"Armour will be part of the silhouette and threat assesment"

So I watched the Jan stream and it was all nice and groovie until we got to that point
"Armour will be part of the silhouette and threat assesment"

I mean that sounds amazing and it is as it should be ... except ... its bullshit
Cosmetics will fuck this up
Last time I voiced my concerns I have been told we will get some sort of indicator what armour type our enemy is wearing under his wedding dress cosmetic (yea I know, dogshit and unimmersive). Did this change? I would love if it did, but I can imagine cosmetic Andy's going mental if it did

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

CROW3

Atama wrote: »

But it's a game. Immersion should never trump gameplay. We are going to have a UI, that is essential to being able to play a game, and indicators for enemies is part of the UI.

I hear you. I don't know if I'd characterize this in the 'immersion' bucket, as much as the 'I need to be as certain as possible that I'm going to win if I attack this guy,' bucket. You can still have great gameplay with a lower level of certainty, that's the whole RISK part of risk v. reward.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

McShave wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

McShave wrote: »

if you have plate gear, you can only have plate cosmetic on it. you wont be a tank going into battle looking like a fairy princess, unless you use a full body outfit on.

I don't suppose you would know where to find the quote for that? Last response I got when I asked was 'look in the apoc streams' lol.

I wish I could give you the source, but I don't really have the time to dive through all the livestreams. I'm pretty sure Steven mentioned it in one of the dev update streams last year.

I'd like to see a source for this too, as it is contrary to what my understanding of it is.

Now, here's a major issue I have. If you are only able to use plate cosmetics with plate gear, etc, and if there is no icon in a characters nameplate denoting the armor type being used (hard, considering multipole slots), then this means that someone using a full costume has rendered themselves more time consuming to threat assess.

This is an advantage.

The issue there is that full body costumes are ONLY available by purchasing them.

So, not having that icon on the nameplate means costumes are straight up pay-to-win. Anyone supporting not having them is supporting pay-to-win. Even if they don't like the idea (I don't like the idea), they have to either support it, or accept pay-to-win in Ashes.

If all else fails, they can give everyone a potato sack costume as starter gear so everyone can have this advantage.

Also, i believe they plan on having costumes as rewards for some in-game achievements.

I think they are referencing the transmog system and not the costume system.

Atama

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

McShave wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

McShave wrote: »

if you have plate gear, you can only have plate cosmetic on it. you wont be a tank going into battle looking like a fairy princess, unless you use a full body outfit on.

I don't suppose you would know where to find the quote for that? Last response I got when I asked was 'look in the apoc streams' lol.

I wish I could give you the source, but I don't really have the time to dive through all the livestreams. I'm pretty sure Steven mentioned it in one of the dev update streams last year.

I'd like to see a source for this too, as it is contrary to what my understanding of it is.

Now, here's a major issue I have. If you are only able to use plate cosmetics with plate gear, etc, and if there is no icon in a characters nameplate denoting the armor type being used (hard, considering multipole slots), then this means that someone using a full costume has rendered themselves more time consuming to threat assess.

This is an advantage.

The issue there is that full body costumes are ONLY available by purchasing them.

So, not having that icon on the nameplate means costumes are straight up pay-to-win. Anyone supporting not having them is supporting pay-to-win. Even if they don't like the idea (I don't like the idea), they have to either support it, or accept pay-to-win in Ashes.

If all else fails, they can give everyone a potato sack costume as starter gear so everyone can have this advantage.

Also, i believe they plan on having costumes as rewards for some in-game achievements.

I think they are referencing the transmog system and not the costume system.

I believe the top tier costumes (in their estimate) will be earned in-game as “legendary cosmetics”. (As always, beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course.)

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

McShave wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

McShave wrote: »

if you have plate gear, you can only have plate cosmetic on it. you wont be a tank going into battle looking like a fairy princess, unless you use a full body outfit on.

I don't suppose you would know where to find the quote for that? Last response I got when I asked was 'look in the apoc streams' lol.

I wish I could give you the source, but I don't really have the time to dive through all the livestreams. I'm pretty sure Steven mentioned it in one of the dev update streams last year.

I'd like to see a source for this too, as it is contrary to what my understanding of it is.

Now, here's a major issue I have. If you are only able to use plate cosmetics with plate gear, etc, and if there is no icon in a characters nameplate denoting the armor type being used (hard, considering multipole slots), then this means that someone using a full costume has rendered themselves more time consuming to threat assess.

