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

Ramirez

A casual never Will beat a player that player several hours anyway, even in skills or vertical progression

Azherae

Vaknar wrote: »

As for PvP, while a casual player might not always win a 1v1 against a player who has more time to dedicate, there is always strength in numbers and teamwork

Hm, so are you saying that a casual player will not win 1v1s, but a group of casual players might be able to win an 8v8 vs a group of 'time-advantaged' players?

I'm seriously asking because I know of design methods that would lead to this possibility, but have seen no signs of them in Ashes.

If you just meant 'casual players can beat more hardcore players by outnumbering them', then feel free to ignore this one.

CROW3

Azherae wrote: »

Hm, so are you saying that a casual player will not win 1v1s, but a group of casual players might be able to win an 8v8 vs a group of 'time-advantaged' players?

I don’t think so. In fact I think you would see the opposite effect, with TTK decreasing relative to 1v1.

Noaani

Azherae wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

As for PvP, while a casual player might not always win a 1v1 against a player who has more time to dedicate, there is always strength in numbers and teamwork

Hm, so are you saying that a casual player will not win 1v1s, but a group of casual players might be able to win an 8v8 vs a group of 'time-advantaged' players?

I'm not sure how you could take "strength in numbers and teamwork" and end up with this, to be honest.

Clearly, the comment was "if you want a chance to beat someone with better gear than you, outnumber them".

VmanGman

Dygz wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

As for PvP, while a casual player might not always win a 1v1 against a player who has more time to dedicate, there is always strength in numbers and teamwork

Haha!
I think we tried to say that on Page 1.

@Dygz @CROW3 @Vaknar So casual players are relegated to babysitter gameplay? Or what happens when the more dedicated player also brings numbers and teamwork?

VmanGman

@Noaani

The problem with constantly increasing the item power with new patches and expansions is that eventually players become disillusioned when they realized that ultimately their progress is meaningless since it will be wiped next patch/expansion. It will work for a while when the game is new, but eventually it won’t feel so good to work for the next tier when you know that it will become obsolete soon after. I guess this can be balanced through the frequency of higher power tiers being added, but still the issues of disillusionment is there.

Dygz

LMFAO
We already covered that like half-11-dozen times.
On Page 1 !!!

Happymeal2415

VmanGman wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

As for PvP, while a casual player might not always win a 1v1 against a player who has more time to dedicate, there is always strength in numbers and teamwork

Haha!
I think we tried to say that on Page 1.

@Dygz @CROW3 @Vaknar So casual players are relegated to babysitter gameplay? Or what happens when the more dedicated player also brings numbers and teamwork?

Then the casuals lose.

VmanGman

Dygz wrote: »

LMFAO
We already covered that like half-11-dozen times.
On Page 1 !!!

It was never an answer that resulted in casuals being able to stand up and fight on their own. You literally suggested that Caww was right and that casuals will just have to accept defeat and take a beating. If you think that what I’m saying is hilarious, imagine suggesting that sitting there to take a beating because you can’t win is acceptable game design. Hahahaha.

Also, Vaknar suggested strength in numbers as if the more dedicated players don’t also have access to strength in numbers.

Edit: word

VmanGman

Happymeal2415 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

As for PvP, while a casual player might not always win a 1v1 against a player who has more time to dedicate, there is always strength in numbers and teamwork

Haha!
I think we tried to say that on Page 1.

@Dygz @CROW3 @Vaknar So casual players are relegated to babysitter gameplay? Or what happens when the more dedicated player also brings numbers and teamwork?

Then the casuals lose.

I’m sure that those players will stick around the game for long and that AoC will be successful then.

Happymeal2415

VmanGman wrote: »

Happymeal2415 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

As for PvP, while a casual player might not always win a 1v1 against a player who has more time to dedicate, there is always strength in numbers and teamwork

Haha!
I think we tried to say that on Page 1.

@Dygz @CROW3 @Vaknar So casual players are relegated to babysitter gameplay? Or what happens when the more dedicated player also brings numbers and teamwork?

Then the casuals lose.

I’m sure that those players will stick around the game for long and that AoC will be successful then.

I dont understand what you want from the game then. You seem to be dead set on having every scenario end in casuals winning.

Apparently whoever plays the least and plays solo should get the best gear or no one will play this game

VmanGman

Happymeal2415 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Happymeal2415 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

As for PvP, while a casual player might not always win a 1v1 against a player who has more time to dedicate, there is always strength in numbers and teamwork

Haha!
I think we tried to say that on Page 1.

@Dygz @CROW3 @Vaknar So casual players are relegated to babysitter gameplay? Or what happens when the more dedicated player also brings numbers and teamwork?

