EQ keeps getting brought up but I haven't known a single soul that as played it in 20 year bumbling around mmo's career, could be strictly an NA thing I don't know.
I just feel it's against universal friendliness to bring it up, I bang on about UO a bit but I don't go into it too deeply + I'll bring up it's flaw immediately but atm everytime EQ is brought up it's like this is the perfect example of content?
I'm also trying to drive in the fact that an mmorpg doesn't even need to drive massive amounts of expansive content to maintain interest. I really do feel this is that damn PvE favoured crowd again....honestly, I am sick to death of these dinosaurs denying potential (I'd prefer the p2w Whales at this point!).
I feel be making a new thread when I can be arsed, tired of people being split and I'm going to attempt to make some people be on the same wave length because some of you are cursed by your past experiences...
Eh, it's the same as me always using L2 in my examples or wow andies using wow. It's just what's near and dear to Noaani's heart because they've played 10 years of it. And EQ did in fact inspire a ton of stuff in the industry, so it obviously did some things right.
And just as I try to show the best features of L2 here, Noaani tries to show EQ's best feature too. And that many big expansions that kept the game alive for this long is in fact a huge accomplishment and imo completely justifies its mention.
But yes, afaik EQ(2) were an NA thing, cause before getting into the bigger internet in the 2010s, I haven't even heard of it. And even after hearing about it, it was very rare to see a person that played it. Kinda same with L2, though L2 is rarely mentioned due to its low size, while EQ is just an older game, with EQ2 getting low recognition because it came out around WoW (same as L2) and we all know which game is more popular.
Just throwing out there that you shouldn't use 'rebalances' as reasons why MOBAs and similar games stay alive. That's two parts combined to achieve that effect, neither of which actually has basically anything to do with the normal player's PvP experience.
1. Renewed interest because people need time to try to understand it and see if it has somehow made their skill level more viable (nearly never actually does this, but some get to imagine it does, long enough to train more or realize they were just on a bad streak)
2. Shakeups in the meta mean that you can swap to something you consider more powerful easily (at the beginning of every match) and keep playing even if you are incorrect in that assessment, especially if you happen to win against one of those people who is doing the same thing but with a less suitable character.
Fighting Gamers know this situation all too well, people flock to new games because they haven't learned their 'tier' in those games yet. Often the reaction is just 'I was below average at all those OTHER games before but maybe THIS time, there's a CHANCE!' (of course discounting the fact that their fundamental skills are lacking and if they do win it's by ignoring this fact as much as possible through some initially-hard-to-counter mechanic).
Apply the above to a game where opponents who play better actually gain concrete mechanical advantages over you over time, and they both fizzle out pretty fast.
Competitive games work in this model of longevity because they don't have persistent gear in them.
But yes, afaik EQ(2) were an NA thing, cause before getting into the bigger internet in the 2010s, I haven't even heard of it.
I'm not really sure what to tell you here - both games had/have EU servers, including specific English language EU servers. I spent about 18 months raiding with a UK guild on an EU server in EQ2.
I guess it's a case of seeing what you see. The first time I heard of L2 was when we had people join our guild that were ex-L2 players. I didn't know it existed because I wasn't looking at or for a new game.
If you played L2 at the time, you wouldn't see a whole lot of EQ or EQ2 players around - because they would have still been playing EQ and EQ2.
No MMO has been able to satisfy my PvP needs since BNS (Blade & Soul).
Combat in BnS was extremly bad though.
It was all about who could click as many buttons as possible while dodging and strafing.
Only a very small % of players could play that well, and it made ALOT of players quit.
But yes, afaik EQ(2) were an NA thing, cause before getting into the bigger internet in the 2010s, I haven't even heard of it.
I'm not really sure what to tell you here - both games had/have EU servers, including specific English language EU servers. I spent about 18 months raiding with a UK guild on an EU server in EQ2.
I guess it's a case of seeing what you see. The first time I heard of L2 was when we had people join our guild that were ex-L2 players. I didn't know it existed because I wasn't looking at or for a new game.
If you played L2 at the time, you wouldn't see a whole lot of EQ or EQ2 players around - because they would have still been playing EQ and EQ2.
Yea EQ and UO were much much bigger in EU than L2 and even bigger with DaoC.
Problem why players dont meet them is becouse people from EQ/UO/DaoC etc generally avoided the "WoW kids" XD
WoW players generally started playing in their teens with other teens that had not played any other mmorpg either
Competitive games work in this model of longevity because they don't have persistent gear in them.
I'd say that depends on the gear-to-class balance. The RPS of the class system can be cycled through by adding counters in the form of abilities and new gear stats.
The first example that comes to mind was a new upgrade to old gear in one of the L2's updates. Before that updates there was a fairly big problem with Berserk class and its OP stuns. So in the update NCsoft added a new upgrade to an older set of gear that gave 50% stun resist. The class itself didn't really go down in power. They could still overpower hard mobs and could still proc quite a few stuns in a crowd (cause it was an aoe dash stun ability), but the overall impact of that class became less, because a ton of people upgraded their old sets.
Now that's obviously a fairly direct nerf to a failed piece of balance (that being the OP stun ability), but I'm just saying that updates in mmos can still influence the pvp matchups w/o impacting the whole game too much.
Just throwing out there that you shouldn't use 'rebalances' as reasons why MOBAs and similar games stay alive. That's two parts combined to achieve that effect, neither of which actually has basically anything to do with the normal player's PvP experience.
1. Renewed interest because people need time to try to understand it and see if it has somehow made their skill level more viable (nearly never actually does this, but some get to imagine it does, long enough to train more or realize they were just on a bad streak)
2. Shakeups in the meta mean that you can swap to something you consider more powerful easily (at the beginning of every match) and keep playing even if you are incorrect in that assessment, especially if you happen to win against one of those people who is doing the same thing but with a less suitable character.
