Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Dev Discussion #40 - Enemy Indicators

168101112

Comments

  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited April 2022
    Rednam wrote: »
    I dont like the idea of the different levels of indicators... If you are in a Raid, isnt it obvious that the enemies would be harder?
    Depends on exactly where you are fighting at the moment. Just because the beginning of the raid was at your level doesn't mean the later battles can't be beyond your level.
    And, it would be nice to be able to determine fairly quickly whether you need to switch out the abilities/augments you have or because those mobs are too high in level.

    Typically, enemy indicators are most important when trying to determine which mos to switch to because the mobs you were fighting now progress your xp slowly and you wish to find new mobs to focus on that provide decent xp, but aren't a level beyond your capabilities.
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »

    I think we are getting into preferences here and a point where we agree to disagree. I'd rather we not use a hud/interface element if we don't have to and you want one.

    I think more to the point - you want to have it represented in game, I want it in the UI.

    I see literally no reason at all why it needs to be one or the other.

    If you have a reason as to why it should not be a UI option for those that want it, but that can be disabled leaving the in game indicators for those that don't want it in the UI, I'd like to hear it.

    To me, this is not a case of agree to disagree. This is a case of you telling people how to play the game, and me telling Intrepid to make the game so people can play the way they want (within the scope of this topic).

    We are going in circles.

    If UI provides more info or is a quicker/more convenient way to take in that info, it provides an advantage and becomes the way to play. It makes other methods of play obsolete so no, you aren't allowing people to play the way they want.

    I disagree.

    The game should have options for more information on a games UI than any player would want, and then leave it up to each player to decide what information they value and what they can do without.

    If the eye thing you talk about is suitable at all as a means of telling if a mob is a suitable level, then it is suitable and people can opt to use that instead of displaying that on the UI. On the other hand, if it is not suitable, then the entire idea of having it as the only option is suddenly invalid.

    This is why you can indeed have things both ways. Different people value things differently - some value information over screen real estate, some are the other way around. The game absolutely should give players the freedom to make choices in this regard.

    No, the player doesn't decide information's value, the game does.

    The eye thing is to avoid the situation you were worried about. Knowing the exact level is still advantageous, making it the best way to play.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I think enemy indicators typically have ranges of levels, like a good match is within 3-5 levels, rather than exact level.
    Doesn't necessarily have to be an exact.
  • RintaRinta Member
    edited April 2022
    PVE

    Overall, I tend towards hard-core style.
    Now, to elaborate:

    "Intended Audience"
    In my opinion, "Intended audience" markers are too player-dependent and limiting.
    Not only a better player may be able to take on a stronger opponent, but also, something that's only achievable by a party of 8 at level 10 might be perfectly soloable at level 30, which will make some of these indicators moot.

    In addition, I have full expectation that while a Priest might be able to take on a Zombie of significantly higher "level" (perhaps, only if said Priest has mastered the Undead-related skills) - a Hunter might have more luck with a higher "level" Bear.
    This means that "intended level" indicators would have to be adjusted per class / skill-build.
    And that's not even taking into account the variety of equipment, where say a cheeky Icicle Rapier or a set of Fire-Stone Armour would make fire-type monsters accessible at a significantly lower level than off-the-mill alternatives.

    Unless, of course, Ashes plans to be so limiting that any character of specific level will have exactly same success against a specific monster, regardless of their class or skill build.
    Or so one-dimentional that the "Attack Rating" will be the only defining quality of a weapon.
    Or so streamlined that certain "level" is required to be able to hit a monster, with exponential miss chance of attacks / skills / spells based off such "level" difference. Like we see in some of the modern MMOs.

    If any of the above is the reality of Ashes - then this simply will not be a game I am interested in, and then I won't mind any way in which it decides to indicate the enemies.

    "Old School Style"
    The "level of the enemy" is an acceptable compromise to me, as long as it is not strictly attached to the player character level, and merely indicates the relative strength of this monster compared to other monsters.

    In addition, if there's any plan at all for monsters with same skin to be able to have different stats - then something akin to a level would be useful to distinguish between, say, lvl30 foxes that die from one firebolt and lvl31 foxes than don't.
    Of course, another way would be to make lvl31 foxes slightly larger, or with slightly longer tails, or a little redder (a la Valheim), and it would be much more immersive than looking at a number on the nameplate.

