tautau wrote: » This discussion isn't one I much care about, but when @Birthday says: "Yea of course a level 2 shouldn't be able to steamroll a level 50 just because level 2 has 10000000 hours in MMOs..." he should realize that he isn't coming across as someone with decent analytic skills but rather as someone who exaggerates and depends on puffery. Why? 10 million hours in MMO's, which at 16 hours a day 7 days a week is over 1,712 years of play time. Why not just say 'lots and lots of MMO play' instead of using an impossibility as an example?
Noaani wrote: » Birthday wrote: » tautau wrote: » This discussion isn't one I much care about, but when @Birthday says: "Yea of course a level 2 shouldn't be able to steamroll a level 50 just because level 2 has 10000000 hours in MMOs..." he should realize that he isn't coming across as someone with decent analytic skills but rather as someone who exaggerates and depends on puffery. Why? 10 million hours in MMO's, which at 16 hours a day 7 days a week is over 1,712 years of play time. Why not just say 'lots and lots of MMO play' instead of using an impossibility as an example? Troll reply Actually, it was one of the most valid points in this thread. Earlier on, you claimed that opinion in this thread was worthless. This means only objective fact is left to discuss. Then you come out suggesting a person may play this game for 1,712 years - in a thread where you have basically attempted to limit things to objective only discussion. Where does this leave anyone other than just considering you as a joke? Taking it back to the very first reply in this thread - a well thought out reply by all standards. You dismissed it as being a troll reply because it didn't automatically agree with what you were saying. Since it was well thought out, well written and took some actual time, there is no way it was an actual troll (troll posts are inherently short), If there were indeed some inaccuracies, it is your role to point them out and attempt to correct them.
Birthday wrote: » tautau wrote: » This discussion isn't one I much care about, but when @Birthday says: "Yea of course a level 2 shouldn't be able to steamroll a level 50 just because level 2 has 10000000 hours in MMOs..." he should realize that he isn't coming across as someone with decent analytic skills but rather as someone who exaggerates and depends on puffery. Why? 10 million hours in MMO's, which at 16 hours a day 7 days a week is over 1,712 years of play time. Why not just say 'lots and lots of MMO play' instead of using an impossibility as an example? Troll reply
Birthday wrote: » tautau wrote: » This discussion isn't one I much care about, but when @Birthday says: "Yea of course a level 2 shouldn't be able to steamroll a level 50 just because level 2 has 10000000 hours in MMOs..." he should realize that he isn't coming across as someone with decent analytic skills but rather as someone who exaggerates and depends on puffery. Why? 10 million hours in MMO's, which at 16 hours a day 7 days a week is over 1,712 years of play time. Why not just say 'lots and lots of MMO play' instead of using an impossibility as an example? Noaani wrote: » Birthday wrote: » tautau wrote: » This discussion isn't one I much care about, but when @Birthday says: "Yea of course a level 2 shouldn't be able to steamroll a level 50 just because level 2 has 10000000 hours in MMOs..." he should realize that he isn't coming across as someone with decent analytic skills but rather as someone who exaggerates and depends on puffery. Why? 10 million hours in MMO's, which at 16 hours a day 7 days a week is over 1,712 years of play time. Why not just say 'lots and lots of MMO play' instead of using an impossibility as an example? Troll reply Actually, it was one of the most valid points in this thread. Earlier on, you claimed that opinion in this thread was worthless. This means only objective fact is left to discuss. Then you come out suggesting a person may play this game for 1,712 years - in a thread where you have basically attempted to limit things to objective only discussion. Where does this leave anyone other than just considering you as a joke? Taking it back to the very first reply in this thread - a well thought out reply by all standards. You dismissed it as being a troll reply because it didn't automatically agree with what you were saying. Since it was well thought out, well written and took some actual time, there is no way it was an actual troll (troll posts are inherently short), If there were indeed some inaccuracies, it is your role to point them out and attempt to correct them. This made me laugh a lot. This proves Noaani is a forum troll. In the case where I used an "impossibility" as an example it doesn't matter if I use an impossibility or a possibility because I am saying that level should stay as a type of threshold which is insurmountable by ANY amount of skill when there is a great disparity between two players' levels. So this proves Noaani to be a forum troll or proves he doesn't know english enough to participate effectively in forum discussions or proves he doesn't have good enough analytical skills to extract simple meaning from text which is something that kids learn in elementary school. In any case thanks for the bump on my thread Noaani
