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

JustVine

BlackBrony wrote: »

So, since RMT won't be a thing in Ashes, we hope, casual players are screwed. Well, not really. Casuals farming becaus they don't have time to run a dungeon means that hardcore player will have to protect them. They need to repair the gear, so they need those low level mats from the casuals.
What I believe will happen? Probable hardcore players will demand gold/mats for protection during farming, or caravans. Hardcore players will sell their services.
You forget casuals farming it's in the interest of the node, and if you both belong to the same node, just randomly killing a casual might not be the best interested.
On the other hand, casuals not being able to fight back because of gear, well, that will mean that casuals need to adapt. How? Instead of being efficient and farming 1000 mats, you would farm 100 and go back to town. Why? If you get ganked, not fight back, you lose 50%, so well, it's not that much. You could also fight back, lose less mats, but open to be ganked again.

This sounds like a feudal society. 'Subjugate the casuals with the threat of violence' to do all the filthy low level peasant work you can't be bothered for.

I totally expect this from the games current design and the over all disposition of the current fan base. The real question would therefore be 'is that 'fun' for the peasant casuals?' I don't think so but I am not a casual if they dont screw up farming and summoning, so I thankfully, have noble privileges.

Your average Jane Doe who got home from a crappy slave wage job, just to relax in a fun mmo might have stronger opinions.

CROW3

JustVine wrote: »

Your average Jane Doe who got home from a crappy slave wage job, just to relax in a fun mmo might have stronger opinions.

Caveat emptor.

JustVine

CROW3 wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

Your average Jane Doe who got home from a crappy slave wage job, just to relax in a fun mmo might have stronger opinions.

Caveat emptor.

That's a completely different discussion and not even really argument against what I said. It also has a tacit assumption that Ashes should not have designs to prevent such a situation.

Dygz

Will casuals be farming dungeons or will they be farming caravans and sieges?
As well as participating World and Monster Coin events?

CROW3

JustVine wrote: »

That's a completely different discussion and not even really argument against what I said. It also has a tacit assumption that Ashes should not have designs to prevent such a situation.

Who’s arguing? You stated that casuals won’t find what they are looking for - I’m agreeing, while also asserting that the consumer has the power in the equation.

Casuals will have a place in Ashes, but they aren’t the primary audience for design decisions. Unless they are able to short circuit the gear treadmill, they will not be able to compete in a pvp scenario.

Will that leave some poor plebians in the dust? Yes. And it’s those players’ responsibility to know what experience they are buying into. Luckily, the bar for entry is low.

JustVine

CROW3 wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

That's a completely different discussion and not even really argument against what I said. It also has a tacit assumption that Ashes should not have designs to prevent such a situation.

Who’s arguing? You stated that casuals won’t find what they are looking for - I’m agreeing, while also asserting that the consumer has the power in the equation.

Casuals will have a place in Ashes, but they aren’t the primary audience for design decisions.

It is because I knew we disagreed on this point that I called it an argument since like I said, accepting that premise tacitly accepts that the premise 'should be how the final product ends up.'

There are a lot of reasons why design should recognize players with less time to play. Mainly, it effects everyone's experience not just the casuals. Why? Because it effects new players experience too. Therefore I don't see them as second class consumers relative to the design of the game.

Although I do agree that the hardcore/veteran audience should have a 20-30 % tilt on decision making. (Those numbers were a joke please don't take my imaginary numbers seriously.)

Will that leave some poor plebians in the dust? Yes. And it’s those players’ responsibility to know what experience they are buying into. Luckily, the bar for entry is low.

Right, it's their 'responsibility'. It's Ashes that needs to decide how attractive they need the casual and new player experience to be. Casuals always make up the bulk of both in game economies and a companies wallet unless they specifically choose to ignore the design challenges such payers present relative to their design experience.

Caww

Most games water down the hardest-core/grinding aspects of game play at some point and AoC will most likely as well; that's not a bad thing but it does subject them to the use of the term "nerf" so hopefully AoC will balance well at the start once they get the Alpha 2 data. A casuals monthly sub is worth the same as a hardcores so retaining both will be paramount for all of us.

CROW3

JustVine wrote: »

There are a lot of reasons why design should recognize players with less time to play. Mainly, it effects everyone's experience not just the casuals. Why? Because it effects new players experience too. Therefore I don't see them as second class consumers relative to the design of the game.

Although I do agree that the hardcore/veteran audience should have a 20-30 % tilt on decision making. (Those numbers were a joke please don't take my imaginary numbers seriously.)

Heh, I won't hold you to any numbers.

