Yeah, wouldn't it have been great if L2 showed you player health so you could better judge if you were - from their perspective - helping them out of a tight spot, or trying to steal their mobs?
But I'd never know if them being at low hp is fine. In L2 there was a class that would excel at dmg if they were at low hp. And if they're surrounded by mobs I wouldn't even be able to see what class they are, so I'd be directly stealing mobs from someone who's at their peak performance.
Sure, but it would happen less frequently
Again, you have no idea if you were helping out, how much you were helping out, or if you were hurting the player in L2. If health information is shown, then you are better able to work this out. If class information was also readily shown in L2, it would have solved the issue you are talking about here.
It's almost as if more information lets people make more informed decisions or something.
Again, you have no idea if you were helping out, how much you were helping out, or if you were hurting the player in L2. If health information is shown, then you are better able to work this out. If class information was also readily shown in L2, it would have solved the issue you are talking about here.
It's almost as if more information lets people make more informed decisions or something.
Putting it mildly, I've seen batteries with more cells. So BOOM, calling you out again on parroting the same irrelevant stuff that has already been debunked, intentional cherry picking of certain arguments that support your perspective instead of looking at the situation objectively; and falling to a confirmation bias.
For reference: Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
You may deny it, same as you always do, but for anyone who is following the topic closely, it is obvious. In this particular quote you talk again about the frequency of "helping others because of their visible HP bars" while completely and intentionally ignoring the other side of consequences of them being visible for green players.
P.S. Forgot to mention: being able to see the HP bar will also increase the probability and frequency of such griefing, that othewise players would either refrain from or bear the additional risk while doing that.
You also intentionally ignore the obvious fact that the negative effects are stronger and significantly outweigh potential positive effects:
The actions of Player A led to him ending up in tough situation. This is a result of his own actions and in unfortunate for him scenario - he dies. Surely, he might be unhappy because of that, but if his IQ is higher than the room temperature measured in degrees Celsius - he perfectly realizes that it is his own fault.
The psychological consequences of death because of griefing - not all griefing (as I'm not talking about the whole sample of cases when actions may qualify as griefing), but the griefing that became possible and much easier due to visible HP bars, is much more significant for the average modern MMO player. It wasn't Player's A actions that led to this, but it's gonna be him who suffers from helplessness, anxiety, anger and negative emotions. Shortly saying, the chance of Player A rage quitting and/or uninstalling the game is significantly higher compared to situation when he died from mobs because of his own mistake.
Calling you out on intentional ignoring and failing to acknowledge the inaccuracy of the sampling of cases you attempt to use in your argument.
1. We take the whole sample of cases when Player A is in trouble and there is a Player B around who can potentially help him. This sample will be called X.
2. From the sample X we need to deduct cases (let's estimate their number as "Y") when Player B sees the situation of Player A and decides not to intervene for whatever reason (be it lack of desire, personal reason or desire to loot whatever remains after Player A upon his death). So at this point, the number of cases where your point may theoretically apply is "X-Y"
3. From the sample segment "X-Y" we need to additionally deduct all the cases when the situation of Player A is obvious to Player B, and he intervenes no matter whether he sees or doesn't see his HP bar (let's estimate this number as "Z")
4. So now, the sampling to which your point may theoretically apply is equal to "X-(Y+Z)", not just "X" as you implied in your comments. Let's call this it "N", so basically N=X-(Y+Z). I'm typing this with a very slow speed to not get you lost.
5. Let's move to the next part. Actually, not yet, there is another variable that we need to deduct from "N": the number of cases where Player B decided to help player A, but failed, and Player A dies anyway. In such cases, it doesn't matter whether Player B sees or doesn't see Player A's HP bar, as the outcome is the same. Let's estimate this number as V. So now N=X-(Y+Z+V).
So eventually, you are talking about the sample "X" when in reality, if you want to be precise (which doesn't look like that), you need to talk about the sample N, which is: N = X-(Y+Z+V)
Just as I said, I will keep debunking your nonsense till the moment when you learn to hold a discussion properly without being biased, without logical fallacies, without manipulation tricks and without bouncing every single time when you are cornered.
What a clownery and a behavior unworty of a grown-up adult.
I swear, if you were living with a roommate who is a human being, Richard Dawkins would qualify this as an interspecies symbiosis.
Forgot to mention: being able to see the HP bar will also increase the probability and frequency of such griefing, that othewise players would either refrain from or bear the additional risk while doing that.
Not ignoring that notion.
As has been said many times, there are other methods to achieve the same result, and so we should assume one or more of the other methods are in use.
This notion completely removes the argument of that griefing that you are talking about. It may not remove it from the game, but it removes it from being a valid point in this discussion.
Again, your entire point is based on the notion that no other mitigations are in place.
What other mitigations? I asked you to provide a better suggestion, be it yours or anyone else's, yet you ignored the question. In absolutely the same way you do every single time when you are cornered and have nothing to say.
Once again, I ask you to provide a better suggestion than the one that is the best at this point. Doesn't matter if it was offered by you or anyone else.
Or you will keep making broad general statement like "game should be good" or "there can be a better solution" that are technically true, but have no value as their contribution to this discussion asymptotically approaches zero.
