a player is, the more they eat from the budget pie.

Let say the group budget is 100. Players are worth 1 at level 1, and 25 at max level. In this example a full group could range from 100 players to only 4. Let the balancing nightmares begin.

If we push this concept in a fantasy lore way, a god is so powerful that it can no longer group with anyone on the world.

How is this relevant or could be implement in Ashes of Creation?

Having the regular group size ruled this way would be kind of extreme, but I can think of a few situations in which this grouping concept could be used.

Monster coin event
If there are a few players controlling monsters during an event, they could form a proper group (not affecting the members in damaging AoE, support group functions such as healing, buffing or shielding), but depending of the power of the controlled monster it could be necessary to limit this. BAM ! Dragons are not only too greedy to share the spoils and pleasure of destruction, they cost to much to group with any other land bond monster. Horde of goblins on the other hand...

Instanced boss fight
To keep a boss fight challenging, limit the budget of allowed player in the instance where it can be fought. It's an alternative kind of similar to how world bosses are tuned for the present players. Could be difficult to communicate this to players interface-wise though.

Guild size
If we expand grouping to other types of players associations, this could be how the guild size perk works: it increases the budget. Not sure how to deal with what was a huge guild of lowbies as they level. How are players pruned out when the guild exceed the allowed budget?

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azherae

You've said multiple times that you aren't really a fan of 'gear' and the bonuses it brings, but it would come up here, almost immediately.

So, would you also be going via 'item level', and therefore is it explicitly meant to encourage people to focus more on midlevel gear tweaking/optimization than leveling up?

Or is the gear not part of the equation (specifically thinking about things like Guild Size).

Percimes

Azherae wrote: »

You've said multiple times that you aren't really a fan of 'gear' and the bonuses it brings, but it would come up here, almost immediately.

So, would you also be going via 'item level', and therefore is it explicitly meant to encourage people to focus more on midlevel gear tweaking/optimization than leveling up?

Or is the gear not part of the equation (specifically thinking about things like Guild Size).

For guild size I would only consider players levels, ignoring gear equipped, in inventory, stored or banked.

For monster coin event, the cost would be mostly based on the monsters available for the event, modified by the player progression in the monster system. Relevant wiki notes in spoiler.

There is a progression system that levels a player's monster skills based on how often they participate in monster events.[25]

In Ashes of Creation a large portion of world events revolve around the environment reacting to the player. This means that as players are exploring the world and developing civilization around them the environment is responding to this encroachment by spawning dynamic events and creatures to attack those developing cities. These events occur in 3 different types: the Legion level the Elite level and the Epic level.[26] – Steven Sharif

As nodes advance, so does the scale of the monsters.[10] There are tiers of events denoting the caliber of the monsters being spawned.[7]

The tier of the monster coin dictates how powerful the monster is.[5][27]

As little inspiring or motivating gear is for me, I'm still well aware of its effects. For an instanced fight, gear should be a factor in the "value" of a player in the group budget. The goal is to make sure the encounter isn't trivialized by having many high level players. Ideally it could broaden the options by having more people than a fixed group size would allowed. So if the boss was meant to be a challenge for 8 level 15 players it's now possible for 12 level 10-13 players to clear it, but only 3 level 30 can enter the room now.

If it was ever applied for all groups in an MMO, the goal would be to have "fairer" fights between groups of different level by allowing bigger groups at lower level but limiting the size as players gain level and yes, gear. I don't see it fitting AoC though.

AnimusRex

Damn, was hoping Monster Coins had been dropped as a concept. 'Tis a silly idea in this game imo.

The level thing might be an ok Arena mode if that happens. But it's kinda niche and then it will come down to gear. Not sure it's all worth it. The game should be interesting enough already.

Ludullu

My only comment on this is "I don't see the point of it".

This will simply lead to tiny groups of people at max lvl. And considering that everyone will be at max lvl sooner or later - you're just making a game about tiny groups. And that is simply not what Ashes is about. This would also completely change the archetype/class design and synergies. And would completely fuck over guilds. Which in turn messes with castles and node benefactorships and guild wars and whateverelse is related to guilds.

So, once again, I don't see the point.