I get what you're saying, but your point above makes some leaps by lumping the casual experience and the new player experience together as some sort of solid foundation. New players are a heterogenous mix of player-types, so... no, the casual experience isn't necessarily going to reflect the needs of new players. It might reflect the needs of new casual players. I think Intrepid recognizes 'players with less time to play,' but they seem to be prioritizing the hardcore player segment for design (which I agree with). That's not a semantic differentiation.

JustVine wrote: »

Right, it's their 'responsibility'. It's Ashes that needs to decide how attractive they need the casual and new player experience to be. Casuals always make up the bulk of both in game economies and a companies wallet unless they specifically choose to ignore the design challenges such payers present relative to their design experience.

Ashes is going to make a product that leans hardcore, and provides an environment where casual players can do quite a bit. Where I agree with the vast majority of voices in this thread is that pvp is not going to be one of those places where casuals are going to be competitive. It's city rec league soccer v. MLS.

Also, let's not appeal to data neither of us have re: revenue stream intake relative to player segment. I can see where it's attractive to conjecture, but the data might tell a different story.

JustVine

CROW3 wrote: »

Heh, I won't hold you to any numbers.

I get what you're saying, but your point above makes some leaps by lumping the casual experience and the new player experience together as some sort of solid foundation. New players are a heterogenous mix of player-types, so... no, the casual experience isn't necessarily going to reflect the needs of new players. It might reflect the needs of new casual players.

I don't disagree with you that they are a heterogenous mix. While I think we can agree to disagree on the fact that it's 'not a solid foundation', I hope you realize that what I really am trying to get across here is that the new player and casual players experience of content leveling up to max is going to be effected by much of the same design principles, not that they will 'be after the same things and therefore have the same over all experience'.

Can we at least agree that a new person who let's say 'get's up to speed' of the first 120 hours in one month is going to face similar challenges that gear disparity brings than the casual player who took 2 months to get to the same place? They both must come to terms with the hardcore person who plays 6-8 hours a day for that same 2 months.

(I tried really hard to make this point without imaginary numbers but I'll admit it was a task beyond my skill, please forgive me.)

I think Intrepid recognizes 'players with less time to play,' but they seem to be prioritizing the hardcore player segment for design (which I agree with). That's not a semantic differentiation.

We agree on this. However they also seem to be preparing for such players to show up in large numbers given their intentions for the player economy and scale of activities. Their play experience needs to be of some level of consideration to the challenges they face as a result of the rest of the design.

Ashes is going to make a product that leans hardcore, and provides an environment where casual players can do quite a bit. Where I agree with the vast majority of voices in this thread is that pvp is not going to be one of those places where casuals are going to be competitive. It's city rec league soccer v. MLS.

PvP directly effects all parts of the game. If they are not able to compete in PvP, they are going to be relegated to the bottom rung of 'society'. You can't turn PvP off after all (and it should stay that way.)

Now, where I think we agree here is that 'it's kind of inevitable that there is going to be a bottom rung.' My original 'appeal' here was that 'there are many ways the bottom rung can look like and a 'feudal system'' may be particularly unappealing. People want the ability to fight back and have a chance to win. It's part of the fun right?

I'm of the camp that 'skill can be acquired and 'imported' from elsewhere' much more quickly than one can grind gear'. So to me the more gear matters, the less broadly you can appeal to that. I don't know if Ashes current design will make such an appeal possible or not. I simply lack enough data to tell.

I do have enough information to tell, though, that PvP is going to massively impact things that are usually places that casuals benefit from and can be competitive in (crafting and some forms of economic activity.) So 'I worry' a bit for their sake.

You are free to tell me that I shouldn't worry or it's wrong to worry about it, but that'd be where our conversation ends in that case. Not because I'd be offend, it's just an impasse. And I know dwarves with arrows can beat me in a rocky impasse like that so I'll just 'forfeit' in advance ;p

Also, let's not appeal to data neither of us have re: revenue stream intake relative to player segment. I can see where it's attractive to conjecture, but the data might tell a different story.

Fair, I do not retract it, but that is valid criticism with my argument. I'll make an effort to minimize my using it in my discussions with you.

As a side question, you said 'Ashes is going to make a product that leans hardcore, and provides an environment where casual players can do quite a bit.' What if anything do you think casuals who have a lot of natural and practiced skill from other games are going to be 'competitive' in a game with this level of importance in PvP?

Azherae

Caww wrote: »

Most games water down the hardest-core/grinding aspects of game play at some point and AoC will most likely as well; that's not a bad thing but it does subject them to the use of the term "nerf" so hopefully AoC will balance well at the start once they get the Alpha 2 data. A casuals monthly sub is worth the same as a hardcores so retaining both will be paramount for all of us.

Maybe so, but what most people would call 'hardcore' is one of Ashes' main selling points.

