Protecting Our Casuals: Gear

One big concern I have for AoC is that gear will end up providing too much power. AoC is already a game that will greatly reward those who play a lot which is why I believe that it is imperative for gear to only account for at most 20-30% of a character's power.

People will enjoy grinding out their gear even if each piece gives small increments of power increase. These small increments of power increase will allow the bulk of the population to not feel like they are so out geared that they cannot even come close to competing. This is very important because when those casual players will die over and over to a hardcore player that severely outgears them without any chance of fighting back, they will be very likely to just quit. Hardcore players will have other advantages (gold, skill, etc.) anyway because they play a lot more and there is no reason to further widen the gap between casual and hardcore players.

Please understand that I am not against rewarding those who invest more time into the game. I am just suggesting that their reward should not create such a great disparity between them and casual players. I truly believe that this can greatly help the health of the game and its population.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

VmanGman

Dygz wrote: »

You apparently have no clue how caravans work. Nor Node Sieges.
So…I’m done.
Have fun!

Yes I do. People can start caravans and take them to another node. Hardcore players will often want other hardcore players to guard their caravans... which leaves the casuals to run their own caravans... and when a group of hardcore players comes with much better gear that offers them possibly insurmountable advantages, the casuals will be much more likely to lose their caravan. I didn't talk about node sieges because I know how those works and the numbers there will be too large for hardcore players to all gather up in one node.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

False. That’s not how the math works… skill is not calculated in a power difference like that. If gear was equalized then skill would be 100% of the difference between the best and worst player. If gear had a 20-30% power gap, then the difference between the best and worst player would be 120-130% percent. Skill does not become less meaningful in the way you describe it… a greater gear difference doesn’t mean that the skill difference between two players diminishes. Skill difference is consistent no matter the gear. All I’m saying is that we don’t need to add even more difference through having a high gear power difference.

I am talking about the total gap.

A greater gear gap does not mean the skill gap decreases, this is correct. However, it means the skill gap makes up less of the over all gap between the two.

bloodprophet

Same for caravans. Players will intermix.
Why would hardcore players go out of their way to chase down lower tiered players? What is to stop all players from working together? Why must players be segregated based off of gear/time played?

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

False. That’s not how the math works… skill is not calculated in a power difference like that. If gear was equalized then skill would be 100% of the difference between the best and worst player. If gear had a 20-30% power gap, then the difference between the best and worst player would be 120-130% percent. Skill does not become less meaningful in the way you describe it… a greater gear difference doesn’t mean that the skill difference between two players diminishes. Skill difference is consistent no matter the gear. All I’m saying is that we don’t need to add even more difference through having a high gear power difference.

I am talking about the total gap.

A greater gear gap does not mean the skill gap decreases, this is correct. However, it means the skill gap makes up less of the over all gap between the two.

Literally false... I just explained... Skill gap always makes 100% of the difference between the best and worst players which can be seen in a scenario where gear is equalized. If you add gear disparity, then any power percentage difference that the gear adds will go over 100%...

If equalized gear results in 100% difference from skill gap, unequalized gear does not reduce the difference in skill gap.... The best player is still 100% more skillful than the worst player. Gear disparity raises the difference to above 100%.

Edit: format

VmanGman

bloodprophet wrote: »

Same for caravans. Players will intermix.
Why would hardcore players go out of their way to chase down lower tiered players? What is to stop all players from working together? Why must players be segregated based off of gear/time played?

Hardcore players will chase down casual player caravans because they will still have lots of goods and will be easy pickings.

The history of MMOs tells us that hardcore players will most often play with other hardcore players and casuals with casuals. Especially when the hardcore players have a lot to lose by playing with casuals... which would definitely be the case in AoC. You want the strongest to be there defending your caravans, gathering spots, PvE spots etc.

Dygz

Not doomsday at all. Nope.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

Literally false... I just explained...

You are talking about the gap in relation to the skill gap - with the skill gap being the baseline.

I am talking about the whole gap being the baseline, and talking about the ratio of skill and gear within that baseline.

Either way, the math holds true, it is just represented in different ways.

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Literally false... I just explained...