Noaani

Not a fan.

This isnt a tabletop game where one player controls the whole army - each "unit" is a person.

Telling your friends they cant group with you until you hit x level seems like a monumentally stupid thing for a developer to force on players.

Not even just bad - monumentally stupid.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Telling your friends they cant group with you until you hit x level seems like a monumentally stupid thing for a developer to force on players.

Not even just bad - monumentally stupid.

Unless I misunderstood it's even worse. Your friends can't group with you AFTER you've hit a certain lvl, because your "points" go over the limit. So you can only group up with others at low lvls and then pretty much play nearly solo at the top.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Telling your friends they cant group with you until you hit x level seems like a monumentally stupid thing for a developer to force on players.

Not even just bad - monumentally stupid.

Unless I misunderstood it's even worse. Your friends can't group with you AFTER you've hit a certain lvl, because your "points" go over the limit. So you can only group up with others at low lvls and then pretty much play nearly solo at the top.

This assumes no Level Sync or Temp-Delevel function, though.

Percimes

NiKr wrote: »

My only comment on this is "I don't see the point of it".

This will simply lead to tiny groups of people at max lvl. And considering that everyone will be at max lvl sooner or later - you're just making a game about tiny groups. And that is simply not what Ashes is about. This would also completely change the archetype/class design and synergies. And would completely fuck over guilds. Which in turn messes with castles and node benefactorships and guild wars and whateverelse is related to guilds.

So, once again, I don't see the point.

It doesn't necessarily leads to tiny groups. If the budget is set so at max level it allows what is considered a standard group size, it only means at lower level you can exceed that.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Telling your friends they cant group with you until you hit x level seems like a monumentally stupid thing for a developer to force on players.

Not even just bad - monumentally stupid.

Unless I misunderstood it's even worse. Your friends can't group with you AFTER you've hit a certain lvl, because your "points" go over the limit. So you can only group up with others at low lvls and then pretty much play nearly solo at the top.

Oh, if that was the suggestion, it really would be worse. Much worse.

Percimes

Hehe, you guys are indeed misunderstanding. I suggest a re-read.

Even I said it shouldn't be used as the global grouping mechanism, and only suggested specific used cases for the concept in AoC.

My English is not perfect, but it's not that bad, it is Friday night though.

Depraved

Percimes wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

You've said multiple times that you aren't really a fan of 'gear' and the bonuses it brings, but it would come up here, almost immediately.

So, would you also be going via 'item level', and therefore is it explicitly meant to encourage people to focus more on midlevel gear tweaking/optimization than leveling up?

Or is the gear not part of the equation (specifically thinking about things like Guild Size).

For guild size I would only consider players levels, ignoring gear equipped, in inventory, stored or banked.

For monster coin event, the cost would be mostly based on the monsters available for the event, modified by the player progression in the monster system. Relevant wiki notes in spoiler.
There is a progression system that levels a player's monster skills based on how often they participate in monster events.[25]

In Ashes of Creation a large portion of world events revolve around the environment reacting to the player. This means that as players are exploring the world and developing civilization around them the environment is responding to this encroachment by spawning dynamic events and creatures to attack those developing cities. These events occur in 3 different types: the Legion level the Elite level and the Epic level.[26] – Steven Sharif

As nodes advance, so does the scale of the monsters.[10] There are tiers of events denoting the caliber of the monsters being spawned.[7]

The tier of the monster coin dictates how powerful the monster is.[5][27]

As little inspiring or motivating gear is for me, I'm still well aware of its effects. For an instanced fight, gear should be a factor in the "value" of a player in the group budget. The goal is to make sure the encounter isn't trivialized by having many high level players. Ideally it could broaden the options by having more people than a fixed group size would allowed. So if the boss was meant to be a challenge for 8 level 15 players it's now possible for 12 level 10-13 players to clear it, but only 3 level 30 can enter the room now.