I would like to highlight that one of the main reasons behind your stubbornness and literally spamming with your comments that hold little to no semantic charge is not the objective quality of the current suggestion, but your personal preferences.
At this point it's pointless to keep discussing this before testing. And then we'll see who get the world record to the first complaint related to people keeping players at ~25% hp Nothing new here can be said
At this point it's pointless to keep discussing this before testing.
It's not completely pointless, if people come up with suggestions that are objectively decent and do not ruin other in-game systems. So far only Azherae managed to do that.
Not impossible, but highly unlikely. Narc was completely right in one of his recent videos. The average quality of "feedback" and "suggestions" be like...
It's not completely pointless, if people come up with suggestions that are objectively decent and do not ruin other in-game systems. So far only Azherae managed to do that.
But that would have to be new people, which are not here rn. And everyone who has already posted either don't want to give some new way of addressing the issue or don't have an idea for that. And at 3k views, if no one has given a suggestion by this point - ain't no one doing it within the next month.
Not impossible, but highly unlikely. Narc was completely right in one of his recent videos. The average quality of "feedback" and "suggestions" be like...
That's just all feedback. W/o a game to test we can only yell at each other about our preferences, which is ultimately pointless, cause Steven will end up going with his own preference on anything that's not secondary in importance.
At this point it's pointless to keep discussing this before testing. And then we'll see who get the world record to the first complaint related to people keeping players at ~25% hp Nothing new here can be said
I kind of agree, except for that point that this isn't something that will be able to be considered in alpha or early beta.
Yes, that is what happens when you keep ignoring the most valid point in this discussion - people keep repeating it to you.
Again, there are other methods that can be employed to prevent the negative behavior you are talking about. Since showing health information has a positive effect, if it is possible to keep that in place, it should be kept in place.
Yes, that is what happens when you keep ignoring the most valid point in this discussion - people keep repeating it to you.
Which people? You, you and you? Are those people in the same room with your right now?
The funniest thing is that you accuse me in "ignoring" something, when you can't answer a simple question you've been already asked several times
Once again, I ask you to provide a better suggestion than the one that is the best at this point. Doesn't matter if it was offered by you or anyone else.
Or you will keep making broad general statement like "game should be good" or "there can be a better solution" that are technically true, but have no value as their contribution to this discussion asymptotically approaches zero.
I would like to highlight that one of the main reasons behind your stubbornness and literally spamming with your comments that hold little to no semantic charge is not the objective quality of the current suggestion, but your personal preferences.[/b]
You're gonna bounce again, hey? Obviously you will as there is nothing constructive you have to say
Since showing health information has a positive effect, if it is possible to keep that in place, it should be kept in place.
What kind of logic is that? You don't look whether certain system or suggestion just has a "positive effect", you analyze it as an element of variety of interdependent systems to estimate whether it has "NET POSITIVE" or "NET NEGATIVE" effect. Then you make sure that it aligns with the core pillars of the game and what Steven himself said about that particular topic.
Removing PvP & PK system at all might also have positive effect, but it wouldn't allign with core pillars and removing it will affect other systems as well, so the effect of such decision would be net negative.
I swear, I'd have more success in explaining these simple things to my cat. He wouldn't be able to reply, but at the same time he wouldn't be able to talk nonsense as well.
The notion that a better solution will come from people that don't have game design degrees (or doctrates) is absurd. It is Intrepid that will find the solution to this - and likely they already have.
We shouldn't be talking about it in order to convince Intrepid of anything, but that is only because Intrepid shouldn't be listening to us.
If I am able to come up with a solution to this and Intrepid can not, then why the hell are they making a game and I am not?
As someone that has twice over my two careers been in positions where I would be considered an "expert" on my specific subject (at least regionally, not internationally), the notion that someone without any of that training and experience could ever come up with something that I hadn't already considered is actually - and I mean this in the truest definition of the term - absurd.
Any possible suggestions we could collectively come up with over a period of actual years are things I would expect Intrepid to have considered over the first few minutes - that is the point of experts in a given field. And I say that with confidence because I have had people spend years on a proposal only for it to be something I considered and dismissed while still interviewing for the role in question. That isn't because I am overly special in any way, it is simply the difference between an expert and someone that is not an expert.
Sure, we could sometimes see issues that Intrepid may not, or we may see an issue as being larger than what Intrepid thought it to be. However, the solution to those issues is not our concern - that is what the experts are there for - that is literally the point of hiring experienced people.
In terms of discussion with you, my point is that there are other potential solutions to the issue you have mentioned, and that is it. I have pointed out other games that have not had the issue you are talking about, and so that should be enough for you to understand that these other methods exist, even if we are not discussing them.
As a note though, feedback doesn't mean providing what you think to be a solution - the best feedback is that which identifies and describes an issue, and nothing more. More often than not, "feedback" that comes with a proposed solution is just ignored.
Edit to add; your entire feedback for this thread should have been cut down to "hopefully Intrepid have a plan to stop people holding rivals at ~25% health as a means of controlling that players actions to an extent". That is good feedback that very few people would disagree with.
My response to that, if that is what your OP consisted of, would be a simple "yes, I would both hope and expect there to be something in place to that effect".