Then the casuals lose.

I’m sure that those players will stick around the game for long and that AoC will be successful then.

I dont understand what you want from the game then. You seem to be dead set on having every scenario end in casuals winning.

Apparently whoever plays the least and plays solo should get the best gear or no one will play this game

I never said any of those things.

Happymeal2415

VmanGman wrote: »

Happymeal2415 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Happymeal2415 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

As for PvP, while a casual player might not always win a 1v1 against a player who has more time to dedicate, there is always strength in numbers and teamwork

Haha!
I think we tried to say that on Page 1.

@Dygz @CROW3 @Vaknar So casual players are relegated to babysitter gameplay? Or what happens when the more dedicated player also brings numbers and teamwork?

Then the casuals lose.

I’m sure that those players will stick around the game for long and that AoC will be successful then.

I dont understand what you want from the game then. You seem to be dead set on having every scenario end in casuals winning.

Apparently whoever plays the least and plays solo should get the best gear or no one will play this game

I never said any of those things.

K then explain

VmanGman

Happymeal2415 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Happymeal2415 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Happymeal2415 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

As for PvP, while a casual player might not always win a 1v1 against a player who has more time to dedicate, there is always strength in numbers and teamwork

Haha!
I think we tried to say that on Page 1.

@Dygz @CROW3 @Vaknar So casual players are relegated to babysitter gameplay? Or what happens when the more dedicated player also brings numbers and teamwork?

Then the casuals lose.

I’m sure that those players will stick around the game for long and that AoC will be successful then.

I dont understand what you want from the game then. You seem to be dead set on having every scenario end in casuals winning.

Apparently whoever plays the least and plays solo should get the best gear or no one will play this game

I never said any of those things.

K then explain

I explained it in the OP as well as throughout the thread. I cannot be any more clear than I have already been.

Azherae

CROW3 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Hm, so are you saying that a casual player will not win 1v1s, but a group of casual players might be able to win an 8v8 vs a group of 'time-advantaged' players?

I don’t think so. In fact I think you would see the opposite effect, with TTK decreasing relative to 1v1.

This is why I ask. With the game's current design, I would expect the best chance you could give a 'casual' against a 'more hardcore' would be in 1v1.

But there are design changes that could be made so that it was reversed, and those changes would explicitly reduce the casual player's chances in a 1v1, but that might be the intention, as Intrepid has often indicated that they want higher 'group' and 'community' activity.

If the answer was 'if you get jumped when solo, count it as a loss and don't bother fighting back, then gather your friends' (even if you could only get to even numbers) and your chances of winning went up because of the design, in a 4v4, then that would be in line with their design goals, but not what we've previously seen of Combat.

However, they are definitely overhauling combat, so it could have been hinting at that.

CROW3

VmanGman wrote: »

So casual players are relegated to babysitter gameplay?

No, I think I give more credit to casual players. It's clear - based on the dozen pages of this thread - that you're exploring a gray area with a black-or-white perspective.

Azherae wrote: »

This is why I ask. With the game's current design, I would expect the best chance you could give a 'casual' against a 'more hardcore' would be in 1v1.

In a force on force, symmetrical conflict - yeah, I agree. There are a lot of tactical variables that could change that equation though.

Azherae

CROW3 wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

So casual players are relegated to babysitter gameplay?

No, I think I give more credit to casual players. It's clear - based on the dozen pages of this thread - that you're exploring a gray area with a black-or-white perspective.

Azherae wrote: »

This is why I ask. With the game's current design, I would expect the best chance you could give a 'casual' against a 'more hardcore' would be in 1v1.

In a force on force, symmetrical conflict - yeah, I agree. There are a lot of tactical variables that could change that equation though.

If the gear design leans into the game's other design elements, it would resolve it without any issues, too. This is 'solved' and 'easy', having been done in multiple PvE games before now, it's just not often applied to PvP games.

@VmanGman in short, this just 'isn't how this works' with people who have design experience. I'll give an example and you can tell me what you think the problem with it would be.

Sword A of Green Tier has 4 Enhancement slots. Sword B of Purple Tier has 8.

The crafter can put Attack into all slots, but the more Attack in each slot, the harder it is to get the next one in. This is based on total number, not 'number relative to the weapon'.

So it's equally easy to get an Attack +20 Green Tier sword as it is to get an Attack+20 Accuracy +20 Purple Tier sword, but it's really really hard to get an Attack +40 Purple Tier Sword.

But 'casuals' don't have enough Evasion, let's say, for the Accuracy to be necessary. It's nice, but it helps more in PvE or against other 'hardcore' players. The Accuracy 'doesn't affect the fight much'.