If it was ever applied for all groups in an MMO, the goal would be to have "fairer" fights between groups of different level by allowing bigger groups at lower level but limiting the size as players gain level and yes, gear. I don't see it fitting AoC though.

do you think 10 level 10 are going to kill 3 level 40?

if you dont want the content to be trivialized by having high level players, your solution isnt a good one. why does it matter if i cant have 8 people in the party if any of them can one shot the low level things we are fighting? why would i even bring more people if i can solo or duo the content anyways?

if you dont want high level players do to low level stuff, then make it so they dont get exp or loot from the low level stuff, for example. you can also use scaling. or like in l2 bosses would just petrify you lol. multiple ways to solve the problem that dont go into the direction of people grouping less or not grouping, and remember that aoc wants you to group up.

edit: also this isnt hello kitty or pve eso gw wow etc. if im 50 and i wanna hunt level 20 10 mbos in a t1 node because the loot is useful, is hould be able to do so ina competitive game. there will be plenty of spots and more t1 nodes than t6 anyways so lowbies can go to another spot or node. same way id go to another spot if someone my level killed me in pvp a couple of times and i cant win the spot ;3

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

This assumes no Level Sync or Temp-Delevel function, though.

And as we've discussed before - I'd prefer if Ashes didn't have that kind of stuff and had other ways of encouraging cross-lvl relationships.

Percimes wrote: »

Even I said it shouldn't be used as the global grouping mechanism, and only suggested specific used cases for the concept in AoC.

Then I still don't see a point. There's already raids in the game, which is the "bigger party" in the game.

What exactly do you see as the point of having 20 lowbies in a group unit instead of 8? And how exactly do you expect the game to be balanced around such a group? If a lowbie healer's "party heal" can now suddenly heal 20 people instead of 8 for the same price, then how exactly is that balanced? Same for buffers.

Also, this would lead to huge guilds being even more advantaged at the start of the game than they already are.

Noaani

I think the OP is kind of forgetting the point of MMO's.

It isnt up to the game to make open world fights more or less fair - it is up to players.

You have literally every single tool that I have. If I use them better than you before we meet for a fight, you shouldnt have much of a chance.

Those tools inculde things like information, gear, character build and allies.

If you lose to me because I have more allies, get more allies. If you lpse to me because i have better gear, get better gear.

That is the point of an MMO. Asking the game to reduce that in any way is literally anti-MMO.

Depraved

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

This assumes no Level Sync or Temp-Delevel function, though.

And as we've discussed before - I'd prefer if Ashes didn't have that kind of stuff and had other ways of encouraging cross-lvl relationships.

Percimes wrote: »

Even I said it shouldn't be used as the global grouping mechanism, and only suggested specific used cases for the concept in AoC.

Then I still don't see a point. There's already raids in the game, which is the "bigger party" in the game.

What exactly do you see as the point of having 20 lowbies in a group unit instead of 8? And how exactly do you expect the game to be balanced around such a group? If a lowbie healer's "party heal" can now suddenly heal 20 people instead of 8 for the same price, then how exactly is that balanced? Same for buffers.

Also, this would lead to huge guilds being even more advantaged at the start of the game than they already are.

or everybody making a level 10 alt to kill every boss in the game xD and you cant pk them if you are level 50 because you will get so much corruption you will have to delete your character xDDD

Myosotys

Percimes wrote: »

'There are local limits to what the Divine laws of association and the arcane fabric of the world will support when bent by the will of the powerful, or the many."
Morkastenn, independent warlock of the third era*

This is only an idea, which isn't that original considering it's quite common is some type of army vs. army tabletop games. The basic concept is you have a budget and each unit have a cost, some are weak and cheap while others are strong but cost more. So, applied to a MMO, that would mean the size of a group is limited by the total power (aka level) of the constituents rather than a fix number of players. The cost for a group spot doesn't have to be 1:1 of a level, it can be adjusted to a power progression curve, range/tier of levels given the same values, gear score, or any other power measuring metric relevant in the eyes of the developers. The idea is only that the more powerful a player is, the more they eat from the budget pie.

Let say the group budget is 100. Players are worth 1 at level 1, and 25 at max level. In this example a full group could range from 100 players to only 4. Let the balancing nightmares begin.

If we push this concept in a fantasy lore way, a god is so powerful that it can no longer group with anyone on the world.

How is this relevant or could be implement in Ashes of Creation?