Fighting Gamers know this situation all too well, people flock to new games because they haven't learned their 'tier' in those games yet. Often the reaction is just 'I was below average at all those OTHER games before but maybe THIS time, there's a CHANCE!' (of course discounting the fact that their fundamental skills are lacking and if they do win it's by ignoring this fact as much as possible through some initially-hard-to-counter mechanic).
Apply the above to a game where opponents who play better actually gain concrete mechanical advantages over you over time, and they both fizzle out pretty fast.
Competitive games work in this model of longevity because they don't have persistent gear in them.
I'm sure I've said this before, but while it is rare that you and I share the same view point, when we do I am often impressed at how succinctly you are able to express it.
Now, I am of the opinion that this doesn't mean an immediate death knell for a game like Ashes. To me, the best chance this game has of long term, massive success (which I would count as a sustained 1,000,000+ subscriber count for 5 or more years) is to provide those players that are losing (and will continue to lose) a good enough game experience regardless of that loss.
This is the foundation of basically every argument I make on these forums.
I'm not really sure what to tell you here - both games had/have EU servers, including specific English language EU servers. I spent about 18 months raiding with a UK guild on an EU server in EQ2.
I guess it's a case of seeing what you see. The first time I heard of L2 was when we had people join our guild that were ex-L2 players. I didn't know it existed because I wasn't looking at or for a new game.
If you played L2 at the time, you wouldn't see a whole lot of EQ or EQ2 players around - because they would have still been playing EQ and EQ2.
I mean, I'm not saying that EQ didn't exist outside of NA, I'm saying that the popularity lvls weren't the same everywhere. I'm from ukraine and have played with the bigger part of all CIS countries in L2 for 12 years and just talked to a ton of people from those countries about mmos. Not one of them ever mentioned even trying EQ. But every single one knew L2.
As is evident from Ashes forums/reddit/discord - only a select few have played L2, and that's considering that L2 is one of the inspirations for the game and has been namedropped by Steven himself in multiple interviews/streams. So in theory any english-speaking L2 enjoyer would at least try to follow the game. And the fact that out of hundreds of different vocal people in this community barely a dozen have played L2 shows that its western influence was very low.
So what I'm saying is that both L2 and EQ(2) had their audiences in several places, but had way bigger in some places while way smaller ones in others.
I mean, I'm not saying that EQ didn't exist outside of NA, I'm saying that the popularity lvls weren't the same everywhere. I'm from ukraine and have played with the bigger part of all CIS countries in L2 for 12 years and just talked to a ton of people from those countries about mmos.
That explains it a bit better then.
SoE never really focused at all on CIS countries. There was a minor effort with a Russian version of EQ2, but they did a poor, rushed job of translation, had little in the way of support, and didn't offer physical copies of the game as far as I know (the game was a multi-day download for me for a few years).
The game had a solid French, Spanish and Italian community, along with English speakers from the EU, for the entire time I played it, but I can't say I ever came across any other European language speakers.
Competitive games work in this model of longevity because they don't have persistent gear in them.
I'd say that depends on the gear-to-class balance. The RPS of the class system can be cycled through by adding counters in the form of abilities and new gear stats.
The first example that comes to mind was a new upgrade to old gear in one of the L2's updates. Before that updates there was a fairly big problem with Berserk class and its OP stuns. So in the update NCsoft added a new upgrade to an older set of gear that gave 50% stun resist. The class itself didn't really go down in power. They could still overpower hard mobs and could still proc quite a few stuns in a crowd (cause it was an aoe dash stun ability), but the overall impact of that class became less, because a ton of people upgraded their old sets.
Now that's obviously a fairly direct nerf to a failed piece of balance (that being the OP stun ability), but I'm just saying that updates in mmos can still influence the pvp matchups w/o impacting the whole game too much.
Well then let's actually circle back from both directions because this is pretty useful to talk about.
In an Action-y game with Ashes' goals, when a class or the meta gear that class wears is nerfed, no matter how justifiably, the overall landscape of the game changes. In those cases the question is not 'will the dedicated players who pay enough attention to realize the implications of this, appreciate the change'. It is 'will the players who were losing interest or stopped playing, see this as meaningful, return, and stay'.
A change in game landscape affects those who are active and playing. It increases the engagement for externals and 'peripherals' only through things like streams and that one thing that MOBAs and FightGames do differently.
And from the other direction then, you mentioned BDO earlier so I'll reference that.
When BDO makes big balance changes, one of the first things they do is make it much easier for every single player in the game to 'reroll' to a new class at least once. This decently mimics the MOBA and FightGame function. "You think your character is better now? Great!" "You think a different character is strong now and that we messed up balance and you know how to win? Great!"
Both those types play more, and the game flatly gives them the ability to do this by letting them transfer skills, weapons, and the fact that all classes in the game can wear the same armor (there's only like 10 individual Glove slot options in the entire game, of which a whopping 3 are viable). To them, this is a beneficial structure.
Take a Tab based game now where gear and build trumps your twitch skills and even pattern recognition abilities. Basically just make gear determine more. But your main Archetype is set, and BiS for Cleric and BiS for Ranger are totally different gear pieces. The group sitting on the giant pile of gear due to winning more often before, can adapt faster, and so they win again, and they can do this without any meaningful change to their actual ability to play.
Ashes will probably never let this happen. The most we'll get is the change of perception of 'what's the best Secondary Archetype', 'what's the best in slot for this archetype', or 'what's the best team comp'.
None of those things reset the situation because your opponents were winning due to 'Dominance Skill' not 'Instance Skill'. Most people can do that analysis. If you 'need to fight in PvP against strong enemies to learn and improve', but those enemies are too strong for you to see if you're improving (or in some cases, even get a chance to improve), most people can see this as a losing situation and stop. MOBAs solve this by 'matchmaking' and 'resetting'. MMOs provide neither.