    At the same time, colour indicators comparing the monster to the player seem rather pointless to me, for reasons already stated in "Intended Audience" section.

    "Hardcore"
    This is my preferred option.
    NPC enemy's name displayed on target / mouse hover, perhaps a discreet HP stripe when HP is less than 100% (or not even that, I am not too picky as long as we have a class-specific skill to check HP of an enemy for boss fights and such), and off we go.

    Immersive gameplay, mysterious new world, sense of discovery and achievement. What else is there to say.

    Personally, I find indicators excessively handholding, and prefer exploration and surprise both in my single-player games and in MMORPGs.

    At the same time, I do appreciate visual information provided via creature design.

    Addressing some of the points other people brought up before me:
    https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/333220/#Comment_333220
    There's no fun and no reason why you should go fight an elite mob and die to it because you had no idea what it was, especially if it just looks like a regular enemy and isn't special or extravagant in appearance at all.

    I personally see "fun" differently, because the situation this person describes sounds pretty cool to me.
    A small unassuming chicken suddenly bocks me to death with its fire-breath?
    That's cool !
    Moreso, it will only happen the first time I encounter this new foe, and afterwards I'll be aware of the Chicken Danger and give it proper respect.

    If a game doesn't ever surprise me - what's the fun?

    https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/333232/#Comment_333232
    This isn't DnD where the DM can give you subtle hints that something may be more powerful than it seems

    On contrary, it is very much possible to incorporate such subtle hints into NPC design.

    NPCs that are significantly stronger than the player / group of players could behave more visually threatening:
    They could scowl, show teeth, impatiently pace around (if animals) or swing their weapons (if humanoids), make agressive noises, and of course aggro by themselves from further distance.
    As an opposite, significantly weaker NPCs could cower in fear, make whining / crying / scared noises, run away / hide, etc.

    If an area has weaker and stronger monsters (as I hope it will often be) - stronger monsters could be comparatively bigger, brighter coloured, more spiky, etc. to indicate their comparative status.

    This is of course only relevant for a significant difference in power, and will make little sense otherwise for reasons already mentioned.

    PvP

    Visual assessment
    Ideally I would prefer to be able to assess the threat visually (i.e. relying on the visuals of the character, rather than on the labels and indicators), to achieve immersive PvP environment.

    However due to costumes, some indicators might be needed. After all, how else am I to know that the person I am attacking with my firebolt is wearing the best available fire-resistance armour?

    Even better so, have an option to disable costumes entirely when in PvP mode.

    Imagine how immersive it would be to see someone wearing the fabled Red Dragon armour, and think to yourself "I see, perhaps my fire attacks won't do much against them, let's try ice instead - but wait, they are also wearing the Frost Werewolf cape, better retreat behind my Paladin's shield and let the Ranger deal with this opponent, as they don't pack much protection from arrows". Much more satisfying than spamming fire bolt at everything you see and hoping for the best.

    Nameplates
    Another concern is nameplates. It would be great if some stealth-oriented skills disabled nameplates entirely, unless a counter-skill is engaged, such as tracking for rangers / bounty-hunters, or a finding spell for a mage.


    Notes

    Regadless of the end system, it would be great to be able to disable excessive visuals, because if you are repeatedly interacting with same mobs for their mats or exp - you already know well what they are, and visual clutter is only a distraction.

    https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/333269/#Comment_333269
    This would be a great addition, and it can even be spread between classes: for example, Hunter can appraise wildlife, Priest can appraise the undead, Fighter can appraise the humanoids, etc.

    This comment is also much appreciated, as it expresses many of the points I talk about, and much more concise than I possibly could:
    https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/334020/#Comment_334020
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited April 2022
    Interesting - because that assumes a mob your level always "summons" adds that are the same level.
    We really need to see what the combat is like before we can meaningfully evaluate the necessity of a level indicators.
    (We also need to see what the UI is intended to look like).
  • I would be happy with colour based names that don't relate to the player's level (as I'm hoping that levels and linear xp go out the window - comments in the exp bar thread) but rather they relate to the area. Green weak for the area, white average for the area, red strong for the area, gold/yellow elite for the area (you'd better not have wandered too far from home). This works on the presumption that the further away from start zones you get the tougher monsters get and also allows that if you're particularly strong in a skill or attribute that compliments the area then you can take a punt on those more dangerous mobs and if you're an ice wizard in a lava zone then maybe you'd better jog on before the flaming hamster comes and melts your face off.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    It's not based on the distance from starting zones.
    It would be based on Node stages and ZOI.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited April 2022
    No, the player doesn't decide information's value, the game does.
    Is this a statement you are standing behind?