This is an advantage.

The issue there is that full body costumes are ONLY available by purchasing them.

So, not having that icon on the nameplate means costumes are straight up pay-to-win. Anyone supporting not having them is supporting pay-to-win. Even if they don't like the idea (I don't like the idea), they have to either support it, or accept pay-to-win in Ashes.

If all else fails, they can give everyone a potato sack costume as starter gear so everyone can have this advantage.

Also, i believe they plan on having costumes as rewards for some in-game achievements.

I think they are referencing the transmog system and not the costume system.

I believe the top tier costumes (in their estimate) will be earned in-game as “legendary cosmetics”. (As always, beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course.)

My understanding;

Cosmetics are a term for all things related to looks with no stats.

This includes applying a different look to an actual item via appearance slots on items themselves (transmog/transmutate), and also to full costumes.

Cosmetic items in the store are full body costumes. Cosmetics earned in game are to be applied to appearance slots on items. These items in appearance slots can be dyed, as well as mixed and matched on a slot by slot basis, where costumes can not be.

This understanding fits in with everything I have been able to find from Intrepid on the matter, which is why it is how I believe things to be.

If this is true, Intrepid have said there are cosmetics able to be earned in game, not costumes. We know they have said the in game cosmetics will be able to be used on a slot by slot basis, so the above understanding holds true.

My take that if costumes provide a pais advantage in game is based on the above understanding of cosmetics in Ashes.

If anyone knows of any comments from Intrepid that would render the above understanding to be false, I'd love to read them.

Asgerr

I have been away from the forums for a while and it seems people still haven't gotten the memo. Say it with me boys and girls:

COSMETICS ONLY APPLY TO BASE ARMORS YOU HAVE TO ALREADY OWN!

Meaning, if you get this super badass cosmetic, it's essentially a skin for a type of armor you must own to apply it.

This would therefore mean that your threat assessment doesn't go:
"Shit I can't tell what level he is, cause he has a shiny cool skin on. My ability to PvP is challenged and my day is ruined."

But rather:
"Oh that guy has a skin for that one armor set that is X levels above/below mine. Proceed accordingly."

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

McShave wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

McShave wrote: »

if you have plate gear, you can only have plate cosmetic on it. you wont be a tank going into battle looking like a fairy princess, unless you use a full body outfit on.

I don't suppose you would know where to find the quote for that? Last response I got when I asked was 'look in the apoc streams' lol.

I wish I could give you the source, but I don't really have the time to dive through all the livestreams. I'm pretty sure Steven mentioned it in one of the dev update streams last year.

I'd like to see a source for this too, as it is contrary to what my understanding of it is.

Now, here's a major issue I have. If you are only able to use plate cosmetics with plate gear, etc, and if there is no icon in a characters nameplate denoting the armor type being used (hard, considering multipole slots), then this means that someone using a full costume has rendered themselves more time consuming to threat assess.

This is an advantage.

The issue there is that full body costumes are ONLY available by purchasing them.

So, not having that icon on the nameplate means costumes are straight up pay-to-win. Anyone supporting not having them is supporting pay-to-win. Even if they don't like the idea (I don't like the idea), they have to either support it, or accept pay-to-win in Ashes.

If all else fails, they can give everyone a potato sack costume as starter gear so everyone can have this advantage.

Also, i believe they plan on having costumes as rewards for some in-game achievements.

I think they are referencing the transmog system and not the costume system.

I believe the top tier costumes (in their estimate) will be earned in-game as “legendary cosmetics”. (As always, beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course.)

My understanding;

Cosmetics are a term for all things related to looks with no stats.

This includes applying a different look to an actual item via appearance slots on items themselves (transmog/transmutate), and also to full costumes.

Cosmetic items in the store are full body costumes. Cosmetics earned in game are to be applied to appearance slots on items. These items in appearance slots can be dyed, as well as mixed and matched on a slot by slot basis, where costumes can not be.

This understanding fits in with everything I have been able to find from Intrepid on the matter, which is why it is how I believe things to be.

If this is true, Intrepid have said there are cosmetics able to be earned in game, not costumes. We know they have said the in game cosmetics will be able to be used on a slot by slot basis, so the above understanding holds true.

My take that if costumes provide a pais advantage in game is based on the above understanding of cosmetics in Ashes.

If anyone knows of any comments from Intrepid that would render the above understanding to be false, I'd love to read them.