It's not actually particularly groundbreaking in most other aspects, and nearly everything else about it is 'unproven' and 'in development'. So selling itself as many posters put it, as a highly dynamic game with lots of power struggles, and by extension, the related gap between 'Casuals' and 'Hardcore', is its main bulwark against stagnation.

As of now, they haven't reached the point of being able to show anything that they do significantly better than many other games, other than 'not being p2w and not doing stupid things'. So if their initial main audience were 'looking for a big timesink challenge that tells most 'skill-casuals' to 'accept disruptions', then that's what they should probably stick to, otherwise the first 'new subscription model non-p2w' game that gets churned out by a bigger studio because Ashes manages to succeed', would sap a lot of their subscriptions.

If the 'price' of that is high 'turnover' in casual players due to hardcore grinds and disruption gameplay, it may still be better to keep their loyalists and therefore remain 'relevant' in the MMO space.

Everdark

VmanGman wrote: »

Happymeal2415 wrote: »

I mean we could quote Steven again and say this game is not for everyone. This game isn't being made to spoon feed people good characters. Time investment matters.

When did I say that the game needs to be made to spoon feed people? When did I say that the game needs to be for everyone?

You understand that the game will not survive or have very few funds for more content without casuals, right?

I don't disagree with your statements that casuals need to have a place. However if they are catered to in any
way, spoon feeding is unavoidable.

Consider the situation you suggested where the meaningfulness of gear is reduced to promote skill. Players that play more WILL be more skillful than casuals, and will abuse casuals REGARDLESS of gear in any PVP scenario. The casuals are not any better off. In other words, gear based, or skill based, casuals are never going to be having a great time in PVP relative to hardcore players.

The ONLY way to avoid that, is to reduce gear meaningfulness AND arbitrarily limit the skill ceiling to a level sufficiently low that skill becomes irrelevant - in other words spoon feeding.

Dygz

I dunno why people insist on using the word cater.
Casuals will be well-supported in Ashes.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Ashes_of_Creation#Casual_vs._hardcore_players

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP-lOFzYkCM&t=1115s
mark: 18:05

VmanGman

Everdark wrote: »

Consider the situation you suggested where the meaningfulness of gear is reduced to promote skill. Players that play more WILL be more skillful than casuals, and will abuse casuals REGARDLESS of gear in any PVP scenario. The casuals are not any better off. In other words, gear based, or skill based, casuals are never going to be having a great time in PVP relative to hardcore players.

I am not sure why this exact idea is being brought up. Yes, players that play more will often be more skillful and therefore defeat players that play less. That does not mean that we need to increase the gap between hardcore and casual players by giving skillful players who play more better gear as well. Let casuals fight with a smaller gear power difference while they work on their skills. We don't need to widen gap even more with great gear power differences.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

There are a lot of reasons why design should recognize players with less time to play.

I completely agree with this statement - however, design should also recognize those with more time to play.

The OP's suggestion fails in that second regard, but is also unsuccessful in the first, imo.

Goalid

Dygz wrote: »

I dunno why people insist on using the word cater.
Casuals will be well-supported in Ashes.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Ashes_of_Creation#Casual_vs._hardcore_players
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP-lOFzYkCM&t=1115s
mark: 18:05

Watching the video, the most important quotes from Steven were:
That casuals would eventually be able to get the same accomplishments as hardcore players, just at a later date. Nobody here disagrees with that, and that's how it should be.
That hardcore players would need large casual player populations to help develop their nodes. And I think that's a wonderful way to have hardcore players interact friendly with casual players, but this still isn't saying that casuals will be able to compete in PvP with hardcore players or that there will be a short gear grind to help casuals, which is what this post is about.

Dygz

It says that it will probably take casual-time players longer to acquire gear that is competitive with hardcore-time players.
Hardcore-time players don't need a short gear grind to help casuals acquire gear.
Also, I didn't post the video in response to the OP. I posted the video in response to Everdark saying, "I don't disagree with your statements that casuals need to have a place. However if they are catered to in any
way, spoon feeding is unavoidable."

CROW3

JustVine wrote: »

what I really am trying to get across here is that the new player and casual players experience of content leveling up to max is going to be effected by much of the same design principles, not that they will 'be after the same things and therefore have the same over all experience'.

Yep - although it greatly depends on whether those design principles skew toward favoring one player segment over another. Some games make that more obvious than others.

Can we at least agree that a new person who let's say 'get's up to speed' of the first 120 hours in one month is going to face similar challenges that gear disparity brings than the casual player who took 2 months to get to the same place? They both must come to terms with the hardcore person who plays 6-8 hours a day for that same 2 months.

That's tough to conjecture at this point. There are too many factors that would come into play, but it's not unreasonable. The clear exceptions would be any kind of short-cutting of that gear progression curve via crafting, purchase, or gifts.