    I'll be honest, it's a scary thought. What it would mean is that the UI is simply not able to be adjusted in any way at all, as UI adjustments are players deciding what the value of specific information is. It would mean no map pins, and no marking other players or NPC's for your group or raid to see - as these are just ways of showing information that players value that the game isn't showing. It would mean no adjustment of nameplates to suit a players needs, technically it would also mean no ignore feature on chat, as that is a player deciding they don't value what a specific player says.

    Is this REALLY the way you want an MMO to be designed?
    Knowing the exact level is still advantageous, making it the best way to play.
    I'm glad we agree. This leaves me unsure why you are arguing against it.

    I mean, you say it is the best way to play...

    Basic point is - why can we not just give players the option to chose how they want mob level presented? if the answer is "because all players would chose to have mob level and intended audience displayed", then that should answer your question as to which option is best, and should be implemented.

    Any argument from that point on is an argument as to why you wish to hamstring every player in the game.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited April 2022
    Rinta wrote: »
    In my opinion, "Intended audience" markers are too player-dependent and limiting.
    Not only a better player may be able to take on a stronger opponent, but also, something that's only achievable by a party of 8 at level 10 might be perfectly soloable at level 30, which will make some of these indicators moot.
    This is incorrect.

    A mob that is suited for a group at level 10 may well be able to be soloed at level 30. This does not make the indicator that the mob is intended for a group moot - it means that indicator is working in conjunction with the level indicator to tell players that the mob is intended for a group of players at level 10.

    If you are able to take that on at level 30 by yourself, have at it. No one is stopping you no one is saying you should or shouldn't be able to do that, but that doesn't alter the fact that the mob is intended for a group of players at level 10.

    The notion that intended level would need to be adjusted by class is equally false. If you gain an ability that makes you able to fight undead significantly better, then you should be able to take on undead of a level or two higher than what you can take on of other mob types. The mobs indicated level does not need to be altered down to accommodate your strength in this area, the very suggestion that it would is both odd and at odds with literally every MMO ever.
  • RintaRinta Member
    Noaani wrote: »
    If you are able to take that on at level 30 by yourself, have at it. No one is stopping you no one is saying you should or shouldn't be able to do that, but that doesn't alter the fact that the mob is intended for a group of players at level 10.

    What I am hoping for is a game design where specific area / mobs are not "intended" for lvl10s akin to a themepark (with the grand  distinction that some "areas" are for parties), but that monsters are designed to be relevant across levels.

    So that it is indended by design that lvl10 party and lvl30 solo (as an example) could co-exist in the same location, farming same monsters, both obtaining relevant experience, and gathering loot that's relevant not only at their respective levels (again, like themeparks do) but across the whole game.

    This is an old school MMO design I am familiar with, and would love to see come back.

    This clarification is only in relation to the part of my main comment that speaks about party/solo indicators.
    Please refer to the initial comment for complete opinion:
    https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/334870/#Comment_334870
  • RintaRinta Member
    edited April 2022
    Noaani wrote: »
    The mobs indicated level does not need to be altered down to accommodate your strength in this area.
    This is exactly what I discuss in the "Old School Style" part of my original comment. I think we are on the same page here:
    The "level of the enemy" ... not strictly attached to the player character level, and merely indicates the relative strength of this monster compared to other monsters.
     
     
    As a more elaborate example of a kind of situation I am talking about:
     
    Consider a stationary NPC enemy with devastating short-to-medium range attacks (let's call it the Spitting Tree; I'm also 100% basing it off an NPC enemy in an old MMO I played back in the days).

    We have perhaps a couple of classes who are built around long range attacks - that is, Ranger and Mage.
    Each of them will be able to take on such an enemy easily on much earlier levels (as soon as they can do some tangible damage at long range).
    At the same time, other 6 classes will have to be of much higher lvl to withstand it at shorter range / kill it fast enough so that it doesn't have much chance to fight back / make use of long range weapon that doesn't work with their skill tree. However, they will also kill it much faster, or if the trees are clustered - kill few at a time, and therefore the exp / loot gained can still be relevant at that level.
    Unless, of course, someone got their hands on an Extremely Rare Legendary Stick Of Long Range Damage At Any Level, in which case they can also go ham.