If I am able to come up with a solution to this and Intrepid can not, then why the hell are they making a game and I am not?
As someone that has twice over my two careers been in positions where I would be considered an "expert" on my specific subject (at least regionally, not internationally), the notion that someone without any of that training and experience could ever come up with something that I hadn't already considered is actually - and I mean this in the truest definition of the term - absurd.
I could provide a much longer answer to this, but I'll keep it short. We are not discussing some complicated technical solution that requires deep knowledge, education, years of experience etc in this particular case. We are talking about general logic behind the system, emulating the potential scenarios & consequences, and estimating the posterior probabilities of the outcomes by applying Bayes' rule. This allows us to filter out the suggestions that will definitely not work and leave those that might have a chance to provide a net positive result.
Any possible suggestions we could collectively come up with over a period of actual years are things I would expect Intrepid to have considered over the first few minutes - that is the point of experts in a given field.
Good! They have their own brainstorms and if so happens that they take a look at this thread, they will either have a confirmation in case both their team and community members have come to the same conclusion; or in case if the conclusion is different, they will be able to quickly analyze it on the spot to figure which one is better.
And I say that with confidence because I have had people spend years on a proposal only for it to be something I considered and dismissed while still interviewing for the role in question.
That's a possible outcome, absolutely. But having more opinions and arguments here wouldn't hurt - in the worst case scenario we just lost time discussing it. So be it.
Sure, we could sometimes see issues that Intrepid may not, or we may see an issue as being larger than what Intrepid thought it to be
That's one of the reasons why this game will go through Alpha and Beta phases. That's one of the reasons why systems and mechanics might have numerous iterations. Even experts may not come to the right solution right away.
Additionally, we could witness examples in gaming industry when experts behind a certain game ended up failing, despite being experts.
However, the solution to those issues is not our concern - that is what the experts are there for - that is literally the point of hiring experienced people.
Personally, I don't really care whose concern it is. If I have valid reasons to suggest something or valid concerns that something might not work as intended, I won't really lose anything if I share them on this forum.
In terms of discussion with you, my point is that there are other potential solutions to the issue you have mentioned, and that is it. I have pointed out other games that have not had the issue you are talking about, and so that should be enough for you to understand that these other methods exist, even if we are not discussing them.
I perfectly understand it and that's the reason why many pages ago I stated that if someone comes up with a better suggestion than the one that already exists, I don't mind leaving the current one and supporting a better alternative.
Speaking of other games, there are not that many games that have almost identical PvP/PK system and, with a high chance, similar prerequisites and in-game dynamics. So comparing Ashes with the overwhelming majority of them when it comes to this particular topic will be either completely irrelevant or remotely relevant at best.
As a note though, feedback doesn't mean providing what you think to be a solution - the best feedback is that which identifies and describes an issue, and nothing more.
First of all, according to whom? To which source? Is there a golden standard of feedback that is being stored in Bureau International des Poids et Mesures that I am not aware of?
Secondly, those two are simply not mutually exclusive.
More often than not, "feedback" that comes with a proposed solution is just ignored.
This statement is based on... what exactly again? Got any source to back it up? If someone ignores a feedback for the sole reason that it came with a proposed solution - I mean... That's not a good sign.
Edit to add; your entire feedback for this thread should have been cut down to "hopefully Intrepid have a plan to stop people holding rivals at ~25% health as a means of controlling that players actions to an extent". That is good feedback that very few people would disagree with.
I kind of agree with this, but at the same time, one sentence in a thread (when there are literally hundreds of threads on this forum) on page 14 would be seen by several people at best. Moreover, this suggestion would lack context, detailed explanation and relevant examples from other game/games.
My response to that, if that is what your OP consisted of, would be a simple "yes, I would both hope and expect there to be something in place to that effect".
We are talking about general logic behind the system, emulating the potential scenarios & consequences, and estimating the posterior probabilities of the outcomes by applying Bayes' rule.
It's worth pointing out that Bayer's Rule requires data as an imput.
All other issues aside, the rule in question requires objective data as an input, and we do not have that data.
This statement is based on... what exactly again? Got any source to back it up? If someone ignores a feedback for the sole reason that it came with a proposed solution - I mean... That's not a good sign.
It's actually a very good sign.
There are a lot of reasons feedback will be ignored.
One such reason is that the person offering the feedback has a desired outcome, and is trying to achieve that outcome via feedback.
Now, I'm not saying this is what you are doing. I'm just saying that from the perspective of someone recieving feedback, it looks as if you could be.
Every so often, I have people from one of the two fields I have been an "expert" in ask me for advice. Before I even consider offering feedback, I listen to them telling me what the issue is, and then have dozens of questions about their work routine, target market, product composition, product complexity, staff capability, and many, many other things. It isn't possible to provide a potential solution without knowing all of the internal details of these things.
It's the same with us here. There is too much we don't know about Ashes for us to be able to make reasonable solutions. An MMORPG veteran working on a game that isn't Ashes would also not be able to provide much in the way of reasonable solutions without going through the process above.
The reason it is a good sign if companies have specific thresholds for feedback that they don't consider is because if they don't, someone has to spend far too much time wading through far too much worthless drivel in order to find the few valid things that a few people may say.