You are talking about the gap in relation to the skill gap - with the skill gap being the baseline.

I am talking about the whole gap being the baseline, and talking about the ratio of skill and gear within that baseline.

Either way, the math holds true, it is just represented in different ways.

It's not the same thing... Based on your math, if the gear difference is 100% then the skill difference between the best and worst player is 0%... but that's not how it works. If the gear difference is 100% then the difference in skill between the worst and best player is still 100% for a total of 200%. We are not saying the same thing

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Literally false... I just explained...

You are talking about the gap in relation to the skill gap - with the skill gap being the baseline.

I am talking about the whole gap being the baseline, and talking about the ratio of skill and gear within that baseline.

Either way, the math holds true, it is just represented in different ways.

It's not the same thing... Based on your math, if the gear difference is 100% then the skill difference between the best and worst player is 0%... but that's not how it works. If the gear difference is 100% then the difference in skill between the worst and best player is still 100% for a total of 200%. We are not saying the same thing

You're confusing the hell out of yourself here, I think

Drop the percent for a minute - it's ok, they'll be back soon. If the skill cap is 100, and the gear cap is 50, that means the total potential gap is 150. If the skill cap is 100 and the gear cap is 100, that means the total potential gap is 200.

These are the numbers you are talking about, but not the numbers I am talking about.

What I am talking about is that in the first example, where skill is 100, gear is 50 and the total is 150, skill is 66% and gear is 33%.

In the second example where gear is 100 and skill is 100, gear is 50% and skill is 50%.

If we are looking at the total gap between players (which we are), and we want to break that down in to how much of it is player skill and how much of it is gear (which we do), then the total gap is that baseline (100%), and the gear and skill aspect are fractions of that total gap.

On the other hand, if we want to compare the importance of gear to skill (I don't), then we would talk about skill being the baseline (your 100%, and gear be relative to that.

That is exactly how math works. 100% is only 100% in relation to something else. We are talking about relating it to different things - you are relating it to just the skill gap, while I am relating it to the total gap - because that is what is actually important.

Renathras

Caww wrote: »

sorry - but that still sounds a little like carebear thinking, player power is always gonna be a dev concern and I trust AoC will balance as best as possible

I'm a bit confused. OP's post seems to be saying "Combat should be about skill, not who has a ton of gear."

How is asking for PvP to be about skill "carebear", exactly? o.O

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Literally false... I just explained...

You are talking about the gap in relation to the skill gap - with the skill gap being the baseline.

I am talking about the whole gap being the baseline, and talking about the ratio of skill and gear within that baseline.

Either way, the math holds true, it is just represented in different ways.

It's not the same thing... Based on your math, if the gear difference is 100% then the skill difference between the best and worst player is 0%... but that's not how it works. If the gear difference is 100% then the difference in skill between the worst and best player is still 100% for a total of 200%. We are not saying the same thing

You're confusing the hell out of yourself here, I think

Drop the percent for a minute - it's ok, they'll be back soon. If the skill cap is 100, and the gear cap is 50, that means the total potential gap is 150. If the skill cap is 100 and the gear cap is 100, that means the total potential gap is 200.

These are the numbers you are talking about, but not the numbers I am talking about.

What I am talking about is that in the first example, where skill is 100, gear is 50 and the total is 150, skill is 66% and gear is 33%.

In the second example where gear is 100 and skill is 100, gear is 50% and skill is 50%.

If we are looking at the total gap between players (which we are), and we want to break that down in to how much of it is player skill and how much of it is gear (which we do), then the total gap is that baseline (100%), and the gear and skill aspect are fractions of that total gap.

On the other hand, if we want to compare the importance of gear to skill (I don't), then we would talk about skill being the baseline (your 100%, and gear be relative to that.

That is exactly how math works. 100% is only 100% in relation to something else. We are talking about relating it to different things - you are relating it to just the skill gap, while I am relating it to the total gap - because that is what is actually important.