    The main "design" of such creatures would be to provide long-range classes with a befitting opponent at low levels, to get the early feel of their class-specific strength (that is, long range). But also to provide anyone of sufficiently high level with a regular "come and hit me" target that gives reward proportionally to the speed of killing.

    We can call it a lvl10 Spitting Tree because it is well suited for lvl10 Mages and Rangers, or we can call it lvl30 Spitting Tree because only at lvl30 the majority of players can kill it efficiently by regular smacking appropriate for their class. We can call it something inbetween, too, to confuse everyone. It's pretty arbitrary and doesn't really cover the "indended audience" in either case.

    At the same time, in a themepark you can well expect the lvl10 monster to be easily killable by an average lvl10 player of any of their homogenous DPS classes, and entirely useless for anyone below lvl8 and above lvl12, and therefore there cannot possibly be any interesting design such as this, or any confusion about what "intended audience level" could mean.

    In this context, I believe that if Ahses is trying to walk away from the themepark design - the "intended audience" based level indicator might not work well.
     
     
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited April 2022
    Rinta wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    If you are able to take that on at level 30 by yourself, have at it. No one is stopping you no one is saying you should or shouldn't be able to do that, but that doesn't alter the fact that the mob is intended for a group of players at level 10.

    What I am hoping for is a game design where specific area / mobs are not "intended" for lvl10s akin to a themepark (with the grand  distinction that some "areas" are for parties), but that monsters are designed to be relevant across levels.

    So that it is indended by design that lvl10 party and lvl30 solo (as an example) could co-exist in the same location, farming same monsters, both obtaining relevant experience, and gathering loot that's relevant not only at their respective levels (again, like themeparks do) but across the whole game.

    This is an old school MMO design I am familiar with, and would love to see come back.

    This clarification is only in relation to the part of my main comment that speaks about party/solo indicators.
    Please refer to the initial comment for complete opinion:
    https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/334870/#Comment_334870
    Mob levels will be based on Node Stage and ZOI.
    And, sure, there will be content designed for an 8-person group of Level 10 characters that a Level 30 character might be able to solo.
    I don't understand what you think the devs mean when they say they are balancing combat for an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype. Intended level of the 8-person group is going to be a factor of that balance.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited April 2022
    Rinta wrote: »
     
     
    As a more elaborate example of a kind of situation I am talking about:
     
    Consider a stationary NPC enemy with devastating short-to-medium range attacks (let's call it the Spitting Tree; I'm also 100% basing it off an NPC enemy in an old MMO I played back in the days).

    We have perhaps a couple of classes who are built around long range attacks - that is, Ranger and Mage.
    Each of them will be able to take on such an enemy easily on much earlier levels (as soon as they can do some tangible damage at long range).
    At the same time, other 6 classes will have to be of much higher lvl to withstand it at shorter range / kill it fast enough so that it doesn't have much chance to fight back / make use of long range weapon that doesn't work with their skill tree. However, they will also kill it much faster, or if the trees are clustered - kill few at a time, and therefore the exp / loot gained can still be relevant at that level.
    Unless, of course, someone got their hands on an Extremely Rare Legendary Stick Of Long Range Damage At Any Level, in which case they can also go ham.

    The main "design" of such creatures would be to provide long-range classes with a befitting opponent at low levels, to get the early feel of their class-specific strength (that is, long range). But also to provide anyone of sufficiently high level with a regular "come and hit me" target that gives reward proportionally to the speed of killing.

    We can call it a lvl10 Spitting Tree because it is well suited for lvl10 Mages and Rangers, or we can call it lvl30 Spitting Tree because only at lvl30 the majority of players can kill it efficiently by regular smacking appropriate for their class. We can call it something inbetween, too, to confuse everyone. It's pretty arbitrary and doesn't really cover the "indended audience" in either case.

    In a themepark you can well expect the lvl10 monster to be easily killable by an average lvl10 player of any of their homogenous DPS classes, and entirely useless for anyone below lvl8 and above lvl12, and therefore there cannot possibly be any interesting design such as this, or any confusion about what "intended audience level" could mean.