I've even seen companies that just ignore feedback over 250 words - purely because it is too expensive to sort through for the almost zero chance of getting anything valuable from.
A company that is considering all feedback is wasting a lot of money.
One such reason is that the person offering the feedback has a desired outcome, and is trying to achieve that outcome via feedback.
Now, I'm not saying this is what you are doing. I'm just saying that from the perspective of someone recieving feedback, it looks as if you could be.
Well, I am actually trying to achieve a certain outcome via feedback, but not in the way you described. I pointed at something that I expect to not work as intended (while subjectively estimating the probability of that as "high" or "very high"), based on my (let's be... politically correct) "somewhat relevant" experience in a game with a very similar philosophy and almost identical system.
Now, I do that not to make it meet my personal preferences or interests, I just follow my own rule: "You won't have to deal with problems that you initially managed to avoid." As I mentioned earlier, I would be among those who benefits from this situation, if those HP bars remain as they are (unless something else changes).
Once again, just to be perfectly clear with my intentions.
If everything stays as it is - I will have an opportunity to use it against someone in case of necessity. And I can do for it 12-16 hours straight, non-stop, without any problems, because I had such situations in Lineage 2 and that's exactly what I did.
But
I am among those who advise to change it. Which is (I emphasize it again) not in my personal interests.
Before I even consider offering feedback, I listen to them telling me what the issue is...
Yup, that's exactly what I did previously as well. Prior to any suggestions, it is important to ask the person who provides feedback to specify exactly what is the issue that their suggestion is aimed to solve.
Well, I am actually trying to achieve a certain outcome via feedback, but not in the way you described. I pointed at something that I expect to not work as intended (while subjectively estimating the probability of that as "high" or "very high"), based on my (let's be... politically correct) "somewhat relevant" experience in a game with a very similar philosophy and almost identical system.
Unless you have been on the development side of an MMORPG, your experience is 0.
If your goal is to prevent the issue you talk about, then your feedback should be limited to talking about the issue you want to prevent.
That is valuable feedback. Even if it is feedback that Intrepid have recived dozens of times (they have), it is still of some value for them to understand that it is an issue many people consider important.
Before I even consider offering feedback, I listen to them telling me what the issue is...
Yup, that's exactly what I did previously as well. Prior to any suggestions, it is important to ask the person who provides feedback to specify exactly what is the issue that their suggestion is aimed to solve.
Mind, if I ask you to specify and describe in 1-2 sentences the exact issue that you offer a solution for?
That isn't the same thing.
First, I spend at least a decade understanding the specific industry. Then I listen (sometimes for hours) to the problem. Then I ask dozens of questions (usually over weeks), and then I am in a place to potentially offer solutions.
Your question wasn't even directed towards Intrepid. If you think you can assist Intrepid in designing their game without actually even asking them any questions about it, I'm not sure what to say - all that gets from me is an extended blank stare.
What you are doing is having a game deisgn discussion with other players - and that is fine, I do that with people I enjoy talking to (read; not you).
I want an Option to hide the Enemy Health Bar in the butt of my Character.
So that it is invisible for EVERYONE - until someone kills my Character and then it "magically" flies/farts out of my butt - returning Enemy Health Bar's to every single Player on the World of Verra.
But it is invisible for Everyone in AND OUTSIDE of PvP until my Character dies.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
The forum search functionality doesn't seem to work too well, but I will thrown this in.
I don't see cheater detection being mentioned at all in the light of this feature. This system will definitely lower information available to players, and you are less likely to notice and report certain type of cheat tools.
The forum search functionality doesn't seem to work too well, but I will thrown this in.
I don't see cheater detection being mentioned at all in the light of this feature. This system will definitely lower information available to players, and you are less likely to notice and report certain type of cheat tools.
This is another good point for visible hp (even on greens), but I'd expect Intrepid's tools to track when someone doesn't receive dmg while not having the needed buffs to do that normally. And the live GMs should be pinged immediately to go check it out.
So, while we might report a random cheater that managed to make themselves invincible - I feel like there'd be more false reports, purely because some people won't know all the possible abilities and buffs that might lead to near-100% dmg mitigation, so they'll start yelling "cheater! cheater!" when in reality it's just a good player with a good build.
This sure as hell happens in perfomance-based multiplayer games, so I definitely think it would happen here as well. All while Intrepid's tools would know for sure if someone's not receiving dmg when they should be.
I'd expect Intrepid's tools to track when someone doesn't receive dmg while not having the needed buffs to do that normally.
I wouldn't.
That would take a massive amount of compute to do, as every buff that reduces or eliminates any form of damage would need to be checked for every time a player character takes a hit.
I don't see cheater detection being mentioned at all in the light of this feature. This system will definitely lower information available to players, and you are less likely to notice and report certain type of cheat tools.
Could elaborate what you mean?
0
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Noaani can you give me an example of the benefits that visible green hp would bring?
More of what you talked about.
Not everyone will run when they are in a bad situation - in fact most people won't.
If you can't see player health, you have no way of knowing if someone that isn't running is in a bad situation.