Having the regular group size ruled this way would be kind of extreme, but I can think of a few situations in which this grouping concept could be used.

Monster coin event
If there are a few players controlling monsters during an event, they could form a proper group (not affecting the members in damaging AoE, support group functions such as healing, buffing or shielding), but depending of the power of the controlled monster it could be necessary to limit this. BAM ! Dragons are not only too greedy to share the spoils and pleasure of destruction, they cost to much to group with any other land bond monster. Horde of goblins on the other hand...

Instanced boss fight
To keep a boss fight challenging, limit the budget of allowed player in the instance where it can be fought. It's an alternative kind of similar to how world bosses are tuned for the present players. Could be difficult to communicate this to players interface-wise though.

Guild size
If we expand grouping to other types of players associations, this could be how the guild size perk works: it increases the budget. Not sure how to deal with what was a huge guild of lowbies as they level. How are players pruned out when the guild exceed the allowed budget?

Thoughts?

Assuming that the maximum level can be reached quickly, the game will be built around HLVL content only. So this option doesn't really serve any purpose.
It might have been a good idea if the levelling had been extremely long and dinausaurs who had been playing for 2 years were the only ones at max level. In that case, there would have to be some mechanics for newcomers in order to be competitive.

But that won't be the case.

Percimes

Ha. Time to explain my first post without being too condescending I guess.

Percimes wrote: »

'There are local limits to what the Divine laws of association and the arcane fabric of the world will support when bent by the will of the powerful, or the many."
Morkastenn, independent warlock of the third era*

That was a RP description. Because I kind of like those.

This is only an idea, which isn't that original considering it's quite common is some type of army vs. army tabletop games. The basic concept is you have a budget and each unit have a cost, some are weak and cheap while others are strong but cost more.

That part introduced the concept in its original form, where it's from, how it works there.

So, applied to a MMO, that would mean the size of a group is limited by the total power (aka level) of the constituents rather than a fix number of players. The cost for a group spot doesn't have to be 1:1 of a level, it can be adjusted to a power progression curve, range/tier of levels given the same values, gear score, or any other power measuring metric relevant in the eyes of the developers. The idea is only that the more powerful a player is, the more they eat from the budget pie.

Here I presented how it would directly translate for a MMO format.

Let say the group budget is 100. Players are worth 1 at level 1, and 25 at max level. In this example a full group could range from 100 players to only 4. Let the balancing nightmares begin.

Ultra-simplified example with numbers, because I thought some people get it better than if you put x and y for variables. (first mistake)

If we push this concept in a fantasy lore way, a god is so powerful that it can no longer group with anyone on the world.

Silly RP example if the concept was pushed to the absolute max.

How is this relevant or could be implement in Ashes of Creation?

This where I pivoted from describing the general principle to my actual propositions.

Having the regular group size ruled this way would be kind of extreme, but I can think of a few situations in which this grouping concept could be used.

THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART ! The one most of you missed and derailed into panic nonsense. That's where I admited it wouldn't work as a general mechanic, only in some specific situations. (big mistake, I should have been clearer)

What's following are the only specific circumstances I proposed.

Monster coin event
If there are a few players controlling monsters during an event, they could form a proper group (not affecting the members in damaging AoE, support group functions such as healing, buffing or shielding), but depending of the power of the controlled monster it could be necessary to limit this. BAM ! Dragons are not only too greedy to share the spoils and pleasure of destruction, they cost to much to group with any other land bond monster. Horde of goblins on the other hand...

Players are not playing their character. As far as we know, playing as a monster is a solo thing, even if many people are monster in the same event. My proposition is to allow player controlled monster to form groups and introduce limits so it doesn't become overpowered. Forming group, being social? I thought that was a good thing, the main thing, in a MMO?

Instanced boss fight
To keep a boss fight challenging, limit the budget of allowed player in the instance where it can be fought. It's an alternative kind of similar to how world bosses are tuned for the present players. Could be difficult to communicate this to players interface-wise though.

If, for some bottled-in-an-instance boss, it was deemed important to keep the challenge at a specific power level (part of a character story quest for example) it could be an alternative to boosting the boss itself. I never alluded it should become the default way to handle this for all bosses, much less in the open world.