    In this context, I believe that if Ashes is trying to walk away from the themepark design - the "intended audience" based level indicator might not work well.

     
     
    Um. The devs are designing a themebox. With the focus being on content designed for multiple players.
    The level of that mob in your example is going to be based on the balance of an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype. And we should expect it to con as evenly matched for an 8-person group of characters the same level as the mob and con as significantly below the level of a solo character 20 levels higher.

    There will also be some solo content designed to be an even match for characters that have the same level as the mob(s).
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Rinta wrote: »
    What I am hoping for is a game design where specific area / mobs are not "intended" for lvl10s akin to a themepark (with the grand  distinction that some "areas" are for parties), but that monsters are designed to be relevant across levels.

    This is a matter of the range in which a mob rewards players that kill it, not a matter pertaining to indicators.

    Even if Intrepid opt to do something along these lines, indicators are still important.

    However, with Ashes being the PvX game that it is, you probably don't want content that is appropriate for level 10 players also being appropriate for level 30 players. That will never turn out well for those level 10 players.
  • I feel the Intended Audience Style is probably best option here. From an RP standpoint Hard Core makes sense but if the game intends to be played for extended periods of time then that system just gets tedious having to test/research every mob you come across all the time. Please also include Nameplates for enemies over their heads when they are in combat with you so you can target them properly.

    At least knowing the mobs level (not necessarily the HP values) and if it's an elite/rare or boss level mob I think wouldn't break the RP people are looking for but also speed up the informed combat decisions you make out in the world and somewhat direct people to the right areas intended for their character and/or gear levels.

    A dynamic bestiary system has been mentioned a few times and think that would be cool but instead of revealing mob level and hp values I think you could build that to give you a breakdown of what type of spells/attacks the mobs perform and what magic school or damage type they might be weak or strong against instead. Also it could be used for enemy lore purposes as well.
  • RintaRinta Member
    edited April 2022
    Noaani wrote: »
    However, with Ashes being the PvX game that it is, you probably don't want content that is appropriate for level 10 players also being appropriate for level 30 players. That will never turn out well for those level 10 players.

    I love that you brought this up. It is a very interesting (and very offtopic o:)) conversation to have:
    How to balance open world semi-sandbox, where we presumably want to have less kennel-based, more free-roaming approach, with the worldwide PvP aspect.

    I did think about that a little, and in my opinion with current approach to the Corruption it might actually work out fine. Here are my thoughts, based on the earlier example that you quoted:
     
    [expand to read]
    • If attacked, a party of several lvl10 might well be able to kill a solo lvl30, resurrect its fallen members, and quickly regain their experience debt (shouldn't be too much vs lvl30).
    • If lvl30 does kill a lvl10 or two uncontested - the lvl30 will gain quite a bit of Corruption, which is not conclusive with lvl30 staying in the area. And in my example we assume that the lvl30 wants to stay and farm.
    • At the same time, if we suppose that lvl30 can easily kill some lvl10s and take their loot - what is to stop lvl30 to come to the "designated lvl10 area" and do the same? They don't even need to stay afterwards. It seems to me that Corruption threat must prevent this behavior well enough, and then by extension it would prevent unnecessary bloodshed when characters of different levels use an area for farm.
    • Even in a situation where a solo lvl10 and a solo lvl30 (or a party of either) farm alongside (with former killing same monsters, but slower, or perhaps exclusively targeting the lower-end monsters of the area and avoiding the stronger ones), lvl30 doesn't want to kill lvl10 on a whim. It is likely that lvl10 doesn't take up much space, going through monsters slowly (or even targeting entirely different monsters), so there's no competition over farming area, or at least not enough to justify gaining Corruption.

    Of course it's all very speculative at the moment, and highly depends on Intrepid's goal behind worldwide PvP / Corruption and related balancing.

    I personally love the idea of more complex zone / enemy designs, such as the ones I described earlier, and hope to see such complexity realised in Ashes.
     
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Why would the Level 30 need to attack the Level 10s?
    The Level 30 can farm in that area and gather up most of the loot without needing to attack the lower level characters. But, those Level 10s would be losing out on loot.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Rinta wrote: »
    At the same time, if we suppose that lvl30 can easily kill some lvl10s and take their loot - what is to stop lvl30 to come to the "designated lvl10 area" and do the same?
    Nothing is stopping them.