You say you help out people when you notice them in a bad situation - which in L2 is literally reduced to the handful of times players run away.
In a game where you can see player health, that kind of positive player interaction happens exponentially more often. Players can see immediately if someone else is in danger, because you can see the health of the mobs on them, and their own health as well. Throwing them a heal or pulling a few mobs off the player is an incredibly powerful positive interaction. This is even more true in games where the assisting player also had the option to attack the player in need, but opted to help instead.
If the only way to tell if a player is in trouble is if they run, you will walk by 90% of the occurances of a player being in trouble.
So, the notion of removing health information to lessen the occurance of a specific negative interaction is being done at the cost of also lessening the occurance of a specific positive interaction.
This is why any and all other means of lessening that negative interaction should be explored and exhausted first.
Edit to add; even with Intrepids current plan of displaying health information, this is still fairly hard to do. The difference between someone that is at 48% and 28% is fairly stark - yet would show up as the same to players walking past. If I saw someone at 48% I probably wouldn't think they needed assistance (I try to not get involved as that can upset people), but someone at 28% is probably in need of assistance.
In the early days of L2, when what I am interpeting you wrote above situation arose, players who were focused on PvE or knew they were heavily outmatched with the agressor would often choose not to fight back. They relied on the hope that their attacker would stop before going red by remaining still. And let the agressor take the penalty of red only.
Nearby players rarely intervened, as healing someone under attack would either make them a target of the aggressor or pull aggro from surrounding mobs. If a healer tried to assist someone being attacked by monsters, their heals would generate threat, making the situation worse.
You did not need to see their health bar as there was already indicators of griefing with the flashing name tag of the agressor!
If it was a griefing from one guild to another, by healing, then your guild could be brought into the conflict.
As a result, if someone opted not to defend themselves, they were usually left to fend for themselves unless another player or guild member was willing to engage in PvP and nearby.
This was especially true in the early game, when PvE and PvP deaths could result in dropped gear, making combat risky for everyone involved.
My "solution" would be - Non-combatant enemy players = no knowledge about HP
- Combatant players in small scale = full knowledge of % HP they have
- Combatant players in large scale = current version, where we only see 4-6 bars
My "solution" would be - Non-combatant enemy players = no knowledge about HP
- Combatant players in small scale = full knowledge of % HP they have
- Combatant players in large scale = current version, where we only see 4-6 bars
This.
How the game is supposed to know whether the PvP is small scale or large scale? What if it starts small and then more people join? What if it starts as large and then people leave? That would change in the middle of the fight?
I'd combine 1 & 2 or 1 & 3, but in 2 and 3 I'm remove "in small scale" and "in large scale" parts
My "solution" would be - Non-combatant enemy players = no knowledge about HP
- Combatant players in small scale = full knowledge of % HP they have
- Combatant players in large scale = current version, where we only see 4-6 bars
This.
How the game is supposed to know whether the PvP is small scale or large scale? What if it starts small and then more people join? What if it starts as large and then people leave? That would change in the middle of the fight?
I'd combine 1 & 2 or 1 & 3, but in 2 and 3 I'm remove "in small scale" and "in large scale" parts
The only large scale combat that comes to mind is sieges which have already floated the idea of altering how players outfits display (if that's still part of the plans, haven't seen anything about in all these years), so another visual change to reduce clutter would fit in there if that's the direction being taken.
The only large scale combat that comes to mind is sieges which have already floated the idea of altering how players outfits display (if that's still part of the plans, haven't seen anything about in all these years), so another visual change to reduce clutter would fit in there if that's the direction being taken.
Well, what about Raid vs Raid fight for the World Boss, for example? Or same scenario, but Guild vs Guild? Or Alliance vs Alliance?
The more steps/changes/mechanics the solution requires, the lower is the chance (that is initially low by default when it comes to any suggestions) that it will be taken into consideration. Not even talking about implementation
The only large scale combat that comes to mind is sieges which have already floated the idea of altering how players outfits display (if that's still part of the plans, haven't seen anything about in all these years), so another visual change to reduce clutter would fit in there if that's the direction being taken.
Well, what about Raid vs Raid fight for the World Boss, for example? Or same scenario, but Guild vs Guild? Or Alliance vs Alliance?
The more steps/changes/mechanics the solution requires, the lower is the chance (that is initially low by default when it comes to any suggestions) that it will be taken into consideration. Not even talking about implementation
I can't personally see it working for any of that in open world. Going from having full information to highly obscured when another group swings by would feel like ass.
I can't personally see it working for any of that in open world. Going from having full information to highly obscured when another group swings by would feel like ass.
Noaani can you give me an example of the benefits that visible green hp would bring?
More of what you talked about.
Not everyone will run when they are in a bad situation - in fact most people won't.
If you can't see player health, you have no way of knowing if someone that isn't running is in a bad situation.
You say you help out people when you notice them in a bad situation - which in L2 is literally reduced to the handful of times players run away.
In a game where you can see player health, that kind of positive player interaction happens exponentially more often. Players can see immediately if someone else is in danger, because you can see the health of the mobs on them, and their own health as well. Throwing them a heal or pulling a few mobs off the player is an incredibly powerful positive interaction. This is even more true in games where the assisting player also had the option to attack the player in need, but opted to help instead.