In an Action-y game with Ashes' goals, when a class or the meta gear that class wears is nerfed, no matter how justifiably, the overall landscape of the game changes. In those cases the question is not 'will the dedicated players who pay enough attention to realize the implications of this, appreciate the change'. It is 'will the players who were losing interest or stopped playing, see this as meaningful, return, and stay'.
A change in game landscape affects those who are active and playing. It increases the engagement for externals and 'peripherals' only through things like streams and that one thing that MOBAs and FightGames do differently.
Improvise. Adapt. Overcome. On top of sending the usual update emails to all the players, have some big in-game tournament event at all gear tiers where players can try out newest gear/augments on their old characters just in that event. Advertise it through streamers. Hell organize the event itself with the help streamers. Make the well-known in the community streamers into shoutcasters of the event, pay them some standard amount, but not give them in-game stuff. Participating in the event could reward with some soft catchup mechanic, while winning it could give a cool title or a cosmetic.
Make the new expansion an event that would show all the people who left that there's something cool to come back to and give them a taste of the new stuff during said event.
When BDO makes big balance changes, one of the first things they do is make it much easier for every single player in the game to 'reroll' to a new class at least once. This decently mimics the MOBA and FightGame function. "You think your character is better now? Great!" "You think a different character is strong now and that we messed up balance and you know how to win? Great!"
Both those types play more, and the game flatly gives them the ability to do this by letting them transfer skills, weapons, and the fact that all classes in the game can wear the same armor (there's only like 10 individual Glove slot options in the entire game, of which a whopping 3 are viable). To them, this is a beneficial structure.
Imo that's a shoddy design. I'd prefer a "something new for all" approach rather than "you can switch to smth else if you wanna". Now obviously that's a much more difficult thing to design properly, but imo it'd feel much better to return to your main character and see all the new stuff that you can do with it rather than coming back just to switch to something else completely.
By the looks of it Steven has a similar idea, with archetype being never-changing and all, but we'll have to see what he'll come up with for returnee players.
Take a Tab based game now where gear and build trumps your twitch skills and even pattern recognition abilities. Basically just make gear determine more. But your main Archetype is set, and BiS for Cleric and BiS for Ranger are totally different gear pieces. The group sitting on the giant pile of gear due to winning more often before, can adapt faster, and so they win again, and they can do this without any meaningful change to their actual ability to play.
Ashes will probably never let this happen. The most we'll get is the change of perception of 'what's the best Secondary Archetype', 'what's the best in slot for this archetype', or 'what's the best team comp'.
None of those things reset the situation because your opponents were winning due to 'Dominance Skill' not 'Instance Skill'. Most people can do that analysis. If you 'need to fight in PvP against strong enemies to learn and improve', but those enemies are too strong for you to see if you're improving (or in some cases, even get a chance to improve), most people can see this as a losing situation and stop. MOBAs solve this by 'matchmaking' and 'resetting'. MMOs provide neither.
But if making a new BiS takes longer than getting an old one, the weaker players will have some time to catch up. The returnees would know what they want (that is if we have the event I mentioned), so they'd have a rough plan of action and be preoccupied with it for some time. The top people would be fighting each other in lvl6 node sieges because you'd most likely have to change some nodes around to unlock the new content.
And to support those who lose the sieges and all the returnees who might no longer be citizens, you could have some update-related bonuses for new citizens, which would let them catch up to the stronger bois even more. And it could even promote migration of more casual players who were still playing the game.
In other words, you'd raise up the power floor w/o immediately raising the ceiling. Yes, it wouldn't be a complete reset, but it would at least rebalance the power on the server.
I need you on my team for some other stuff if you seriously think like this. No sarc. I could use that energy.
BDO does all those things you mentioned. Same result. I don't think I'm going to try to convince you that 'just because it never seems to work, it can't work'.
Something new for all. New class entirely. Easy trick. "Here's a new class, maybe THIS one is the one for you!"
Everyone complains that it is OP because they don't know how to beat it... then they learn... then we're back where we started.
Getting new BiS technically 'can't' take 'longer' than getting an old one, we're talking about like 'balance changes mean that Ranger/Tank is now awesome' and the previously superstrong Fighter/Bard is not'.
Unless Ranger/Tank was terrible before, that means that there are a bunch of Ranger/Tank already. The better ones amongst those now dominate. Who did this affect? All it does is 'dethrone' one group. If it doesn't do more than that, then it wasn't a shakeup.
So if we assume that there is a proper shakeup to 'keep things fresh', you've made 'the people who got effectively buffed' feel better, and some of the ones who used to play might return, but for the other 80% or so who left because "Fighter/Bards stomp my friend group which doesn't have a Fighter/Bard", they gained nothing that makes them go 'oh yeah let's come back and try again!'. Because they already left, and if they were gone for long, they know that 'the other group' that is their 'rival' or whatever who 'always won because they had a Fighter/Bard' is now stronger than them in other ways.
But like I said, not really trying to convince. My entire 'thing' in Fighting Games is to try to fix this, to try to convince people 'give it a try, you CAN actually learn in a way other than having this frustrating experience'. I expect our Ashes content to be similar.
Just noting that you're different. When you're in the thick of it, trying to teach and convince people to stay because 'things aren't that bad, we can still improve', and they're having the same flat/generally unsatisfying experience every time... idk. I can't just write off people who want to give up in that situation as 'not being serious enough'. It's a game.
One thing I will remind though...
It's not that people who are 'not at the top' are leaving. It's that the 'bottom half' are leaving. And the 'bottom quartile' doesn't feel any positive effects in competitive situations in that way no matter what the devs do unless those devs are literally 'rewarding people with strength, for losing'.
I don't know of any MMOs that go so far as to reward the losing group with power.
EDIT: Realized that we might be literally 'losing the thread' in terms of how it connects to the topic.