The store has both full body costumes and single items that can be applied to a slot. This month's necklace and last month's mask are examples of items that are for a single slot.

I don't see any quotes where the explicitly say that costumes will be in-game achievable but when talking about in-game achievable cosmetics, they have never said costumes wouldn't be included. Only reason i could see them not having in-game achievable costumes is if they think it's better for a set to be individual pieces so it can be mixed and matched.

I believe it was said that these are in-game achievable costumes but i can't find the quote:

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

Only reason i could see them not having in-game achievable costumes is if they think it's better for a set to be individual pieces so it can be mixed and matched.

This is my take.

They want cosmetics earned in game to be more useful, so they make it so that they can be dyed and mixed and matched.

I should have been more clear in stating that there are store offerings that are single slot items.

ptitoine

Tulima wrote: »

The easiest solution seems to be the option to turn off cosmetics.

Would cosmetic owners be opposed to that?

Yes I would.
I dont buy cosmetic to gank on people hiding my gear I do it so my character look nice and I enjoy playing it.

If you cant asses a player level/gear to gank him thats on you and you just had not to gank him.

Noaani

ptitoine wrote: »

Tulima wrote: »

The easiest solution seems to be the option to turn off cosmetics.

Would cosmetic owners be opposed to that?

Yes I would.
I dont buy cosmetic to gank on people hiding my gear I do it so my character look nice and I enjoy playing it.

If you cant asses a player level/gear to gank him thats on you and you just had not to gank him.

Are you not aware that threat assessment is not just for deciding if you are going to attack someone or not, but also to do with how you are going to defend or counterattack against an immanent attack?

In fact, this whole discussion is unimportant in relation to deciding to attack someone or not. If you are the potential aggressor, you have the time to make that threat assessment. You can click on each character individually to determine the armor type (and potentially quality) they are wearing.

It is when the show is on the other foot that is important - when you and your friends have a group of 6 people about to attack you and you need to assess them in a split second.

I am of the opinion that the option to turn off cosmetics client side is the best option. However, Steven has specifically said no to this, so it isn't worth discussing.

I personally don't get how someone could be so conceited (conceited is actually the perfect word for these people) that you would actually care SO MUCH about how you look in game to OTHER PEOPLE, people who don't care at all how you look, that you are willing to demand that the entire game is degraded in order too cater to your vanity.

I really don't get such conceited people.

So, with the option of simply allowing people that wish to play the game to do so unobstructed out of consideration, the next best thing we can do is put an icon on the nameplate of every character in the game to denote the armor they are wearing. I personally think this would make the game look worse than if we all had mismatched gear, but functionality needs to be considered at some point.

Atama

Noaani wrote: »

Cosmetic items in the store are full body costumes. Cosmetics earned in game are to be applied to appearance slots on items.

As said already, not true. I have a ton of single item cosmetics (skins) from the store. Every month there is a new one. Feet, head, cloak, belt, gloves. The only ones I haven’t seen are torso or legs.

I don’t know for certain if costumes can be earned in-game, but I haven’t seen any indication that they won’t be. And since Steven has said repeatedly that you can earn cosmetics in the game equivalent (or better) than what is sold in the store, you must be able to earn costumes in game. Otherwise his statements have been false.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Cosmetic items in the store are full body costumes. Cosmetics earned in game are to be applied to appearance slots on items.

As said already, not true. I have a ton of single item cosmetics (skins) from the store. Every month there is a new one. Feet, head, cloak, belt, gloves. The only ones I haven’t seen are torso or legs.

Indeed, though irrelevant to the discussion.

The issue is that costumes give players a specific advantage (under the assumption that an above post about cosmetics being applied to an item need to be applied to an item of the same type,, which we can not find a quite for), and as far as we know so far costumes are only available in the store.

So, while it may well be that there are some individual slot cosmetics on the store, that isn't actually the point or the issue.

And since Steven has said repeatedly that you can earn cosmetics in the game equivalent (or better) than what is sold in the store, you mustbe able to earn costumes in game. Otherwise his statements have been false.

Well, I think the more likely scenario is that Intrepid have been considering the fact that you can dye cosmetics that are earned in game (the ones applied to items), and can't dye full costumes to be enough to make the in game cosmetics better.

I also don't think they have yet considered the fact that needing to target each player individually to assess them is an issue.

I personally think this is something that we will eventually see some changes on, because we kind of have to.

If we carry on with the assumption that cosmetic items that are used to transmog other items (or - are put in the appearance slot of an actual item) need to be put in items of the same category, then we these items become functionally sub-optimal.