If the only way to tell if a player is in trouble is if they run, you will walk by 90% of the occurances of a player being in trouble.
So, the notion of removing health information to lessen the occurance of a specific negative interaction is being done at the cost of also lessening the occurance of a specific positive interaction.
This is why any and all other means of lessening that negative interaction should be explored and exhausted first.
Edit to add; even with Intrepids current plan of displaying health information, this is still fairly hard to do. The difference between someone that is at 48% and 28% is fairly stark - yet would show up as the same to players walking past. If I saw someone at 48% I probably wouldn't think they needed assistance (I try to not get involved as that can upset people), but someone at 28% is probably in need of assistance.
In the early days of L2, when what I am interpeting you wrote above situation arose, players who were focused on PvE or knew they were heavily outmatched with the agressor would often choose not to fight back. They relied on the hope that their attacker would stop before going red by remaining still. And let the agressor take the penalty of red only.
Nearby players rarely intervened, as healing someone under attack would either make them a target of the aggressor or pull aggro from surrounding mobs. If a healer tried to assist someone being attacked by monsters, their heals would generate threat, making the situation worse.
You did not need to see their health bar as there was already indicators of griefing with the flashing name tag of the agressor!
If it was a griefing from one guild to another, by healing, then your guild could be brought into the conflict.
As a result, if someone opted not to defend themselves, they were usually left to fend for themselves unless another player or guild member was willing to engage in PvP and nearby.
This was especially true in the early game, when PvE and PvP deaths could result in dropped gear, making combat risky for everyone involved.
This is PvP specific, I'm more talking about PvE situations when a player may find themselves in trouble.
The flagging system in Ashes does indeed make it unlikely that a passerby will help out in a situation that involves PvP.
The only large scale combat that comes to mind is sieges which have already floated the idea of altering how players outfits display (if that's still part of the plans, haven't seen anything about in all these years), so another visual change to reduce clutter would fit in there if that's the direction being taken.
Well, what about Raid vs Raid fight for the World Boss, for example? Or same scenario, but Guild vs Guild? Or Alliance vs Alliance?
The more steps/changes/mechanics the solution requires, the lower is the chance (that is initially low by default when it comes to any suggestions) that it will be taken into consideration. Not even talking about implementation
I can't personally see it working for any of that in open world. Going from having full information to highly obscured when another group swings by would feel like ass.
Agreed it would.
I'm happy enough with what Intrepid are planning, as long as the ability to increase the resolution isn't overly costly (as in, should not result in the player losing any combat effectiveness at all, but perhaps some out of combat utility).
The least convoluted system is likely best for something that is this player facing.
Comments
Again, you have no idea if you were helping out, how much you were helping out, or if you were hurting the player in L2. If health information is shown, then you are better able to work this out. If class information was also readily shown in L2, it would have solved the issue you are talking about here.
It's almost as if more information lets people make more informed decisions or something.
For reference: Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
You may deny it, same as you always do, but for anyone who is following the topic closely, it is obvious. In this particular quote you talk again about the frequency of "helping others because of their visible HP bars" while completely and intentionally ignoring the other side of consequences of them being visible for green players.
You also intentionally ignore the obvious fact that the negative effects are stronger and significantly outweigh potential positive effects: Calling you out on intentional ignoring and failing to acknowledge the inaccuracy of the sampling of cases you attempt to use in your argument. Just as I said, I will keep debunking your nonsense till the moment when you learn to hold a discussion properly without being biased, without logical fallacies, without manipulation tricks and without bouncing every single time when you are cornered.
What a clownery and a behavior unworty of a grown-up adult.
I swear, if you were living with a roommate who is a human being, Richard Dawkins would qualify this as an interspecies symbiosis.
As has been said many times, there are other methods to achieve the same result, and so we should assume one or more of the other methods are in use.
This notion completely removes the argument of that griefing that you are talking about. It may not remove it from the game, but it removes it from being a valid point in this discussion.
Or you will keep making broad general statement like "game should be good" or "there can be a better solution" that are technically true, but have no value as their contribution to this discussion asymptotically approaches zero.
I would like to highlight that one of the main reasons behind your stubbornness and literally spamming with your comments that hold little to no semantic charge is not the objective quality of the current suggestion, but your personal preferences.
If Intrepid let us truly test the flagging system - I'm aiming for day 1
That's just all feedback. W/o a game to test we can only yell at each other about our preferences, which is ultimately pointless, cause Steven will end up going with his own preference on anything that's not secondary in importance.
I kind of agree, except for that point that this isn't something that will be able to be considered in alpha or early beta.
Again, there are other methods that can be employed to prevent the negative behavior you are talking about. Since showing health information has a positive effect, if it is possible to keep that in place, it should be kept in place.
The funniest thing is that you accuse me in "ignoring" something, when you can't answer a simple question you've been already asked several times
Scientists always thought that the most dense material on planet Earth was osmium. Imagine how surprised they'd be if they look at your comments.