    The thing is, you talk about corruption and such, but you seem to be forgetting that the way to get rid of corruption is to gain experience.

    It is absolutely going to be worth it for players to gain some corruption in order to secure a farming location. The intent behind corruption is that farming location are often worth fighting over and gaining corruption.

    It is not going to be worth it for level 30 players to go and kill level 10 players and then just move on - this is literally what corruption is there to prevent.

    Having open world areas in which large level ranges are going after the same area may work in some games that are yet to be designed, but it will break Ashes.

    ---

    The funny thing is that in your post, you talked about how lower level players may go after the lower end mobs in an area - how will they know which mobs are lower end without indicators to tell them as much?
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited April 2022
    Noaani wrote: »
    No, the player doesn't decide information's value, the game does.
    Is this a statement you are standing behind?

    I'll be honest, it's a scary thought. What it would mean is that the UI is simply not able to be adjusted in any way at all, as UI adjustments are players deciding what the value of specific information is. It would mean no map pins, and no marking other players or NPC's for your group or raid to see - as these are just ways of showing information that players value that the game isn't showing. It would mean no adjustment of nameplates to suit a players needs, technically it would also mean no ignore feature on chat, as that is a player deciding they don't value what a specific player says.

    Is this REALLY the way you want an MMO to be designed?
    Knowing the exact level is still advantageous, making it the best way to play.
    I'm glad we agree. This leaves me unsure why you are arguing against it.

    I mean, you say it is the best way to play...

    Basic point is - why can we not just give players the option to chose how they want mob level presented? if the answer is "because all players would chose to have mob level and intended audience displayed", then that should answer your question as to which option is best, and should be implemented.

    Any argument from that point on is an argument as to why you wish to hamstring every player in the game.

    My statement doesn't mean any of those things. I just said the importance of information is decided by the game. What part of that statement is saying something has to be removed?

    To your second point, if ashes added more fast travel and you could teleport to anywhere you wanted to, you would use it for it's convince and advantage. Since fast travel gives you an advantage and if more of it was present, you would use it, should they add more of it to the game?

    Just because people would use something if it's present doesn't mean it adds to the game or should be added to the game. Wall hacks and aim bots make it easier to play FPS games. Doesn't mean they should be added to them as default features.

    I was asked my preference and gave it. You started this argument. As i have pointed out, I think you are exaggerating the difference it would make and if it's part of the game, it isn't hamstringing anyone.
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Yeah but adding information tells of things easily compiled in a wiki is a FAR cry from 'a completely economically changing mechanic' like fast travel.
    🔦🔱⚔️Selling pro pain and pro pain accessories. ⚔️🔱🔦
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    JustVine wrote: »
    Yeah but adding information tells of things easily compiled in a wiki is a FAR cry from 'a completely economically changing mechanic' like fast travel.

    I wasn't comparing them.

    They made the argument that somethings convenience is a reason for it being added. I was using it as an example of something that would be convenient but they probably don't believe should be added.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Noaani wrote: »
    No, the player doesn't decide information's value, the game does.
    Is this a statement you are standing behind?

    I'll be honest, it's a scary thought. What it would mean is that the UI is simply not able to be adjusted in any way at all, as UI adjustments are players deciding what the value of specific information is. It would mean no map pins, and no marking other players or NPC's for your group or raid to see - as these are just ways of showing information that players value that the game isn't showing. It would mean no adjustment of nameplates to suit a players needs, technically it would also mean no ignore feature on chat, as that is a player deciding they don't value what a specific player says.

    Is this REALLY the way you want an MMO to be designed?
    Knowing the exact level is still advantageous, making it the best way to play.
    I'm glad we agree. This leaves me unsure why you are arguing against it.

    I mean, you say it is the best way to play...

    Basic point is - why can we not just give players the option to chose how they want mob level presented? if the answer is "because all players would chose to have mob level and intended audience displayed", then that should answer your question as to which option is best, and should be implemented.

    Any argument from that point on is an argument as to why you wish to hamstring every player in the game.

    My statement doesn't mean any of those things. I just said the importance of information is decided by the game. What part of that statement is saying something has to be removed?

    To your second point, if ashes added more fast travel and you could teleport to anywhere you wanted to, you would use it for it's convince and advantage. Since fast travel gives you an advantage and if more of it was present, you would use it, should they add more of it to the game?