Guild size
If we expand grouping to other types of players associations, this could be how the guild size perk works: it increases the budget. Not sure how to deal with what was a huge guild of lowbies as they level. How are players pruned out when the guild exceed the allowed budget?

Not even a direct gameplay application of the concept. Having low lever characters count for less in the guild size tally would allow guild to invite a few alt without having to upgrading, but it would only delay the inevitable because of levelling.

Thoughts?

Asking for people's opinions. (probably the biggest mistake)

Ludullu

Percimes wrote: »

Players are not playing their character. As far as we know, playing as a monster is a solo thing, even if many people are monster in the same event. My proposition is to allow player controlled monster to form groups and introduce limits so it doesn't become overpowered. Forming group, being social? I thought that was a good thing, the main thing, in a MMO?

What overpoweredness are you trying to prevent? You said it yourself that player-monsters are most likely a solo thing, so why do you think that grouping them up will suddenly become an OP thing? I feel like you created a non-existent problem in your head, then made a solution to that problem and presented it here w/o really explaining the problem. So, obviously, people didn't understand the point of your "solution" existing. I still don't, even with this context given.

Percimes wrote: »

If, for some bottled-in-an-instance boss, it was deemed important to keep the challenge at a specific power level (part of a character story quest for example) it could be an alternative to boosting the boss itself. I never alluded it should become the default way to handle this for all bosses, much less in the open world.

This is literally already what devs will do. They have full control over instances and over how many or what kind of people can enter the instance. This is, once again, a solution to a non-existent problem.

Percimes wrote: »

Not even a direct gameplay application of the concept. Having low lever characters count for less in the guild size tally would allow guild to invite a few alt without having to upgrading, but it would only delay the inevitable because of levelling.

In majority of cases alts won't be in the main guild because main guild will get warred and those alts won't be able to do shit against high lvl enemies. So, once again again, this is a solution to a non-existent issue.

In other words, we didn't misunderstand your OP, we misunderstood the point of its existence.

Percimes

NiKr wrote: »

In other words, we didn't misunderstand your OP, we misunderstood the point of its existence.

Oh, that's quite easy to answer. The point of its existence is to toy with an idea. Explore a different, and maybe unusual, approach to something that is already established for the genre and run the thought process to see where it would go, how it would change the existing systems. Speculate on the ramifications, what could be better than the current norm and where it would not work.

And finally try to see if the game these forums are dedicate to could gain anything from this. Who knows, maybe some small part of it will spark an idea on how to implement a feature, even if it's for something completely different than what I, or others, have discuss.

Percimes

AnimusRex wrote: »

Damn, was hoping Monster Coins had been dropped as a concept. 'Tis a silly idea in this game imo.

The level thing might be an ok Arena mode if that happens. But it's kinda niche and then it will come down to gear. Not sure it's all worth it. The game should be interesting enough already.

Well, maybe as part of the military node election process, but even there that would be a stretch.

Noaani

Percimes wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

In other words, we didn't misunderstand your OP, we misunderstood the point of its existence.

Oh, that's quite easy to answer. The point of its existence is to toy with an idea. Explore a different, and maybe unusual, approach to something that is already established for the genre and run the thought process to see where it would go, how it would change the existing systems. Speculate on the ramifications, what could be better than the current norm and where it would not work.

And finally try to see if the game these forums are dedicate to could gain anything from this. Who knows, maybe some small part of it will spark an idea on how to implement a feature, even if it's for something completely different than what I, or others, have discuss.

Any playing around with group size is bad.

There isn't really much more to say than that.

You are looking at it from a perspective (not even sure which perspective), but seem to be completely missing the social aspect of it.

Imagine the game had this for some instanced content. You and your guild run that content for a bit and all is well. Then, due to progression, all of a sudden you can't bring everyone along. Now your guild has to tell someone that has been part of the family for weeks, months or years that they need to sit out now.

That is unacceptable.

The implications it could have on the game in terms of systems doesn't matter - the social impact it would have means it is a non-starter and honestly not worth further discussion.

Child Item