Noaani wrote: » Birthday wrote: » tautau wrote: » This discussion isn't one I much care about, but when @Birthday says: "Yea of course a level 2 shouldn't be able to steamroll a level 50 just because level 2 has 10000000 hours in MMOs..." he should realize that he isn't coming across as someone with decent analytic skills but rather as someone who exaggerates and depends on puffery. Why? 10 million hours in MMO's, which at 16 hours a day 7 days a week is over 1,712 years of play time. Why not just say 'lots and lots of MMO play' instead of using an impossibility as an example? Noaani wrote: » Birthday wrote: » tautau wrote: » This discussion isn't one I much care about, but when @Birthday says: "Yea of course a level 2 shouldn't be able to steamroll a level 50 just because level 2 has 10000000 hours in MMOs..." he should realize that he isn't coming across as someone with decent analytic skills but rather as someone who exaggerates and depends on puffery. Why? 10 million hours in MMO's, which at 16 hours a day 7 days a week is over 1,712 years of play time. Why not just say 'lots and lots of MMO play' instead of using an impossibility as an example? Troll reply Actually, it was one of the most valid points in this thread. Earlier on, you claimed that opinion in this thread was worthless. This means only objective fact is left to discuss. Then you come out suggesting a person may play this game for 1,712 years - in a thread where you have basically attempted to limit things to objective only discussion. Where does this leave anyone other than just considering you as a joke? Taking it back to the very first reply in this thread - a well thought out reply by all standards. You dismissed it as being a troll reply because it didn't automatically agree with what you were saying. Since it was well thought out, well written and took some actual time, there is no way it was an actual troll (troll posts are inherently short), If there were indeed some inaccuracies, it is your role to point them out and attempt to correct them. This made me laugh a lot. This proves Noaani is a forum troll. In the case where I used an "impossibility" as an example it doesn't matter if I use an impossibility or a possibility because I am saying that level should stay as a type of threshold which is insurmountable by ANY amount of skill when there is a great disparity between two players' levels. So this proves Noaani to be a forum troll or proves he doesn't know english enough to participate effectively in forum discussions or proves he doesn't have good enough analytical skills to extract simple meaning from text which is something that kids learn in elementary school. In any case thanks for the bump on my thread Noaani Bumping a thread with posts like that is fine, because you have left literally no space for discussion of the topic you created the thread for. If you want to have a discussion on a topic, that means you need to be willing to discuss it with people that disagree with you. Calling the first reply to your thread - a post that was well thought out - a troll post simply tells the rest of us that the only discussion you want to have is people coming in here and giving you internet high fives because they agree with you. I mean, you've still not even said what inaccuracies there were in Sylvanar's post - so where is the scope for discussion? Feel free to call me a troll, I don't care, many would agree with you, and I have been called worse. However, if you want a discussion, you need to create a discussion and engage with those that disagree with you - people that disagree with you usually also want discussion on the topic, you see. On the other hand, if you do not want discussion, why are you even here?
Birthday wrote: » Another troll reply from Noaani. Nice try to try to discredit this thread, troll. But you only discredited yourself. Thanks for the bump anyway.
Noaani wrote: » Birthday wrote: » Another troll reply from Noaani. Nice try to try to discredit this thread, troll. But you only discredited yourself. Thanks for the bump anyway. I don't need to discredit this thread - it discredits itself. If you are going to reply to a post with specific answers, you quote the post. The reason I didn't see the post in question was because I was looking for a post from you that addressed Sylvanar, not one that quoted Caww. I mean, if I were looking for your reply to Sylvanar, why would I even read a post between you and Caww? Why would Sylvanar read it either? Honest question; are you new to forums as a general concept?
Birthday wrote: » If Sylvanar cares about the discussion enough he'll revisit the thread even without being directly quoted.
Birthday wrote: » In the case where I used an "impossibility" as an example
Sylvanar wrote: » Suddenly a new player can practice that playstyle for couple of hours and be almost on par with the experienced dude
Birthday wrote: » a player can't get skilled enough to beat you just after practicing a couple of hours.
Birthday wrote: » Ah Sylvanar and Noaani are a troll team combo.
Birthday wrote: » On top of all Noaani in his last few replies has started to shift the discussion from the main thread's topic towards the topic of trolling and arguing that one should always quote in a forum.