In this scenario, the optimal thing to do is to use a full body cosmetic, forcing the opposition to target each player individually in order to perform even a basic threat assessment.

One option I can see that could work to alleviate this is to simply add an expanded nameplate to the game. Give people the option to customize nameplates with options including first name, last name, title, guild, armor type, class and level.

Set default to show both names, title and guild, but allow people to show as much or little as they like (including nothing, if they wish).

Then allow a hotkey to show an alternate nameplate setup.

That way, I can run around the game seeing only your first name and guild name, but if for some reason I need to perform a threat assessment, I can hold down my right ctrl button and all of a sudden see your armor type, level and primary class (all things that should be available to players).

Atama

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Cosmetic items in the store are full body costumes. Cosmetics earned in game are to be applied to appearance slots on items.

As said already, not true. I have a ton of single item cosmetics (skins) from the store. Every month there is a new one. Feet, head, cloak, belt, gloves. The only ones I haven’t seen are torso or legs.

Indeed, though irrelevant to the discussion.

The issue is that costumes give players a specific advantage (under the assumption that an above post about cosmetics being applied to an item need to be applied to an item of the same type,, which we can not find a quite for), and as far as we know so far costumes are only available in the store.

So, while it may well be that there are some individual slot cosmetics on the store, that isn't actually the point or the issue.

Again, the part of my quote you selectively ignored refuted your statement.

Let’s repeat what Steven said:

“I want to make sure that equitable cosmetics both from a quantity and quality standpoint are achievable through in-game achievements. Time, effort should let you be happy with what you can accomplish.”

If you can only ever get costumes from the shop, which are the only cosmetics for players that can be used regardless of gear or level, then cosmetics are not equitable. People are griping that store cosmetics have an advantage when ignoring Steven’s pledge that it won’t happen.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Cosmetic items in the store are full body costumes. Cosmetics earned in game are to be applied to appearance slots on items.

As said already, not true. I have a ton of single item cosmetics (skins) from the store. Every month there is a new one. Feet, head, cloak, belt, gloves. The only ones I haven’t seen are torso or legs.

Indeed, though irrelevant to the discussion.

The issue is that costumes give players a specific advantage (under the assumption that an above post about cosmetics being applied to an item need to be applied to an item of the same type,, which we can not find a quite for), and as far as we know so far costumes are only available in the store.

So, while it may well be that there are some individual slot cosmetics on the store, that isn't actually the point or the issue.

Again, the part of my quote you selectively ignored refuted your statement.

Let’s repeat what Steven said:

“I want to make sure that equitable cosmetics both from a quantity and quality standpoint are achievable through in-game achievements. Time, effort should let you be happy with what you can accomplish.”

If you can only ever get costumes from the shop, which are the only cosmetics for players that can be used regardless of gear or level, then cosmetics are not equitable. People are griping that store cosmetics have an advantage when ignoring Steven’s pledge that it won’t happen.

I didn't ignore it, I went over it right at the start of explaining my understanding. In fact, this quote was the center of what I formed my understanding of this matter around.

Cosmetics are an over all term for costumes and transmog items (as well as other things that don't matter to this discussion).

If we assume this to be true, then my understanding of how it is to work fits in perfectly with what Steven said in that quote.

A full set of transmog items is equitable to a full costume, even if they function differently.

Atama

Noaani wrote: »

A full set of transmog items is equitable to a full costume, even if they function differently.

But they’re not. There is a distinct advantage to costumes over skins, so they are not equitable. Costumes are gear and level independent.

There is zero reason to think that costumes can’t be earned in game, and multiple reasons they will be.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

A full set of transmog items is equitable to a full costume, even if they function differently.

But they’re not. There is a distinct advantage to costumes over skins, so they are not equitable. Costumes are gear and level independent.

There is zero reason to think that costumes can’t be earned in game, and multiple reasons they will be.

In the context of the quote from Steven (which was about availability of looks without using the shop), they are equitable. However, even if e remove that context, they are still equitable.

Equitable does not mean the same. $100 and €88.50 are not the same thing, but they are equitable.

Costumes are level and gear independent, which gives them an advantage. However, they are one size fits all, which is a disadvantage.

On the other hand, slot specific cosmetics are tied to gear, and (my understanding) those that are transmogs from other actual items have level restrictions, but those that are just cosmetic items for individual slots do not. However, the advantage these have is that you can customize your look to a far better degree.