    Just because people would use something if it's present doesn't mean it adds to the game or should be added to the game. Wall hacks and aim bots make it easier to play FPS games. Doesn't mean they should be added to them as default features.

    I was asked my preference and gave it. You started this argument. As i have pointed out, I think you are exaggerating the difference it would make and if it's part of the game, it isn't hamstringing anyone.

    You will note that I specifically said that any argument from that point on is an argument as to why you want to hamstring every player. This isn't me saying there are no longer any arguments, it is me saying that if you wish to keep arguing it, you need to overcome that fact.

    This is something fast travel overcomes. Lets examine;

    Fast travel has pros and cons. The major pro is that it makes it easier to play with your friends. Being able to get around the world faster is in itself not much of anything.

    The major cons are that it allows players to more easily replace other players mid content, and it makes it easier to gather large scale forces in a short time for open world PvP (caravans and such).

    So, the cons here easily out weight the pros.

    This is what has not been demonstrated in relation to obfuscating basic mob information - there is no actual game wide benefit to it like there is to restricting fast travel.
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    No, the player doesn't decide information's value, the game does.
    Is this a statement you are standing behind?

    I'll be honest, it's a scary thought. What it would mean is that the UI is simply not able to be adjusted in any way at all, as UI adjustments are players deciding what the value of specific information is. It would mean no map pins, and no marking other players or NPC's for your group or raid to see - as these are just ways of showing information that players value that the game isn't showing. It would mean no adjustment of nameplates to suit a players needs, technically it would also mean no ignore feature on chat, as that is a player deciding they don't value what a specific player says.

    Is this REALLY the way you want an MMO to be designed?
    Knowing the exact level is still advantageous, making it the best way to play.
    I'm glad we agree. This leaves me unsure why you are arguing against it.

    I mean, you say it is the best way to play...

    Basic point is - why can we not just give players the option to chose how they want mob level presented? if the answer is "because all players would chose to have mob level and intended audience displayed", then that should answer your question as to which option is best, and should be implemented.

    Any argument from that point on is an argument as to why you wish to hamstring every player in the game.

    My statement doesn't mean any of those things. I just said the importance of information is decided by the game. What part of that statement is saying something has to be removed?

    To your second point, if ashes added more fast travel and you could teleport to anywhere you wanted to, you would use it for it's convince and advantage. Since fast travel gives you an advantage and if more of it was present, you would use it, should they add more of it to the game?

    Just because people would use something if it's present doesn't mean it adds to the game or should be added to the game. Wall hacks and aim bots make it easier to play FPS games. Doesn't mean they should be added to them as default features.

    I was asked my preference and gave it. You started this argument. As i have pointed out, I think you are exaggerating the difference it would make and if it's part of the game, it isn't hamstringing anyone.

    You will note that I specifically said that any argument from that point on is an argument as to why you want to hamstring every player. This isn't me saying there are no longer any arguments, it is me saying that if you wish to keep arguing it, you need to overcome that fact.

    This is something fast travel overcomes. Lets examine;

    Fast travel has pros and cons. The major pro is that it makes it easier to play with your friends. Being able to get around the world faster is in itself not much of anything.

    The major cons are that it allows players to more easily replace other players mid content, and it makes it easier to gather large scale forces in a short time for open world PvP (caravans and such).

    So, the cons here easily out weight the pros.

    This is what has not been demonstrated in relation to obfuscating basic mob information - there is no actual game wide benefit to it like there is to restricting fast travel.

    You pros and cons list is subjective.

    Some people may prefer being able to travel quick even if it means being zerged and others may plan on doing the zerging so they like the advantage. You are taking away that choice from them.

    While I also prefer the restriction of fast travel, it is still a design choice that others may not prefer. It is the same thing as a design choice that would not show a mob's level in the interface.

    You have admitted that you are fine with the obfuscating data when it comes to raid content and i'd imagine you think it's fine if some details for mob's abilities and stats is obfuscated.

    As i have said and this thread asked, this is my preference. For me, it increases the focus on the game's visuals which i find beneficial to my experience in the game.

    In this thread that asked for my preference, was i not allowed to give it because it's not the same as yours?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited April 2022

    You pros and cons list is subjective.

    It is subjective in terms of whether people prefer one or the other, sure.