Birthday wrote: » I am talking about the combat system. I haven't experienced alpha 1 and I can't tell just from videos how much of the combat is skill based and how much is gear-based. By gear-based I mean: How much does the game allow you to win a duel purely according to the gear difference between you and your target. On the high-end of gear-based combat systems, they allow you to win your duel purely by auto-attacking your opponent - World of Warcraft and other of the same type MMOs. On the low-end of gear based combat systems, gear mostly determines your playstyle options but if the gear difference is too big then your chances are pretty low but still aren't null - Remnants from the Ashes, Counter-Strike Global Offensive. Middle ground games I would say might are: League of Legends etc.
Birthday wrote: » So what would you like Ashes to be? Low-end gear based? Let gear give us certain abilities, certain perks, certain options, access to certain playstyles with their according advantages and disadvantages but let most of the outcome be determined by how the player utilizes it and the level of his raw skill. Middle ground? Let gear determine 50% of every outcome but allow for skill difference or situation good outplays to tip the balance. High-end gear based? Let gear determine most of the outcome.
Birthday wrote: » I personally think that aiming for a High-end gear-based model would be a mistake. This turns the game into a kind of a speedrun collectable contest (Who puts the most hours to grind out his gear or gets lucky for it to drop by chance fast). Blizzard tried balancing this out exclusively for the PvP content by the stat "Resilience" and creating arena-specific gear. Players then started combining the arena gear with certain PvE items (trinkets, rings, etc) which give interesting and useful utility abilities or buffs on proc or on activation or just give a very big increase on a particular stat in which case the player trades defense(resilience) in favor of better damage or healing. This helped but it still didn't make PvP feel really skilled based, interesting and visually appealing. That's why a pro scene never really took off in WoW like it did in LoL and CSGO despite WoW having a similar size player base. Some may remember that iconic moment in WoW's pro scene when at the finals the victory of one pro player was taken away by a very unlucky miss on a very important damage ability. Missing in WoW is chance based for those who don't know and in PvP its generally low percent chance. The miss being on a very important damage ability is what makes it even more unlucky because it might as well have procced on a auto attack and the victory would have been his. It could have not missed at all as well. The point is his victory was taken away purely by chance and there was nothing he could have done to avoid this or do better. This event killed a lot of the pro scene in WoW from what I remember because people felt that the game didn't offer truly skill-based PvP. Rather they felt it was too influenced by luck. Ashes of Creation is trying to take the MMO genre towards the player-driven content direction and it's making PvP and incentives to PvP the basis of this direction of player-driven content. This is great and that's why I think Ashes should steer towards either a low-end or middle ground gear-based system and focus on making PvP outcomes feel for the most part in player's control and make gear important only in the sense of it affecting playstyle and giving access to abilities and utilities etc. rather than making gear mainly just a boring threshold which you need to spend countless hours to grind out in order to get access to dungeons or be on par to fight someone. I fully support the sentiment that it should matter how much game time you've spent in the game on your gear. A middle ground or low-end system still allows for hours spent in game to matter. It's going to matter (A) because the game will be more based around player-skill progression, so if your hours are spent on improving your skill, trying different playstyles, trying different tactics etc then your playtime will matter (B) because low end gear systems actually allows gear to keep enough of it's relevance but it puts the emphasis on how the player decides to utilize it rather than it just being just flat stats. It makes gear more meaningful. For example in Ashes from the Remnants after defeating a boss it would drop a boss specific weapon/trinket/crafting material. This weapon/trinket/crafting material(after crafted) would give you access to one of the boss' abilities or something identical to the boss. This allowed players to combine different armors and different boss weapons and trinkets to create their own very unique playstyles around their own very unique builds. Middle ground gear systems compromise between the two extremes. It allows gear to be both a flat stat and something that can influence playstyle and give abilities. Its done by making gear very one-stat orientated. By buying a certain item you are basically buying it either for it's very high stat increase on only one specific stat or for it's passive or active effect. This allows for players to modify their playstyle and champion abilities and that's what makes it meaningful. It's changing the playstyle or champion abilities. It's not just flat overall stats increase like in High-end gear-based combat systems acting like a threshold a player must reach to be able to complete certain content. No! The gear, even when acting as just a stat increase, gives enough control to the player for him to be able to do something creative and skillful with it. Also imagine these two scenarios: |High-end gear-based system| Player running at you from a distance in the battlefield. You recognize his gear. You are familiar about it's stats and which dungeon its from. You do a quick comparison with your own gear and realize you don't stand a chance. You run. |Low-end/mid-ground gear-based system| Player running at you from a distance in the battlefield. You recognize his gear. You are familiar about it's active and passive effects. This gives you time to think about what this player's possible playstyle is and what you could expect in terms of race + class + gear combination and what you could do to counter him. This is so much more vitalizing and intriguing. Even if I recognize that he has like some very rare gear pieces I still probably wouldn't run from this player because I will be too interested in seeing what playstyle he has constructed for himself with his choice of gear combination. Maybe its good but he is still new to handling it and I'll beat him? Maybe my gear is inferior but it's abilities combined with my skill + race + class versus his race + class + skill counters him or is viable enough for a interesting fight.