MOBAs succeed at shakeups because player skill is in responses and planning, Tab-heavy MMOs wouldn't because player 'skill' and power is in their gear and builds around that gear. Do we even measure 'above average' in PvP Tab Target MMOs by player skill? Not 'the best'. Just 'two average people randomly meet on a field and fight'. I expect the more geared player to win that 90% of the time. The difference is that when Action skill stuff and forced errors are involved, the other player might figure out something or learn something beyond 'Oh, I need better gear'.
In other words, you'd raise up the power floor w/o immediately raising the ceiling. Yes, it wouldn't be a complete reset, but it would at least rebalance the power on the server.
Most PvP focused MMO's that I have direct experience with (and even many PvE ones) do this.
Archeage would always make mid tier gear easier to acquire before adding a new tier of gear at the top tier, as an example.
This basically comes down to the difference between distribution of gear based on content difficulty rather than content duration. The notion of players catching up only works in settings where gear is based on content duration.
In games where it is distributed via content difficulty, players generally obtain gear that is available on the hardest content they are able to take on, and then they kind of hit a wall. Giving players more time to take on that content isn't generally going to mean anything, as time is not the limit they have come up against.
To be fair, I don't know of any PvP MMO's that put gear in to the content difficulty group above. Ashes seems like it is attempting to be partially this - which is why I am here - but it does mean catch up mechanics require entire rebalancing of content, or entire new gear acquisition paradigms.
Both of these are actually more work than just adding new content for players - which from my perspective is what this entire thing here is trying to circumvent.
Put perhaps a different way - if your content is distributed via many small actions, it is easy enough to create catch up mechanics. If your gear is distributed via content difficulty, you are best served by just adding new content.
Do you think players are wanting action combat games and so developers are developing action combat games, or do you think developers are developing action combat games because the technology is there now to be able to pull it off, and since that is what developers are developing, players are picking up and trying?
My thoughts are definitely in the second group - due simply to the total absence of an actual long term successful full action combat MMORPG. Developers have nothing to point at in terms of successful games in this genre to say "this is why we need to make an action MMORPG". They have plenty of tab target games to point to in order to demonstrate potential for success - but no action MMO's. The only thing they can do, as far as I can see, is say that there hasn't been a super successful action MMORPG as yet because the ability to be able to actually make one is fairly recent - and so they are making one because they are now able to make one.
I mean, if you look at the three highest sustained population MMO's right now (WoW, ESO and FFXIV, afaik) all of them are essentially tab target. At absolute best, ESO could be considered tab target with an action accent.
If players were really after action combat, don't you think that action combat MMORPG's would be more popular than tab target MMORPG's by now?
Only saw this reply now, so here is my late reply.
Certainly the second option, as action combat gives those game the point of innovation, to be an "advantage" over competitors, but even tho the technology is far more advanced for Action combat nowadays than previosly its still has performace flaws for MMORPGs especially ones with high amounts of players without the use of channels to limite numbers of players on screen. Its even fair to say that even currently AC MMORPGs are still somehow a niche, but a growing one specially with recent titles.
People trying this innovation are increasingly becoming fond of the action combat through the experience in those games.
Do you think players are wanting action combat games and so developers are developing action combat games, or do you think developers are developing action combat games because the technology is there now to be able to pull it off, and since that is what developers are developing, players are picking up and trying?
My thoughts are definitely in the second group - due simply to the total absence of an actual long term successful full action combat MMORPG. Developers have nothing to point at in terms of successful games in this genre to say "this is why we need to make an action MMORPG". They have plenty of tab target games to point to in order to demonstrate potential for success - but no action MMO's. The only thing they can do, as far as I can see, is say that there hasn't been a super successful action MMORPG as yet because the ability to be able to actually make one is fairly recent - and so they are making one because they are now able to make one.
I mean, if you look at the three highest sustained population MMO's right now (WoW, ESO and FFXIV, afaik) all of them are essentially tab target. At absolute best, ESO could be considered tab target with an action accent.
If players were really after action combat, don't you think that action combat MMORPG's would be more popular than tab target MMORPG's by now?
Only saw this reply now, so here is my late reply.
Certainly the second option, as action combat gives those game the point of innovation, to be an "advantage" over competitors, but even tho the technology is far more advanced for Action combat nowadays than previosly its still has performace flaws for MMORPGs especially ones with high amounts of players without the use of channels to limite numbers of players on screen. Its even fair to say that even currently AC MMORPGs are still somehow a niche, but a growing one specially with recent titles.
People trying this innovation are increasingly becoming fond of the action combat through the experience in those games.
Its a positive feedback loop.
I mean, there's no doubt action MMO's will get better - they can't really get worse imo.
The audience may well be growing, but I've not seen any evidence of this in the last 8 years or so, but I also haven't looked for it specifically. From what I can see though, the audience wanting an action combat MMO is currently mostly just a subset of the people wanting a PvP MMO - and that in itself is a niche that can barely maintain a AAA MMORPG as it is.
From what I can see though, the audience wanting an action combat MMO is currently mostly just a subset of the people wanting a PvP MMO
Im not really sure about this subset connection between people who want PvP MMORPGs and people who want Action Combat MMORPGs, to be honest its the first time i see someone making this correlation, so i suppose its just a personal correlation?
From what I can see though, the audience wanting an action combat MMO is currently mostly just a subset of the people wanting a PvP MMO
Im not really sure about this subset connection between people who want PvP MMORPGs and people who want Action Combat MMORPGs, to be honest its the first time i see someone making this correlation, so i suppose its just a personal correlation?
Two things I've yet to see in any meaningful way. A PvE player that understands PvE content in MMO's and wants to see an action combat based PvE MMO - and an MMO with action combat and good PvE.
I have discussed my theory in the past as to why I do not believe such a game can actually even exist - though no one has even tried.
From what I can see though, the audience wanting an action combat MMO is currently mostly just a subset of the people wanting a PvP MMO
Im not really sure about this subset connection between people who want PvP MMORPGs and people who want Action Combat MMORPGs, to be honest its the first time i see someone making this correlation, so i suppose its just a personal correlation?