It is now 3rd or 4th that I am repeating the same question that you can't give an answer to: You're gonna bounce again, hey? Obviously you will as there is nothing constructive you have to say
What kind of logic is that? You don't look whether certain system or suggestion just has a "positive effect", you analyze it as an element of variety of interdependent systems to estimate whether it has "NET POSITIVE" or "NET NEGATIVE" effect. Then you make sure that it aligns with the core pillars of the game and what Steven himself said about that particular topic.
Removing PvP & PK system at all might also have positive effect, but it wouldn't allign with core pillars and removing it will affect other systems as well, so the effect of such decision would be net negative.
I swear, I'd have more success in explaining these simple things to my cat. He wouldn't be able to reply, but at the same time he wouldn't be able to talk nonsense as well.
If I am able to come up with a solution to this and Intrepid can not, then why the hell are they making a game and I am not?
As someone that has twice over my two careers been in positions where I would be considered an "expert" on my specific subject (at least regionally, not internationally), the notion that someone without any of that training and experience could ever come up with something that I hadn't already considered is actually - and I mean this in the truest definition of the term - absurd.
Any possible suggestions we could collectively come up with over a period of actual years are things I would expect Intrepid to have considered over the first few minutes - that is the point of experts in a given field. And I say that with confidence because I have had people spend years on a proposal only for it to be something I considered and dismissed while still interviewing for the role in question. That isn't because I am overly special in any way, it is simply the difference between an expert and someone that is not an expert.
Sure, we could sometimes see issues that Intrepid may not, or we may see an issue as being larger than what Intrepid thought it to be. However, the solution to those issues is not our concern - that is what the experts are there for - that is literally the point of hiring experienced people.
In terms of discussion with you, my point is that there are other potential solutions to the issue you have mentioned, and that is it. I have pointed out other games that have not had the issue you are talking about, and so that should be enough for you to understand that these other methods exist, even if we are not discussing them.
As a note though, feedback doesn't mean providing what you think to be a solution - the best feedback is that which identifies and describes an issue, and nothing more. More often than not, "feedback" that comes with a proposed solution is just ignored.
Edit to add; your entire feedback for this thread should have been cut down to "hopefully Intrepid have a plan to stop people holding rivals at ~25% health as a means of controlling that players actions to an extent". That is good feedback that very few people would disagree with.
My response to that, if that is what your OP consisted of, would be a simple "yes, I would both hope and expect there to be something in place to that effect".
I could provide a much longer answer to this, but I'll keep it short. We are not discussing some complicated technical solution that requires deep knowledge, education, years of experience etc in this particular case. We are talking about general logic behind the system, emulating the potential scenarios & consequences, and estimating the posterior probabilities of the outcomes by applying Bayes' rule. This allows us to filter out the suggestions that will definitely not work and leave those that might have a chance to provide a net positive result.
Good! They have their own brainstorms and if so happens that they take a look at this thread, they will either have a confirmation in case both their team and community members have come to the same conclusion; or in case if the conclusion is different, they will be able to quickly analyze it on the spot to figure which one is better.
That's a possible outcome, absolutely. But having more opinions and arguments here wouldn't hurt - in the worst case scenario we just lost time discussing it. So be it.
Alright
That's one of the reasons why this game will go through Alpha and Beta phases. That's one of the reasons why systems and mechanics might have numerous iterations. Even experts may not come to the right solution right away.
Additionally, we could witness examples in gaming industry when experts behind a certain game ended up failing, despite being experts.
Personally, I don't really care whose concern it is. If I have valid reasons to suggest something or valid concerns that something might not work as intended, I won't really lose anything if I share them on this forum.
I perfectly understand it and that's the reason why many pages ago I stated that if someone comes up with a better suggestion than the one that already exists, I don't mind leaving the current one and supporting a better alternative.
Speaking of other games, there are not that many games that have almost identical PvP/PK system and, with a high chance, similar prerequisites and in-game dynamics. So comparing Ashes with the overwhelming majority of them when it comes to this particular topic will be either completely irrelevant or remotely relevant at best.
First of all, according to whom? To which source? Is there a golden standard of feedback that is being stored in Bureau International des Poids et Mesures that I am not aware of?
Secondly, those two are simply not mutually exclusive.
This statement is based on... what exactly again? Got any source to back it up? If someone ignores a feedback for the sole reason that it came with a proposed solution - I mean... That's not a good sign.
I kind of agree with this, but at the same time, one sentence in a thread (when there are literally hundreds of threads on this forum) on page 14 would be seen by several people at best. Moreover, this suggestion would lack context, detailed explanation and relevant examples from other game/games.
Well, you do you
Edit: typos
All other issues aside, the rule in question requires objective data as an input, and we do not have that data.
It's actually a very good sign.
There are a lot of reasons feedback will be ignored.
One such reason is that the person offering the feedback has a desired outcome, and is trying to achieve that outcome via feedback.
Now, I'm not saying this is what you are doing. I'm just saying that from the perspective of someone recieving feedback, it looks as if you could be.
Every so often, I have people from one of the two fields I have been an "expert" in ask me for advice. Before I even consider offering feedback, I listen to them telling me what the issue is, and then have dozens of questions about their work routine, target market, product composition, product complexity, staff capability, and many, many other things. It isn't possible to provide a potential solution without knowing all of the internal details of these things.