PvP directly effects all parts of the game. If they are not able to compete in PvP, they are going to be relegated to the bottom rung of 'society'. You can't turn PvP off after all (and it should stay that way.)

I'm going to be a bit of a pain. I'd frame this more as 'combat' will directly effect all parts of the game, but not necessarily pvp. The corruption system will curb (hopefully) a good deal of the KOS mentaily that appears in other open world pvp mmos (i.e. MO2, etc).

I do have enough information to tell, though, that PvP is going to massively impact things that are usually places that casuals benefit from and can be competitive in (crafting and some forms of economic activity.) So 'I worry' a bit for their sake.

Yeah - this got me thinking. I've actually been wondering if most casual gamers / carebears will gravitate to processing / crafting professions instead of gathering professions, simple because there is less risk involved where other players attacking you (or having to attack other players) to control access to material won't be an issue.

You are free to tell me that I shouldn't worry or it's wrong to worry about it, but that'd be where our conversation ends in that case. Not because I'd be offend, it's just an impasse. And I know dwarves with arrows can beat me in a rocky impasse like that so I'll just 'forfeit' in advance ;p

Ha! You can decide yourself what to worry or not worry about. No skin off my nose. But yes, dwarven rangers and mountain passes can be dangerous things - if you don't bring enough beer.

As a side question, you said 'Ashes is going to make a product that leans hardcore, and provides an environment where casual players can do quite a bit.' What if anything do you think casuals who have a lot of natural and practiced skill from other games are going to be 'competitive' in a game with this level of importance in PvP?

Quite a bit. There's a whole world to explore. Crafting and economics. Node development. Dungeons and raids. There's a lot. But when it comes to fighting other players - speaking generally - casual gamers are going to be at a disadvantage to hardcore players. I think that's ok.

JustVine

CROW3 wrote: »

I'm going to be a bit of a pain. I'd frame this more as 'combat' will directly effect all parts of the game, but not necessarily pvp. The corruption system will curb (hopefully) a good deal of the KOS mentaily that appears in other open world pvp mmos (i.e. MO2, etc).

Hmm...

I'll get back to you on that one. I have qualms but ones worth thinking through to not trigger a hard side bar.

Yeah - this got me thinking. I've actually been wondering if most casual gamers / carebears will gravitate to processing / crafting professions instead of gathering professions, simple because there is less risk involved where other players attacking you (or having to attack other players) to control access to material won't be an issue.

I have been considering something similar. It may happen, but I have two caveats to the logic.

If you or your friends get your crafting materials for free you make more margin, in a properly constructed mmo economy. Better margins does eventually snow ball once an economy starts maturing. A casual has even MORE incentive to gather mats not less, as they have less liquid assets. After all those are usually gained via 'more time input'. And if you want to compete in the economy for sales you will inevitably end up competing with people who have enough money to sell at lower margins.

There are ways around this (friends with more time) but that's not a universal circumstance. Ideally they will make friends, but you can only rely on that so much in your design. In short conflict will happen no matter what unless your casual in spirit not just time available.

Quite a bit. There's a whole world to explore. Crafting and economics. Node development. Dungeons and raids. There's a lot. But when it comes to fighting other players - speaking generally - casual gamers are going to be at a disadvantage to hardcore players. I think that's ok.

Competitive exploration huh. Alright, assuming that's relevant to the game I'll buy that with the assumption that good mounts will be obtainable by dedicated casials and it's a lot more reliant on your irl diligence.

Crafting and economics. Maybe, but it relies heavily on the way intrepid designs crafting and itemization relative to it.

Node development? You'd have to explain to me, but alright I can maybe buy that in the frontier.

Competitive in dungeons and raids though? Open world dungeons and raids where everyone has a strong incentive to hit up for good gear or xp? An enclosed space with less places to run??? That's directly PvP or PvX if you want to call it that. I could believe it if I see it, but not until then. That, I think is a gear vs skill percent question. I leave that to op to discuss.

I wonder how large a market there is for competitive exploration.... Interesting thought there.

Ha! You can decide yourself what to worry or not worry about. No skin off my nose. But yes, dwarven rangers and mountain passes can be dangerous things - if you don't bring enough beer.

I hope you like german black stout. I don't commonly drink something that weak, but when I do I prefer it have robust flavor. ;p

George_Black

Dont stop now. Here, let me give you a push:

Gear strength shouldnt matter in addition to cosmetics curving visual progression.
Discuss fUrthER....

3arc

You are also forgetting corrupted players have the possibility to lose gear as well. I doubt many people will be running around slaughtering causals with their best possible gear in the open world because of that consequence (if that's what your concern is).

Personally, I don't know what to think of this system yet as there isn't much information on how this works.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Item_sinks

Child Item