    However, it is objective in terms of the impact it has on the game as a whole. There is no denying that fast travel makes it easier for groups to boot players and replace them mid content, and there is no denying that fast travel makes it easier to gather a large force quickly.

    The point isn't to just do what the bulk of players want - the point is that if you are not doing what the bulk of players want, you need to have a damn good reason.

    As I originallysaid - any argument made for not having indicators needs to be a strong argument as it is going up against hamstringing every player. That doesn't make it an automatic non-option, it means a damn good argument is needed.

    A limit on fast travel has a damn good argument behind it. Sure, some disagree with it, but that isn't the point. The point is that there is a real reason behind it - it will alter the way players play the game, in a way that Intrepid - and most players - think is for the best. That reason is stronger than the reason to have fast travel.

    There is so far no real reason to not have mob indictators. It won't see players alter the way they play the game in any positive manner. This is the argument that is missing.

    The only real reason given for people not wanting indicators is that they want a clean screen. As you know, I am all about giving people all the UI options they could want - including removing indicators.

    If you have the option to remove indicators and don't, 5hen you can't be all that worried about having a clean UI.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited April 2022
    Preference is not necessarily a deal breaker.
    Everyone does not have to have the same preference.
  • The best way to handle it is to have the ability to switch between levels of the 3. that cast the biggest net and then you avoid having to go back and adjust later. It's the most inviting, cause if someone is new to MMO's the minimal variant isn't super inviting. but a veteran may find a full one tell me everything UI to be to much
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Noaani wrote: »

    You pros and cons list is subjective.

    It is subjective in terms of whether people prefer one or the other, sure.

    However, it is objective in terms of the impact it has on the game as a whole. There is no denying that fast travel makes it easier for groups to boot players and replace them mid content, and there is no denying that fast travel makes it easier to gather a large force quickly.

    The point isn't to just do what the bulk of players want - the point is that if you are not doing what the bulk of players want, you need to have a damn good reason.

    As I originallysaid - any argument made for not having indicators needs to be a strong argument as it is going up against hamstringing every player. That doesn't make it an automatic non-option, it means a damn good argument is needed.

    A limit on fast travel has a damn good argument behind it. Sure, some disagree with it, but that isn't the point. The point is that there is a real reason behind it - it will alter the way players play the game, in a way that Intrepid - and most players - think is for the best. That reason is stronger than the reason to have fast travel.

    There is so far no real reason to not have mob indictators. It won't see players alter the way they play the game in any positive manner. This is the argument that is missing.

    The only real reason given for people not wanting indicators is that they want a clean screen. As you know, I am all about giving people all the UI options they could want - including removing indicators.

    If you have the option to remove indicators and don't, 5hen you can't be all that worried about having a clean UI.

    Yes, there is an objective impact but whether that impact is good or bad is subjective. Ashes with more fast travel would be a different game than Ashes without.

    The strength of an argument is subjective and both side needs to argue their points, not just one.

    If you don't think my argument is strong then cool. Doesn't mean i'm not going state what i prefer in a thread that asked for my preference and make my argument for it. In the end, it's on the readers of our argument to come to their own conclusions.

    And no, that is no reason i have been giving, at least not the full reason.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I still don't understand how a prefrence is an argument.
  • HumblePuffinHumblePuffin Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited April 2022
    In an mmo I prefer to have a general idea in the power level of the enemy in relation to myself. Specific levels aren’t necessary but the basic, grey-way below your level, green-a bit below your level, yellow-at/a bit above your level, red-way above your level with indicators if it is an elite/boss mob like a different name plate (the specific colors don’t actually matter).

    I prefer for there not to be solo/group indicators. Players should be able to discern base on colors/nameplates whether or not they stand a chance. If all the mobs in the area are elite and over my level I should be able to realize “I probably can’t do this solo, and this might be the entrance to a dungeon, I should get a group”.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited April 2022
    Yes, there is an objective impact but whether that impact is good or bad is subjective. Ashes with more fast travel would be a different game than Ashes without.

    The point is - the discussion on fast travel HAS that argument, the discussion on indicators does not.

    It isn't that the argument isn't strong, it is that it doesn't exist. There is no objective impact on the game - it is a purely subjective matter.

    Not only is it subjective - it is subjective where the opinion to have no indicators does not hold up at all once questioned (as you no doubt understand right now).
Sign In or Register to comment.