Birthday wrote: » Gear should give creative choice, rather than it just being threshold for content, because this gives the game more depth and because it gives a more meaningful feeling of the gear itself.
JamesSunderland wrote: » I also believe aiming for a very high gear disparity system is a bad idea, as it almost completely neglects the skill aspect in a combat between foes even with a reasonably small gear disparity. Directly experimented this in Archeage.
meedx wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » I also believe aiming for a very high gear disparity system is a bad idea, as it almost completely neglects the skill aspect in a combat between foes even with a reasonably small gear disparity. Directly experimented this in Archeage. The main problem in archeage wasn't gear disparity, it was secondary stats. Having the ability to not only utilize a crit damage/armor pen stat on top of the combo system, but how far you could stack those stats went far into the ridiculous end of the scale. An arc lightning with an already 100%+ damage modifier from it's combo with lightning debuff, with a multiplicative 50-100% on top from crit damage secondary stat, 16% from songcraft bloody chanty, and a staff proc to ignore the users magic def. Same applies to a precision strike with bleed combo, crit damage/def pen, old battle focus giving 30% crit damage BASE free for just using the ability, shortspear proc. etc It's the whole reason aa turned into a game of one shots and building anything defensive unless you were FULL tank was absolutely pointless because it made no impact, and even a fully geared tank could still be one shot if they got songcraft debuffed. Imagine on the old patch 2.0 or 2.5, a divine geared player vs an epic geared player, without the ramped up secondary stats would be a pretty even fight, the damage from the epic player wouldn't be so much that the fight was unwinnable but they would still be at an advantage, and so they should be. The combo system and gear system in themselves were enough to create a gear/skill disparity between players, and secondary stats should of been hard capped at the lower percentages, maybe 25%, so you could refine your build to different damage types/play styles without the game ending up how it has, ever progressing damage ramp up rendering the combo system ultimately a side thought in general play, you'd have more than enough damage without properly "combo'ing". WOTLK's ttk is a good example of a decent balance, ttk was low and all classes could burst but healing was also high, you couldnt stack enough resilience to be unkillable and proper cd utilization and positioning were factors in winning. Instead of more current expansions where there is no kill potential outside of cd's and if the enemy trade's defensive cd's properly for your offensive, the game becomes a stalemate and very scripted in high level play. AA 2.0/2.5 and mid-WOTLK would be my suggestions for a great starting point of gear disparity/ttk, especially considering we're going to have archeage-style mounts with skill's, if any of them have defensive abilities those are essentially used to avoid damage or reset a fight, same as they were in AA. If TTK is too high people will be un killable if they utilize mechanics properly, alongside pots, kiting, cc etc.
JamesSunderland wrote: » But Secondary stats are directly correlated to the gear disparity, As higher tier gear provided more of the secondary stats and Gear Grade provided more lunagem slots which provide even more secondary stats. Even on older patchs Lunagens were still a thing, Divine to epic wasn't a huge leap because gear would be of similar close tier and Gear score wasn't so far apart. AA became a true one shot fiesta with the inclusion of hiram gear especially on fresh starts servers, as people would rush their weapons and neglect their armour to a certain extent, AA Alreary has a very low base TTK, combined with this on how powerful gear in AA is One-Shot fiesta was fated to happen. AA Skills have insanely high Stats multipliers Arc lightning for example 1200 + 661% of Magic Attack + a 30% damage multiplier if the character is under burning. The higher the Stats multipliers of a skill is, the more powerful gear disparity becomes.
meedx wrote: » Not really sure how to reply because it seems like you're agreeing with what I said but also trying to prove me wrong? I guess we agree on what was said, was just putting my 2c in anyway.