Now you have 'Green sword people' fighting 'Purple sword people' and the overall damage done is similar. This sort of design can't be described simply by things like 'gear power in tiers', so even attempting to paraphrase it, leads to concerns like yours.

But if you ask someone 'how much stronger is Sword B than Sword A', in most games, the answer will be 35% stronger (assuming the semi-standard range of 200-600 accuracy and opposed stat calculations). It's 35% more effective than Sword A in fights against strong or equal enemies, but not when facing 'Casuals'. An Attack +40 Purple Tier Sword would be a 'casual slayer', but would involve a massive investment for a sword that might not hold up in 'even' PvP as well.

tl;dr hardcore players already have time, tend to be number-crunchers, and collect tons of gear. Make them HAVE to do all that to be versatile without giving them as much advantage over 'casuals' unless they're specifically aiming to go out there and kill said casuals as a 'preferred enemy'.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

Noaani

The problem with constantly increasing the item power with new patches and expansions is that eventually players become disillusioned when they realized that ultimately their progress is meaningless since it will be wiped next patch/expansion.

This is only true if you follow WoW's method of doing this, where all said progress is basically wiped over night.

If all progress isn't wiped, people aren't going to consider their progress meaningless. It is perfectly possible to add new top end content to a game without having to wipe the progress players have made up to that point. Most other games manage to do this.

VmanGman wrote: »

So casual players are relegated to babysitter gameplay? Or what happens when the more dedicated player also brings numbers and teamwork?

The idea here, just as in all other open world PvP games, is to not pick a fight that you have no chance of winning.

You seem to think that casuals and top end players will have no option but to fight - this is very untrue. As I have said many times, I am more incentivized to NOT fight most of the time, and the meager resources a casual player may have on them definitely won't tempt me.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Stats aren't the only way you create horizontal progression though. On items, you have passive, set, and active abilities that can be applied. For our character, we also have augments.

This is.all true.

The thing I think you are missing is that the same concept as with gear applies here.

If that augment isn't of use on some piece of content, why does it exist? If it is of use on some piece of content, you will need it or be left behind - thus segregation.

This same concept applies to literally anything - which is the point I have been trying to fet across.

I'm happy to farm more gear, i just want to do it for a reason besides the game making my gear obsolete.

This isn't really possible.

As I said above, there is a limit to how many times you can "progress" horizontally, especially if you wish to minimize cheesy mechanics (things like needing a specific item to take on a mob - that is fine once every few years, but literally no more than that).

In order to add new gear that you want to spend the time farming, it should be obvious that you need to see a reason to farm said gear. If you see no advantage in getting it, why would you spend time getting it?

The more time it takes you and your guild to get it, the bigger that advantage needs to be.

If it is worth you spending time to get it, it must be better than what you have. If it is better than what you have, it is making what you have obsolete - and if this round of new gear isn't, the next one absolutely will.

MMO's are literally just a gear grinding time sink. Take away that gear to strive for, to aspire towards, and most people will just play something else.

In short, your stated desire here is mathematical impossible.

What would you have happen to node content as the game progresses?

I'm just glad it isn't my job to work this out.

The most likely thing is the addition of new religions and social organizations, as these shape each node a fair amount.

I think i have the same response for your augment argument as i have for your gear one. Change the augment or the content. Generally, if there is something in a game that isn't being used, they will change it so it has a use.

I'm not saying they should take away the gear grind, I'm talking about changing the incentives and making them more horizontal. I agree that the harder the content, the more time you spend doing something, the better the rewards should be. I'm against those rewards you earned from challenging content being outclassed by easier content in the future.

One assumption i have made but not mentioned is that the best gear isn't going be easy for anyone to get since it's in the open world and only one group can claim it's resources each spawn. Combine that with the over-enchanting mechanic and there will always be a way to improve your gear.

I also think there will be other forms of progression and projects that require materials from high end content.

You also need to farm content for repair mats.

I already talked about the build incentive so put all of those things together and i think there will be plenty of reasons to do content.

I assume you say it's not mathematically possibly because you can't easily imagine all the variations necessary to keep it going but If all they did for an expansion was increase the item level of drops without any new content, the game would die. They need to come up with new content for each expansion.

Do you think it's mathematically impossible to come up with a new content for every expansion? Maybe a better question for you is if you think it's impossible for them to come up with new bosses each expansion?

VmanGman

@Azherae where did you get the idea that it would be harder to continue adding attack to further slots or that slots even exist as you described them in the crafting system? I’ve just never seen this described by Intrepid so I’m curious.

Child Item