Two things I've yet to see in any meaningful way. A PvE player that understands PvE content in MMO's and wants to see an action combat based PvE MMO - and an MMO with action combat and good PvE.
I have discussed my theory in the past as to why I do not believe such a game can actually even exist - though no one has even tried.
I see, so it is personal, but still makes sense, if we take in consideration someone who is already involved in the genre would have a bias of good PvE from the best games in this aspect (WoW and FFXIV) which are mostly tab target and no Action Combat MMORPG won the challenge against them in this aspect.
I wonder if that would still apply for someone who had their first experience with MMORPGs in an Action combat one.
I wonder if that would still apply for someone who had their first experience with MMORPGs in an Action combat one.
Perhaps in 10 or 12 years - 5 years after the first acceptably functioning action combat MMO comes out - we may see people that have that bias for an action combat MMO.
I am skeptical of anyone that says they want one now though. They are wanting an idea of what they think an action combat MMO should be.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2022
I think it depends on what you refer to as an Action Combat MMORPG.
Are you talking about someting like NWO are you talking about an MMO Hack & Slash like Lost Ark?
I think it depends on what you refer to as an Action Combat MMORPG.
Are you talking about someting like NWO are you talking about an MMO Hack & Slash like Lost Ark?
i kinda put both of them in the same category as Action Combat MMORPGs
(mmorpgs where the absolute majority of the skills aren't required to have a target to be used)
(even tho i kinda prefer New world's bootleg dark souls combat over Lost arks isometric Moba looking action combat tho).
I need you on my team for some other stuff if you seriously think like this. No sarc. I could use that energy.
BDO does all those things you mentioned. Same result. I don't think I'm going to try to convince you that 'just because it never seems to work, it can't work'.
Something new for all. New class entirely. Easy trick. "Here's a new class, maybe THIS one is the one for you!"
Everyone complains that it is OP because they don't know how to beat it... then they learn... then we're back where we started.
Getting new BiS technically 'can't' take 'longer' than getting an old one, we're talking about like 'balance changes mean that Ranger/Tank is now awesome' and the previously superstrong Fighter/Bard is not'.
Unless Ranger/Tank was terrible before, that means that there are a bunch of Ranger/Tank already. The better ones amongst those now dominate. Who did this affect? All it does is 'dethrone' one group. If it doesn't do more than that, then it wasn't a shakeup.
So if we assume that there is a proper shakeup to 'keep things fresh', you've made 'the people who got effectively buffed' feel better, and some of the ones who used to play might return, but for the other 80% or so who left because "Fighter/Bards stomp my friend group which doesn't have a Fighter/Bard", they gained nothing that makes them go 'oh yeah let's come back and try again!'. Because they already left, and if they were gone for long, they know that 'the other group' that is their 'rival' or whatever who 'always won because they had a Fighter/Bard' is now stronger than them in other ways.
But like I said, not really trying to convince. My entire 'thing' in Fighting Games is to try to fix this, to try to convince people 'give it a try, you CAN actually learn in a way other than having this frustrating experience'. I expect our Ashes content to be similar.
Just noting that you're different. When you're in the thick of it, trying to teach and convince people to stay because 'things aren't that bad, we can still improve', and they're having the same flat/generally unsatisfying experience every time... idk. I can't just write off people who want to give up in that situation as 'not being serious enough'. It's a game.
One thing I will remind though...
It's not that people who are 'not at the top' are leaving. It's that the 'bottom half' are leaving. And the 'bottom quartile' doesn't feel any positive effects in competitive situations in that way no matter what the devs do unless those devs are literally 'rewarding people with strength, for losing'.
I don't know of any MMOs that go so far as to reward the losing group with power.
EDIT: Realized that we might be literally 'losing the thread' in terms of how it connects to the topic.
MOBAs succeed at shakeups because player skill is in responses and planning, Tab-heavy MMOs wouldn't because player 'skill' and power is in their gear and builds around that gear. Do we even measure 'above average' in PvP Tab Target MMOs by player skill? Not 'the best'. Just 'two average people randomly meet on a field and fight'. I expect the more geared player to win that 90% of the time. The difference is that when Action skill stuff and forced errors are involved, the other player might figure out something or learn something beyond 'Oh, I need better gear'.
You're basically singing the tune of how much "the norm" of gear/gear systems suck in most mmo's and how it's basically being relied on too heavily as a source of entertainment even though it's at the price of pvp combat competition...including more competition as the more high gear you get the better quality farm you get, therefore the more money you get.
Popular gaming genre's in gaming, only reward no-life/dedicated/skilled players via smarts, game knowledge and reaction.
MMORPG's, heavily reward these 3 types of player, is that a problem? hell yes it's a problem because it's completely unnecessary. If an mmorpg very fun and more importantly, has competition to keep re-igniting fun/purpose then they won't leave, owning a castle for bragging and control rights (no economy benefit) is great, cosmetically better than most, great, can have a gold/platinum emblem next to their name for this month because they are winners of x or pvp, great.
Why are we rewarding the players that are most likely to stay, the most, it's outrageous.
How do we make gear not so relevant in determining victory in PvE/PvP but still relevant enough for people to be proud of it? that's up for debate.
All I will say is, even though it's an exciting rush to think about gear and set bonuses dramatically improving a character and their trade I still think this a short lived experience, big stats and big enchants just open gateways, in terms of entertainment and putting a smile on someone's face it's simply too short lived!
imo it's definitely an area to improve, especially in regard to it stunting the growth of an mmo and their potential popularity into the competitive space as apposed to being stuck in the declining/too nerdy/outcast populated WoW PvE focused / transmog space.
Rewarding players for losing isn't a good idea
1) Rewarding players for participating? hell ye!
2) Rewarding the most dedicated players less (provided the system is fun to play!)? hell ye!