It's the same with us here. There is too much we don't know about Ashes for us to be able to make reasonable solutions. An MMORPG veteran working on a game that isn't Ashes would also not be able to provide much in the way of reasonable solutions without going through the process above.
The reason it is a good sign if companies have specific thresholds for feedback that they don't consider is because if they don't, someone has to spend far too much time wading through far too much worthless drivel in order to find the few valid things that a few people may say.
I've even seen companies that just ignore feedback over 250 words - purely because it is too expensive to sort through for the almost zero chance of getting anything valuable from.
A company that is considering all feedback is wasting a lot of money.
Now, I do that not to make it meet my personal preferences or interests, I just follow my own rule: "You won't have to deal with problems that you initially managed to avoid." As I mentioned earlier, I would be among those who benefits from this situation, if those HP bars remain as they are (unless something else changes).
Once again, just to be perfectly clear with my intentions.
If everything stays as it is - I will have an opportunity to use it against someone in case of necessity. And I can do for it 12-16 hours straight, non-stop, without any problems, because I had such situations in Lineage 2 and that's exactly what I did.
But
I am among those who advise to change it. Which is (I emphasize it again) not in my personal interests.
I hope this makes sense
Yup, that's exactly what I did previously as well. Prior to any suggestions, it is important to ask the person who provides feedback to specify exactly what is the issue that their suggestion is aimed to solve.
If your goal is to prevent the issue you talk about, then your feedback should be limited to talking about the issue you want to prevent.
That is valuable feedback. Even if it is feedback that Intrepid have recived dozens of times (they have), it is still of some value for them to understand that it is an issue many people consider important.
That isn't the same thing.
First, I spend at least a decade understanding the specific industry. Then I listen (sometimes for hours) to the problem. Then I ask dozens of questions (usually over weeks), and then I am in a place to potentially offer solutions.
Your question wasn't even directed towards Intrepid. If you think you can assist Intrepid in designing their game without actually even asking them any questions about it, I'm not sure what to say - all that gets from me is an extended blank stare.
What you are doing is having a game deisgn discussion with other players - and that is fine, I do that with people I enjoy talking to (read; not you).
I want an Option to hide the Enemy Health Bar in the butt of my Character.
So that it is invisible for EVERYONE - until someone kills my Character and then it "magically" flies/farts out of my butt - returning Enemy Health Bar's to every single Player on the World of Verra.
But it is invisible for Everyone in AND OUTSIDE of PvP until my Character dies.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
I don't see cheater detection being mentioned at all in the light of this feature. This system will definitely lower information available to players, and you are less likely to notice and report certain type of cheat tools.
So, while we might report a random cheater that managed to make themselves invincible - I feel like there'd be more false reports, purely because some people won't know all the possible abilities and buffs that might lead to near-100% dmg mitigation, so they'll start yelling "cheater! cheater!" when in reality it's just a good player with a good build.
This sure as hell happens in perfomance-based multiplayer games, so I definitely think it would happen here as well. All while Intrepid's tools would know for sure if someone's not receiving dmg when they should be.
I wouldn't.
That would take a massive amount of compute to do, as every buff that reduces or eliminates any form of damage would need to be checked for every time a player character takes a hit.
In the early days of L2, when what I am interpeting you wrote above situation arose, players who were focused on PvE or knew they were heavily outmatched with the agressor would often choose not to fight back. They relied on the hope that their attacker would stop before going red by remaining still. And let the agressor take the penalty of red only.
Nearby players rarely intervened, as healing someone under attack would either make them a target of the aggressor or pull aggro from surrounding mobs. If a healer tried to assist someone being attacked by monsters, their heals would generate threat, making the situation worse.
You did not need to see their health bar as there was already indicators of griefing with the flashing name tag of the agressor!
If it was a griefing from one guild to another, by healing, then your guild could be brought into the conflict.
As a result, if someone opted not to defend themselves, they were usually left to fend for themselves unless another player or guild member was willing to engage in PvP and nearby.
This was especially true in the early game, when PvE and PvP deaths could result in dropped gear, making combat risky for everyone involved.
This.
I'd combine 1 & 2 or 1 & 3, but in 2 and 3 I'm remove "in small scale" and "in large scale" parts
The only large scale combat that comes to mind is sieges which have already floated the idea of altering how players outfits display (if that's still part of the plans, haven't seen anything about in all these years), so another visual change to reduce clutter would fit in there if that's the direction being taken.
The more steps/changes/mechanics the solution requires, the lower is the chance (that is initially low by default when it comes to any suggestions) that it will be taken into consideration. Not even talking about implementation
I can't personally see it working for any of that in open world. Going from having full information to highly obscured when another group swings by would feel like ass.
This is PvP specific, I'm more talking about PvE situations when a player may find themselves in trouble.
The flagging system in Ashes does indeed make it unlikely that a passerby will help out in a situation that involves PvP.
Agreed it would.
I'm happy enough with what Intrepid are planning, as long as the ability to increase the resolution isn't overly costly (as in, should not result in the player losing any combat effectiveness at all, but perhaps some out of combat utility).
The least convoluted system is likely best for something that is this player facing.