That does not make sense... you cannot quantify skill as a number like that... what is the difference between 100 skill and 1,000,000 skill? The difference in skill between the best and worst player is always the maximum possible difference which is 100%. It doesn't mean anything to say that the skill difference is 100. Whether it's 100 difference or 1,000,000 difference in skill between the best and worst player, it is still 100% because you cannot quantify skill with a number like that. 100% in skill difference means the maximum amount of possible skill difference. 100 skill difference doesn't mean anything.

You claim that if the gear power percentage is higher, that the developers have more control because they have control over gear power and not skill. That does not make any sense. Because even if the devs make gear power 500% and the best player reaches BiS and 500% power increase and the devs allow the casuals to have 480% power increase (the control you were referring to), then the gear power difference between the best player and the casual is 20% and the better player will still have 120% more power including skill. That is the same as making the max gear power difference 20% as opposed to 500%. So your suggestion of giving more power to the devs does not make sense because the only thing that matters when it comes to gear power difference is the percentage between them (the difference)... not the maximum amount.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

That does not make sense... you cannot quantify skill as a number like that... what is the difference between 100 skill and 1,000,000 skill?

I don't disagree. This is why we were mostly talking hypothetical (or, at least, I was).

However, if you can't quantify skill like that, you also can't compare skill to gear, thus the notion of skill being 100% and gear being 30% is just as outrageous as trying to say skill is 100.

Can we get back to talking mostly hypothetical things where the numbers are used to illustrate rather than as a definitive now?

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

That does not make sense... you cannot quantify skill as a number like that... what is the difference between 100 skill and 1,000,000 skill?

I don't disagree. This is why we were mostly talking hypothetical (or, at least, I was).

However, if you can't quantify skill like that, you also can't compare skill to gear, thus the notion of skill being 100% and gear being 30% is just as outrageous as trying to say skill is 100.

Can we get back to talking mostly hypothetical things where the numbers are used to illustrate rather than as a definitive now?

You are the one who started comparing skill to gear in percentages like that. All I said is that the less gear matters, the more skill will shine.

Anyway, I explained above how your point about the devs having more control the higher the gear percentage difference is does not make sense because all that matters is the difference and not the maximum. Whether the gear percentage difference is 1,000,000,000,000% or 20% does not matter. All that matters is the difference between the top and the casual attainable level. That's why making the max attainable gear power difference be 20% makes most sense... because you have the base be 0% as opposed to 999,999,999,980%. Giving the devs 1,000,000,000,000 worth of percentages to work with will not help them balance skill vs gear... because they still can only balance the difference between the top and casual attainable level. All that matters is that difference. Not the maximum.

Renathras

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

That does not make sense... you cannot quantify skill as a number like that... what is the difference between 100 skill and 1,000,000 skill?

I don't disagree. This is why we were mostly talking hypothetical (or, at least, I was).

However, if you can't quantify skill like that, you also can't compare skill to gear, thus the notion of skill being 100% and gear being 30% is just as outrageous as trying to say skill is 100.

Can we get back to talking mostly hypothetical things where the numbers are used to illustrate rather than as a definitive now?

I'll just say this, for all the talk of "flying killed it", what killed World PvP in WoW was a combination of two things:

1) The rewards just weren't there to make it worthwhile for anyone other than gankers and griefers, and,

2) The gear threshold "You must have this much Resilience to ride this ride".

If you didn't have enough of the PvP gear specific stat (Resilience), you literally could not fight. If someone attacked you in the field and you couldn't run, you would just get up and walk away from your keyboard for a few minutes so they could kill you and then get bored of camping your body. You might even log out and just try to come back later. If you didn't do that, you were liable to break a keyboard or two from the frustration.

If you were in PvE gear (and this is why I think PvP/PvE gear should be the same gear with no "PvP specific stats" or the like), you'd just walk away from your computer, possibly Alt+F4ing out of the game. There was literally no point in even trying. I remember one time in Wrath where 2 people in full PvP gear locked down an entire town in Dragonwaste because there weren't players on the otherside there with PvP gear to contest them. They could literally take down 5-10 people each. This cimpletely blocked leveling in the zone as it prevented players from getting through to the next quest hub or completing the story quests there.

People go on and on about "flying killed World PvP in WoW".

