Dygz wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » We’ve been proven wrong many times in many other games. So I’m just doing my part during development to bring this up and make sure that it’s addressed properly. It is a crucial thing and the game’s life literally hinges on it. No. You're screaming the sky is falling before there is even a sky. You cannot make sure it's addressed properly in this discussion. All you can do is raise your concern, which you did and is fine... and then wait to see what the devs actually implement for us to test. Same as with the people who have concerns about Corruption and every other mechanic that has yet to be implemented.
VmanGman wrote: » We’ve been proven wrong many times in many other games. So I’m just doing my part during development to bring this up and make sure that it’s addressed properly. It is a crucial thing and the game’s life literally hinges on it.
VmanGman wrote: » Noaani wrote: » As someone that is.mostly a top end player, I am having trouble finding much relevance to how powerful a top end player would be in relation to a casual gamer. Most top end players spend most of their in game time in organized activities. I an organized group, I am not going to stop and attack some casual player - there is little to gain, and I am putting the organized activity at risk if I do. Casual players are more at risk of being attacked in the open by other casual players, perhaps less casual than they are, but still more casual. Guild and node wars are not really a valid thing to bring up here, nor are sieges. You have time to organize in all three situations, both sides will have casual and top end players (except guild wars - where it is most likely both sides will be top end or both sides will be casual). If a casual player is caught out in the open while heir node it at war, that is their fault for trying to play a game other than that which is in front of them - if your node is at war, get back to your node. I really am having trouble finding situations other than edge cases where the power disparity would matter. Basically, top end players are more concerned with other top end players, not with casuals. You understand that in an open world PvX game casuals and hardcore players will cross paths all the time, right? Ah ok. So casuals cannot leave their nodes solo during wars. That fixes everything.
Noaani wrote: » As someone that is.mostly a top end player, I am having trouble finding much relevance to how powerful a top end player would be in relation to a casual gamer. Most top end players spend most of their in game time in organized activities. I an organized group, I am not going to stop and attack some casual player - there is little to gain, and I am putting the organized activity at risk if I do. Casual players are more at risk of being attacked in the open by other casual players, perhaps less casual than they are, but still more casual. Guild and node wars are not really a valid thing to bring up here, nor are sieges. You have time to organize in all three situations, both sides will have casual and top end players (except guild wars - where it is most likely both sides will be top end or both sides will be casual). If a casual player is caught out in the open while heir node it at war, that is their fault for trying to play a game other than that which is in front of them - if your node is at war, get back to your node. I really am having trouble finding situations other than edge cases where the power disparity would matter. Basically, top end players are more concerned with other top end players, not with casuals.
VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Azherae wrote: » stupidly devoted min-maxer This needs to be a class name. VmanGman wrote: » None of the points that were brought up that I commented against address the fact that if gear power disparities are too great and casuals will keep losing they will quit. Lots of different things were said, but they don’t address that simple fact. Uhm - because it's not a fact. I get that you really think it is, or maybe really want it to be. Unless you have actual data that actually shows an actual correlation with those parameters, then you're only talking about anecdotes and inferences, not facts. Casuals quit for any number of reasons. I'm sure there are some players that have quit because the time required to gain the power necessary is overwhelming. But what's the % of those players that quit versus the denominator - I have no idea. Maybe it's an edge. That's why my #1 point above is adjusting based on actual testing. Its priority in that list was intentional. It’s a fact that people quit MMOs if they keep losing and feel like they can’t fight back. We have decades of MMO history to prove this.
CROW3 wrote: » Azherae wrote: » stupidly devoted min-maxer This needs to be a class name. VmanGman wrote: » None of the points that were brought up that I commented against address the fact that if gear power disparities are too great and casuals will keep losing they will quit. Lots of different things were said, but they don’t address that simple fact. Uhm - because it's not a fact. I get that you really think it is, or maybe really want it to be. Unless you have actual data that actually shows an actual correlation with those parameters, then you're only talking about anecdotes and inferences, not facts. Casuals quit for any number of reasons. I'm sure there are some players that have quit because the time required to gain the power necessary is overwhelming. But what's the % of those players that quit versus the denominator - I have no idea. Maybe it's an edge. That's why my #1 point above is adjusting based on actual testing. Its priority in that list was intentional.
Azherae wrote: » stupidly devoted min-maxer
VmanGman wrote: » None of the points that were brought up that I commented against address the fact that if gear power disparities are too great and casuals will keep losing they will quit. Lots of different things were said, but they don’t address that simple fact.