(bring 1 and 2 relatively close and you have a fair mmo system)
(ps, I missed your opinion on BDO combat and its "low potential" to a mass audience and I just have to you're dead wrong, disgustingly so! It's the true future of combat you're having a pop at! )
I think it depends on what you refer to as an Action Combat MMORPG.
Are you talking about someting like NWO are you talking about an MMO Hack & Slash like Lost Ark?
I don't consider NWO to be action combat. From what I remember of the game (played it briefly when it launched) there is an amount of directional play involved in combat, but most tab target games have that to a degree anyway. Since you need to have a target to use most single target attacks in NWO, I personally think that puts the game squarely in the realm of tab target if we are to assume a dichotomy.
Lost Ark is not a game that I personally consider to be an MMORPG. It is an online ARPG.
To me (and many others - though I'd assume not everyone) the cornerstone content of an MMORPG is it's raid content. This is the part all action combat games miss, and is why my opinion is that action combat is far better suited to PvP than it is to PvE, and tab target is far better suited to PvE than it is to PvP.
I mean, I can name some examples of good action combat PvP games. I can name some examples of good tab target PvE games. I have yet to either see or play a good tab target PvP game, or a good action combat PvE game.
Before there can be what I would consider a solid action combat based MMORPG that is not PvP exclusive, someone needs to work out how to have 20 players all using an action combat system on a single boss without resorting to either cheap and tacky tricks, and with scope for sufficient variation.
As I have explained in several threads here by now, this is the part that I simply do not consider to be possible.
To me (and many others - though I'd assume not everyone) the cornerstone content of an MMORPG is it's raid content. This is the part all action combat games miss, and is why my opinion is that action combat is far better suited to PvP than it is to PvE, and tab target is far better suited to PvE than it is to PvP.
I mean, I can name some examples of good action combat PvP games. I can name some examples of good tab target PvE games. I have yet to either see or play a good tab target PvP game, or a good action combat PvE game.
Well Raid is the only end game creation birthed from the simple systems of 'PvE only'/'instanced' mmos.
It's not so much of a high entertainment level from the Raid itself, it's more so of a small purpose via you performing your role and the biggest reason being collecting and obtaining gear all dressed and sandwiched in lore and story.
When I say simple systems btw, I specifically mean the small amount of systems where players can obtain entertainment or thirst desirably. Raising Gear Score is one, reading and absorbing content is two, collection and achievement system is three (which was then quickly sullied by WoW Tokens/P2W).
Koreans, always focus on player competitive aspects at the forefront, I'd say pretty much as far away as possible to where no one can say that "I can play this alone".
In regards to action combat from B&S and BDO, they didn't go nearly as competitive and player need focused as they usually do, I think they were happy to settle with the project that is action combat existing in an mmo , which is a performance and netcode marvel and then attempt to build mmo systems around it, at which both of them failed pretty miserably. BDO even locked trading and limited marketplace/AH pricing as to put a massive halt on dedicated players making economy and progression look stupid!
But what I wanted to say was, neither of them even put anything into proper grouping and dungeoning so it's completely unjustified to even say "well I can't name one action combat where more normal mmo PvE works", it was never attempted and still isn't attempted.
I think I understand your wavelength to a degree, like why make development more difficult, just go with tab targetting and focus on polishing what we're fighting, the "actual content" but what are most players, mainly outside of these forums crying about the most "I want to see combat!" and I don't blame them because standards, tech and past experiences from multiple genres taken into account, tab target (alone!) is a relic when it comes to the potential of user input, it's limited and it's exhausted and I would need another wall of text to cement that...
Well I can quickly mention one instance, in the "hybrid" system that is Archeage where the most dedicated players of that pool detest and cry about Mages and Archer's a fair amount of their power is all in the auto targeted abilities, it's boring and drowns out other viable options in both PvE and PvP!
Well Raid is the only end game creation birthed from the simple systems of 'PvE only'/'instanced' mmos.
It's not so much of a high entertainment level from the Raid itself, it's more so of a small purpose via you performing your role and the biggest reason being collecting and obtaining gear all dressed and sandwiched in lore and story.
Raiding is about problem solving as a group, followed by execution of a plan.
But what I wanted to say was, neither of them even put anything into proper grouping and dungeoning so it's completely unjustified to even say "well I can't name one action combat where more normal mmo PvE works", it was never attempted and still isn't attempted.
Well yeah, this is my point.
Action combat works in PvP, but not PvE. You can make a good game around it if PvP is what you are doing, but not if you want content in the game that competes with others in the genre.
I mean, it's not as if BDO doesn't have PvE content, and it's not as if the developers aren't trying to make it as good as they can. It is simply a case of the combat system not allowing for content that is comparable to other MMO's that have a combat system that allows for better content.
In other words, you can have an action combat system, OR you can have good PvE content. It is my hypotheses that you can't have both, but that is backed up by no one having managed to create both as yet.
Well I can quickly mention one instance, in the "hybrid" system that is Archeage where the most dedicated players of that pool detest and cry about Mages and Archer's a fair amount of their power is all in the auto targeted abilities, it's boring and drowns out other viable options in both PvE and PvP!
OK, so, the best PvP class for the entire time I played Archeage was the Darkrunner. It was a melee class.
So, I'm not too sure where your comments here are coming from.
The only complaints about spell casters was in relation to mageball as a tactic - and that used non-targeting abilities.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
i kinda put both of them in the same category as Action Combat MMORPGs
(mmorpgs where the absolute majority of the skills aren't required to have a target to be used)
(even tho i kinda prefer New world's bootleg dark souls combat over Lost arks isometric Moba looking action combat tho).
They are not the same, but OK.
New World is not an MMORPG.
I need you on my team for some other stuff if you seriously think like this. No sarc. I could use that energy.
BDO does all those things you mentioned. Same result. I don't think I'm going to try to convince you that 'just because it never seems to work, it can't work'.