Nope: PvP gear (Resil) killed it.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

You are the one who started comparing skill to gear in percentages like that.

Yes, as an illustration.

As that illustration, lets assume skill and gear are both equal before any changes (lets call this 50% - since a whole will always be 100%), Now if we cut the power of gear by 50%, that now means that gear is 33% and skill is 66% (the gap may be smaller, but is still what we are comparing to, so is still 100%).

While this may seem good, it still puts the people that spend more time playing the game as being at a massive advantage, but it now just reduces players ability to make up as much of that difference via gear, and Intrepids ability to make it easier for players to make up some of that gap by giving them easier access to that gear.

All of this happened just by lowering the power of gear - without the need to increase the skill cap.

VmanGman

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

You are the one who started comparing skill to gear in percentages like that.

yes, as an illustration.

Can we move past that?

I'm explaining how your idea of giving more control to the devs makes no sense. Can you please address that? Your whole point hinges on that.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

You are the one who started comparing skill to gear in percentages like that.

yes, as an illustration.

Can we move past that?

I'm explaining how your idea of giving more control to the devs makes no sense. Can you please address that? Your whole point hinges on that.

See the above edited post.

JamesSunderland

VmanGman wrote: »

Once again, if you lose when you have a meaningful advantage of 30% then you are not very good at the game. 30% is very significant.

Alright, one last shot at it, lets bet on your comprehension potential.

You see, i really agree with this part: "Once again, if you lose when you have a meaningful advantage of 30% then you are not very good at the game." as this is a correct statement that Skill will win the majority of times especially when that gear disparity is just kinda meaningful and skill is extremely meaningful (which will crush a lot of casuals anyway)

and i disagree with this part: "30% is very significant." Sadly the statement doesn't acknowledge meaningful gear progression for an MMORPG.

30% is kinda meaningful, but not VERY meaningful, 20% is slightly meaningful.
What i find just kinda meaningful you find very meaningful.
This also applies to Casual players but "Casual players" isn't a perfectly homogeneous group which you can simple throw into a batch and speak for them as their protective saviour.
And i'm not even talking about how Casual and Hardcore isn't black and white dicotomy but a spectrum and the original discussion post neglects people in the middle of the road.

You see the problem here? Its a my opinion vs your opinion where all of that is interpretative and abstract as we still don't have the full picture of how Ashes will approach it other than 2 things:

Steven's statement "Gear has approximately a 40-50% influence on a player's overall power in the game."
Steven's experience and main sources of inspiration for the creation of Ashes -> Lineage 2 and Archeage.

Just out of curiosity i would like to ask you a question.
How experienced and knowledgeable about Lineage 2 and Archeage are you?
(especially in terms of gear disparity)

Sylvanar

VmanGman wrote: »

Once again, if you lose when you have a meaningful advantage of 30% then you are not very good at the game. 30% is very significant.

I am assuming you mean to say newly minted lvl 50 character vs BiS lvl50 character gear power difference should be 20-30%. So versus a player with average gear that would mean BiS would have 10-15% gear power. Now please over state how 10% is SUCH a significant power difference because casuals should be able to get average gear at least. OR is that too much to expect as well cuz if they aren't even given good gears they might leave and the game would result in failure and apocalypse would ensue?

You have made so many wrong assumptions, its not even funny.
- Casuals gonna die 100% times despite magically having more skill than hardcore players.
- Hardcore players play at their best everytime.
- Game will be swarmed by hardcore players.
- Casuals are a bunch of 2-3 year olds who need to be babied cuz they have no mental strength.

At the end of the Day, Quiters are gonna quit. You can give them everything and they will quit.

Caww

Renathras wrote: »

Caww wrote: »

sorry - but that still sounds a little like carebear thinking, player power is always gonna be a dev concern and I trust AoC will balance as best as possible

I'm a bit confused. OP's post seems to be saying "Combat should be about skill, not who has a ton of gear."

How is asking for PvP to be about skill "carebear", exactly? o.O

yeah... crying that "I have all the skill and talent in the world but no decent gear so that's why I always lose and I'm gonna quit" is pretty much carebear/snowflake territory

Child Item