The above is an outline of two things that are not the same, yet are equitable.

Since 90% of all time spent playing MMO's is spent at the level cap, level restrictions are not a big deal.

Atama

Let’s put it another way. People generally dislike MTX. Especially when you can get advantages through paying for stuff as opposed to earning them in-game.

Steven and the rest of the development team are aware of this concern, and have made every effort to reassure people that you’re not going to be able to buy things in the store that you can’t get in-game, aside from limited-time styles.

There has been no indication that you can’t earn costumes in the game. The idea that costumes can only be earned outside of the game has not gone over well with some people, because if that was the case then there is a tangible benefit to the store you can’t match through gameplay.

You are assuming that against all reason, against every indication to the contrary, Steven is stupid enough to do that. You’ve been quite adamant about that in this thread.

WHY?!

Merek

It's a bit hard to judge the threat when someone is dressed as a literal clown.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

WHY?!

Because they missed it.

Steven's system is very similar to the system in Archeage. You equip armor and it gives you a buff. That buff is based on the quality and type of armor. If you target someone and look at their buff, you can get a general idea of the type and quality of armor they are wearing.

If you were wearing a full costume, you couldn't tell what item type someone had on other than with this buff.

This is basically exactly what Steven seems to have in mind for Ashes.

The thing is, in Archeage, no one was pointing out the inherent pay to win advantage that gave you. Why would they?

---

I am not posting here saying this game will be pay to win, I am saying something with this system (the combination of these two systems, really) will change.

It is unlikely to be the cosmetic system, meaning it has to be the threat assessment system.

The suggestion I posted a few posts back seems to me to be a fairly good way to make it work.

Atama

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

WHY?!

Because they missed it.

That's not an answer to my question in any way. I asked why you assume, devoid of any evidence, that Steven is not allowing costumes to be earned in-game, despite knowing such a thing will upset people and taking great pains to not do that with the cosmetic shop. Based on your total non-answer, I assume you're dropping this point, and if that's the case I won't mention it anymore either.

I'm okay going back to discussing the core discussion about how threat assessment might be done.

I agree that adding something to the nameplate (as you suggested earlier) is a simple solution and a sensible one. We'll have to wait and see how they really do it, but that would work well.

Noaani

Atama wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

WHY?!

Because they missed it.

That's not an answer to my question in any way. I asked why you assume, devoid of any evidence, that Steven is not allowing costumes to be earned in-game, despite knowing such a thing will upset people and taking great pains to not do that with the cosmetic shop. Based on your total non-answer, I assume you're dropping this point, and if that's the case I won't mention it anymore either.

I assume it because everything they have said fits it.

There has not been a single reference to costumes being earned in game from Intrepid - not that I have been able to find. The wiki has some, but there is no reference in the sources given.

If Intrepid have spent a long time talking about cosmetics that are able to be earned in game and those that can be bought on the cash shop, and have talked about costumes on the cash shop but not about costumes earned in game, why would we assume that they can be earned in game?

I am making the assumption that the absence of them talking about costumes being earned in game (note; not cosmetics) means there won't be any. You are assuming that the absence of them talking about it does not mean that there won't be any.

Strictly speaking, neither of these positions is correct until we get more information. Until then, all we need to do is look at all the opportunities they have had to talk about costumes (note; not cosmetics) that are able to be earned in game. If we feel there have been many opportunities for them to talk about them and they have not, then we could assume that is on purpose. If we feel there have not been all that many opportunities for hem to talk about them, then we can assume they just haven't got around to talking about them yet.

It also tracks from a business perspective. People that care about how they look will go to great lengths to get just the look they want. They won't care if it is bought or earned in game piece by piece. People that don't really care how they look but want to just not look like shit will happily spend $20 - $40 to just not look like shit. Maybe they will even change it every few months.

Buying one item is attractive to such people, as it is less to think about. If the only way these people can get that done easily, they will spend that money.

As soon as yo add costumes to the game (note; not cosmetics), these people stop buying them from the shop.

So, in summary, while I agree that there is no specific statement that all costumes will only be from the store, there is also no statement that is contradictory to that, Intrepid have had time to talk about in game costumes if they wish and have not, and as a business decision it is in their best interests (and does not go against anything they have said - other than the pay to win issue that I would assume to have been simply overlooked).

This is why I make the assumption I am making. I personally see no logic in making any other assumption, not with the information we (I) have right now.

Child Item