Something new for all. New class entirely. Easy trick. "Here's a new class, maybe THIS one is the one for you!"
Everyone complains that it is OP because they don't know how to beat it... then they learn... then we're back where we started.
Getting new BiS technically 'can't' take 'longer' than getting an old one, we're talking about like 'balance changes mean that Ranger/Tank is now awesome' and the previously superstrong Fighter/Bard is not'.
Unless Ranger/Tank was terrible before, that means that there are a bunch of Ranger/Tank already. The better ones amongst those now dominate. Who did this affect? All it does is 'dethrone' one group. If it doesn't do more than that, then it wasn't a shakeup.
So if we assume that there is a proper shakeup to 'keep things fresh', you've made 'the people who got effectively buffed' feel better, and some of the ones who used to play might return, but for the other 80% or so who left because "Fighter/Bards stomp my friend group which doesn't have a Fighter/Bard", they gained nothing that makes them go 'oh yeah let's come back and try again!'. Because they already left, and if they were gone for long, they know that 'the other group' that is their 'rival' or whatever who 'always won because they had a Fighter/Bard' is now stronger than them in other ways.
But like I said, not really trying to convince. My entire 'thing' in Fighting Games is to try to fix this, to try to convince people 'give it a try, you CAN actually learn in a way other than having this frustrating experience'. I expect our Ashes content to be similar.
Just noting that you're different. When you're in the thick of it, trying to teach and convince people to stay because 'things aren't that bad, we can still improve', and they're having the same flat/generally unsatisfying experience every time... idk. I can't just write off people who want to give up in that situation as 'not being serious enough'. It's a game.
One thing I will remind though...
It's not that people who are 'not at the top' are leaving. It's that the 'bottom half' are leaving. And the 'bottom quartile' doesn't feel any positive effects in competitive situations in that way no matter what the devs do unless those devs are literally 'rewarding people with strength, for losing'.
I don't know of any MMOs that go so far as to reward the losing group with power.
EDIT: Realized that we might be literally 'losing the thread' in terms of how it connects to the topic.
MOBAs succeed at shakeups because player skill is in responses and planning, Tab-heavy MMOs wouldn't because player 'skill' and power is in their gear and builds around that gear. Do we even measure 'above average' in PvP Tab Target MMOs by player skill? Not 'the best'. Just 'two average people randomly meet on a field and fight'. I expect the more geared player to win that 90% of the time. The difference is that when Action skill stuff and forced errors are involved, the other player might figure out something or learn something beyond 'Oh, I need better gear'.
You're basically singing the tune of how much "the norm" of gear/gear systems suck in most mmo's and how it's basically being relied on too heavily as a source of entertainment even though it's at the price of pvp combat competition...including more competition as the more high gear you get the better quality farm you get, therefore the more money you get.
Popular gaming genre's in gaming, only reward no-life/dedicated/skilled players via smarts, game knowledge and reaction.
MMORPG's, heavily reward these 3 types of player, is that a problem? hell yes it's a problem because it's completely unnecessary. If an mmorpg very fun and more importantly, has competition to keep re-igniting fun/purpose then they won't leave, owning a castle for bragging and control rights (no economy benefit) is great, cosmetically better than most, great, can have a gold/platinum emblem next to their name for this month because they are winners of x or pvp, great.
Why are we rewarding the players that are most likely to stay, the most, it's outrageous.
How do we make gear not so relevant in determining victory in PvE/PvP but still relevant enough for people to be proud of it? that's up for debate.
All I will say is, even though it's an exciting rush to think about gear and set bonuses dramatically improving a character and their trade I still think this a short lived experience, big stats and big enchants just open gateways, in terms of entertainment and putting a smile on someone's face it's simply too short lived!
imo it's definitely an area to improve, especially in regard to it stunting the growth of an mmo and their potential popularity into the competitive space as apposed to being stuck in the declining/too nerdy/outcast populated WoW PvE focused / transmog space.
Rewarding players for losing isn't a good idea
1) Rewarding players for participating? hell ye!
2) Rewarding the most dedicated players less (provided the system is fun to play!)? hell ye!
(bring 1 and 2 relatively close and you have a fair mmo system)
(ps, I missed your opinion on BDO combat and its "low potential" to a mass audience and I just have to you're dead wrong, disgustingly so! It's the true future of combat you're having a pop at! )
Ok let's start from the top a bit, no sarc, (maybe just snark)?
You MIGHT be making some assumptions about why I say things and I was avoiding 'throwing out backstory' to lessen the drift of the thread but clarifying my position might have that effect in the other way.
1. Popular COMPETITIVE Genres reward those types of players. Competitive genres are the niche thing here. I base this on my involvement with Fighting Games, competitive space sims, and of course, MMORPGs. I am all for increasing people's interest and willingness to participate in those games.
2. Humans perceive rewards relative to what everyone else gets. in competitive games. This is debatable to a point, but I can't even manage to convince most people that both rank-down and rank-up in SFV are 'rewards' because they both put you closer to 'matches with people of your own level of skill'. That should be good, right? Since enjoying those matches is the point.
3. I personally think all MMOs should have combat systems at minimum more like MOBAs. Don't like Isometric? May I suggest Predecessor? I also think that all MMO gear should make a given player meaningfully better at playing the game the way they want to play it and not just 'the way that is better flat out'. I'm waiting for a game that achieves that.
4. I would love BDO combat in PvP if it wasn't plagued with the standard issues of lag/rollback, low TTK, and high technological accessibility requirement. I don't know why one would call BDO in particular the future of combat, given that until you are at least at my level, you don't even get to actually 'participate' in the 'fight' part if you don't win. You use your skill to dance around carefully so that you get the engage to do your combo, or you fail and your opponent touches you with their combo and you explode. Learning BDO PvP is entirely 'being destroyed dozens of times every time you mis-step' until you learn what 'don't mis-step' is, except that your opponents don't have true patterns like Dark Souls/Elden Ring.