Noaani wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » Noaani wrote: » As someone that is.mostly a top end player, I am having trouble finding much relevance to how powerful a top end player would be in relation to a casual gamer. Most top end players spend most of their in game time in organized activities. I an organized group, I am not going to stop and attack some casual player - there is little to gain, and I am putting the organized activity at risk if I do. Casual players are more at risk of being attacked in the open by other casual players, perhaps less casual than they are, but still more casual. Guild and node wars are not really a valid thing to bring up here, nor are sieges. You have time to organize in all three situations, both sides will have casual and top end players (except guild wars - where it is most likely both sides will be top end or both sides will be casual). If a casual player is caught out in the open while heir node it at war, that is their fault for trying to play a game other than that which is in front of them - if your node is at war, get back to your node. I really am having trouble finding situations other than edge cases where the power disparity would matter. Basically, top end players are more concerned with other top end players, not with casuals. You understand that in an open world PvX game casuals and hardcore players will cross paths all the time, right? Ah ok. So casuals cannot leave their nodes solo during wars. That fixes everything. If your node is at war, and you do not participate on that node war, that is on you. You are trying to play a game other than that which is in front of you. Yes, in a nodewar, you should participate in that node war and may well have negative reprocussions if you do not - this is not rocket science Further, a top end player that is on their own while their node is at war doesn't stand any better chance than a casual player, because you can bet the other node isnt"t going around solo. As to casuals and top end crossing paths - that is literally what my entire post was about. If you are casual and I am top end, what reason do I have to attack you? The risk I am putting myself up for is far greater than anything you will have on you. The only top end player that would attack a casual player is one that has nothing else to do - and in my experience, that is rare. If I am on my way to do literally anything with my guild, I am not going to want to show up with either corruption or experience debt. From a casual players perspective though, other casuals (especially casuals that are less casual than the player in question) pose an actual risk.
Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Azherae wrote: » stupidly devoted min-maxer This needs to be a class name. VmanGman wrote: » None of the points that were brought up that I commented against address the fact that if gear power disparities are too great and casuals will keep losing they will quit. Lots of different things were said, but they don’t address that simple fact. Uhm - because it's not a fact. I get that you really think it is, or maybe really want it to be. Unless you have actual data that actually shows an actual correlation with those parameters, then you're only talking about anecdotes and inferences, not facts. Casuals quit for any number of reasons. I'm sure there are some players that have quit because the time required to gain the power necessary is overwhelming. But what's the % of those players that quit versus the denominator - I have no idea. Maybe it's an edge. That's why my #1 point above is adjusting based on actual testing. Its priority in that list was intentional. It’s a fact that people quit MMOs if they keep losing and feel like they can’t fight back. We have decades of MMO history to prove this. We don't, though. Unless you mean things like this paper? We have strong correlates based on things that sound similar to that, but much fewer direct points based on that. Churn isn't about whether or not a player keeps losing, it's a psychological effect that you build up based on multiple factors, and loss isn't directly a core except when the game's stated purpose is victory, and even then.
Dygz wrote: » Also, keep in mind that, in Ashes, guild wars and Node wars are objective-based. You don't necessarily have to have competitive gear or engage in direct combat to win the objectives.
Dygz wrote: » I think you have poor assumptions about Ashes gameplay. Keep in mind that Ashes combat is balanced for an 8-person group, so... if you aren't into regularly being in an 8-person group during a war because for some reason you can't acquire competitive gear, Ashes might not be the game for you.
VmanGman wrote: » Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Azherae wrote: » stupidly devoted min-maxer This needs to be a class name. VmanGman wrote: » None of the points that were brought up that I commented against address the fact that if gear power disparities are too great and casuals will keep losing they will quit. Lots of different things were said, but they don’t address that simple fact. Uhm - because it's not a fact. I get that you really think it is, or maybe really want it to be. Unless you have actual data that actually shows an actual correlation with those parameters, then you're only talking about anecdotes and inferences, not facts. Casuals quit for any number of reasons. I'm sure there are some players that have quit because the time required to gain the power necessary is overwhelming. But what's the % of those players that quit versus the denominator - I have no idea. Maybe it's an edge. That's why my #1 point above is adjusting based on actual testing. Its priority in that list was intentional. It’s a fact that people quit MMOs if they keep losing and feel like they can’t fight back. We have decades of MMO history to prove this. We don't, though. Unless you mean things like this paper? We have strong correlates based on things that sound similar to that, but much fewer direct points based on that. Churn isn't about whether or not a player keeps losing, it's a psychological effect that you build up based on multiple factors, and loss isn't directly a core except when the game's stated purpose is victory, and even then. But like any other game that has PvP gameplay, the goal for the vast majority of people is always victory.
VmanGman wrote: » And if you think that significant gear power disparities between hardcore and casual players won’t be a big problem, I think that you have poor assumptions about Ashes gameplay. Now we’re in a pickle.
CROW3 wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » And if you think that significant gear power disparities between hardcore and casual players won’t be a big problem, I think that you have poor assumptions about Ashes gameplay. Now we’re in a pickle. lol. Again... never mind.
Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Azherae wrote: » stupidly devoted min-maxer This needs to be a class name. VmanGman wrote: » None of the points that were brought up that I commented against address the fact that if gear power disparities are too great and casuals will keep losing they will quit. Lots of different things were said, but they don’t address that simple fact. Uhm - because it's not a fact. I get that you really think it is, or maybe really want it to be. Unless you have actual data that actually shows an actual correlation with those parameters, then you're only talking about anecdotes and inferences, not facts. Casuals quit for any number of reasons. I'm sure there are some players that have quit because the time required to gain the power necessary is overwhelming. But what's the % of those players that quit versus the denominator - I have no idea. Maybe it's an edge. That's why my #1 point above is adjusting based on actual testing. Its priority in that list was intentional. It’s a fact that people quit MMOs if they keep losing and feel like they can’t fight back. We have decades of MMO history to prove this. We don't, though. Unless you mean things like this paper? We have strong correlates based on things that sound similar to that, but much fewer direct points based on that. Churn isn't about whether or not a player keeps losing, it's a psychological effect that you build up based on multiple factors, and loss isn't directly a core except when the game's stated purpose is victory, and even then. But like any other game that has PvP gameplay, the goal for the vast majority of people is always victory. Why? Ashes doesn't imply that design type at all yet. In fact you've struck at the heart of something much more relevant. The sort of person who quits when they lose in PvP despite understanding the PvP, even when disadvantaged, is also the type of person who quits when they reach some arbitrary challenge point that they can't clear. Psychologically, that sort of player is seeking 'to be above average', which, by definition, only around 10% of players can actually demonstrably claim to be (give or take 3% depending on your personal definitions). This means that in open ended games like Ashes where they can lose anything at all, they leave anyway. Attachment to a place, story, concept, history, all these things can take precedence over a single PvP encounter, for many. The feeling of 'wandering the wilderness and suddenly facing a strong and terrifying enemy' is not a quit point, right? Why does it become one when that enemy is another player? The answer is that it doesn't, actually, the person just has the psychological profile that makes them feel bad for not 'winning' at the game, and that will pop up regardless. Even at the top.
VmanGman wrote: » Since when is going out solo or in small groups not participating in the war?
VmanGman wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I think you have poor assumptions about Ashes gameplay. Keep in mind that Ashes combat is balanced for an 8-person group, so... if you aren't into regularly being in an 8-person group during a war because for some reason you can't acquire competitive gear, Ashes might not be the game for you. And if you think that significant gear power disparities between hardcore and casual players won’t be a big problem, I think that you have poor assumptions about Ashes gameplay. Now we’re in a pickle.
VmanGman wrote: » Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Azherae wrote: » stupidly devoted min-maxer This needs to be a class name. VmanGman wrote: » None of the points that were brought up that I commented against address the fact that if gear power disparities are too great and casuals will keep losing they will quit. Lots of different things were said, but they don’t address that simple fact. Uhm - because it's not a fact. I get that you really think it is, or maybe really want it to be. Unless you have actual data that actually shows an actual correlation with those parameters, then you're only talking about anecdotes and inferences, not facts. Casuals quit for any number of reasons. I'm sure there are some players that have quit because the time required to gain the power necessary is overwhelming. But what's the % of those players that quit versus the denominator - I have no idea. Maybe it's an edge. That's why my #1 point above is adjusting based on actual testing. Its priority in that list was intentional. It’s a fact that people quit MMOs if they keep losing and feel like they can’t fight back. We have decades of MMO history to prove this. We don't, though. Unless you mean things like this paper? We have strong correlates based on things that sound similar to that, but much fewer direct points based on that. Churn isn't about whether or not a player keeps losing, it's a psychological effect that you build up based on multiple factors, and loss isn't directly a core except when the game's stated purpose is victory, and even then. But like any other game that has PvP gameplay, the goal for the vast majority of people is always victory. Why? Ashes doesn't imply that design type at all yet. In fact you've struck at the heart of something much more relevant. The sort of person who quits when they lose in PvP despite understanding the PvP, even when disadvantaged, is also the type of person who quits when they reach some arbitrary challenge point that they can't clear. Psychologically, that sort of player is seeking 'to be above average', which, by definition, only around 10% of players can actually demonstrably claim to be (give or take 3% depending on your personal definitions). This means that in open ended games like Ashes where they can lose anything at all, they leave anyway. Attachment to a place, story, concept, history, all these things can take precedence over a single PvP encounter, for many. The feeling of 'wandering the wilderness and suddenly facing a strong and terrifying enemy' is not a quit point, right? Why does it become one when that enemy is another player? The answer is that it doesn't, actually, the person just has the psychological profile that makes them feel bad for not 'winning' at the game, and that will pop up regardless. Even at the top. That’s a good point. Not exactly what I’ve experienced overall in nearly two decades of gaming, but it is a good point.
Noaani wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I think you have poor assumptions about Ashes gameplay. Keep in mind that Ashes combat is balanced for an 8-person group, so... if you aren't into regularly being in an 8-person group during a war because for some reason you can't acquire competitive gear, Ashes might not be the game for you. And if you think that significant gear power disparities between hardcore and casual players won’t be a big problem, I think that you have poor assumptions about Ashes gameplay. Now we’re in a pickle. Explain to me how a gear disparity between you and I matters if we have no reason to attack each other
Dygz wrote: » We're not in any pickle because the pickle does not yet exist. Once the product is actually created - we will see if it's a pickle or just a cucumber.