5. My role in my design group is balance (hit boxes, hurtboxes, frame data) for both our Fighting Game content and our MMORPG combat designs so whenever you see me talk about anything, it's at the microlevel. I'm not concerned with whether or not any given MMO's idea 'can be good'. I'm concerned with things like 'hm, Kunoichi's grab range on Suicide Fall is slightly too low for the amount of active frames it has and there's two less invincibility frames during the startup than there needs to be for that to be good'.
6. Potential to a mass audience does not correlate to player retention even in single player games. When I think mass audience I think 'people who can be convinced to buy your game'.
There's a story stuck in my mind that I wish I could easily find now. Before the release of its expansion, 50% of players who bought Monster Hunter: World quit at the fourth Monster. Anecdotal and some gathered info from the devs indicate that it was too hard for at least 20-30% of them, as they didn't just 'get bored and stop', they hit a wall. On Anjanath. In a game where you can change weapon freely, and before you COULD have needed considerably better gear to do it. People are extremely varied in their skill at games, but more importantly from this anecdote is... they quit. They quit SINGLE player games with great combat, full freedom, potential to play with friends, and no real penalties for losing, a game with a history so you could know what you were getting into, a game where they managed to clear the first three experiences, because the game went 'ok now try something slightly harder that represents the rest of the gameplay a bit better'. And at least 30% of people noped right out of that until they were handed relatively OP (compared to the target monster) gear and better players were directly incentivized to carry them. And after that they largely quit 5(?) fights later because they hit the wall where even carrying them becomes hard cause they have to at least manage to participate and not die.
So I absolutely don't mind if BDO is the future of combat (assuming MMOs start integrating GGPO or something). I do believe, however, from just data collection on this forum alone, that I, or someone like me, would have to find a way to teach over 50% of the population the absolute basics of competitive Action Combat for them to even start to think 'this is cool, kinda fun' in a competitive situation. Maybe do some Vindictus match analysis.
If the future of MMOs is 'Just Ashes, Ashes is the best so it absorbs all 100 million MMO players in the world with the skill or tenacity to keep doing this and who won't quit because they understand that losing their fights and Node is part of the narrative for them to enjoy', I am 100% on board for that. I wouldn't even be here if I thought they couldn't achieve at least that.
However I play enough BDO and track their development enough to know that the thing keeping BDO alive on the 'casuals' level is DEFINITELY not the combat system. I'll assume you play it enough that I don't need to explain exactly how their manipulations to retain monthly user metrics work. If not, for everyone else... think EVERYTHING that Steven has promised not to do in Ashes and do ALL OF IT.
So, hopefully now with me off the list of 'people who are just here to oppose proper PvP incentives' and no one else in the thread with those views, you can target the things I say that are actually wrong.
@Noaani Dark Runner has not been a top class since auramancy stopped giving the shaken debuff which allowed for trip.
Top geared, little answer classes are archer and especially mage with Arc Lightning being easily one of the most ridicdulous skills in mmo history, to my knowledge anyway!
So if we assume that there is a proper shakeup to 'keep things fresh', you've made 'the people who got effectively buffed' feel better, and some of the ones who used to play might return, but for the other 80% or so who left because "Fighter/Bards stomp my friend group which doesn't have a Fighter/Bard", they gained nothing that makes them go 'oh yeah let's come back and try again!'. Because they already left, and if they were gone for long, they know that 'the other group' that is their 'rival' or whatever who 'always won because they had a Fighter/Bard' is now stronger than them in other ways.
And this is why Intrepid should balance the archetypes to the best of their ability in such a way that having one of each in your party is the literal best composition. The classes might add some variation and/or even a replacement here and there, but one of each should be the goal imo. This way there's no real "wahhh, this class combo beats us every single time, neeerf!!" Obviously people will still complain about the RPS matchups in smaller groups, but if there's a class that dominates over 80% of the other classes, shifting the RPS in the favor of those 80% would, in theory, bring the ones who left due to that domination back.
It's not that people who are 'not at the top' are leaving. It's that the 'bottom half' are leaving. And the 'bottom quartile' doesn't feel any positive effects in competitive situations in that way no matter what the devs do unless those devs are literally 'rewarding people with strength, for losing'.
I don't know of any MMOs that go so far as to reward the losing group with power.
This is where mmos gotta somehow take a page from mobas' book. There's always a loser in any match. There's always someone at the bottom of the rank ladder. But those people still play the game because the process itself is fun and probably because the reset makes them feel that they haven't lost in the grand scheme of things, even if they went lower on the ladder. Their next match is still against people who might lose and if you have enough understanding of the ranking system you know that this match is probably against weaker people so you have a potentially higher chance to win, so you keep playing.
I think we could imitate this through node lvls. If we have some seasonal system that's tied to your actions (mainly pvp ones) within nodes, we could break up its rewards based on which node you're acting in.
If you live in lvl4 node (let's say that's around adventure lvl 25-35) and you participate in caravan pvps and guild wars and other pvp events, you'll get points purely for participation. You'll get a bit more points if you win, but you'll always get some point.
Now let's say you've been on a losing streak and feel like quitting. What this system could do for you to support you is trade you seasonal points in lvl4 node to more points at a lvl3 node. Maybe you get a discount to rebuild your freehold there, or for the citizenship itself. Maybe you get a temporary boost to xp gain, so that you can farm mobs around that node (which might be 15-25).
This way you've rewarded a loser, you still rewarded the winner (because they got what they wanted in the pvp event), you rebalanced the power lvl of 2 nodes (now that lvl3 node has a stronger defender in the case of a siege) and you shifted the marketplace a bit because that higher lvled loser can now farm lower lvled locations better/faster, which brings more money/node points to the lvl3 node.
Now obviously this is just a quick idea that would need a ton of testing/balancing/changing, but I do think that we can minimize player loss in this kind of way.
MOBAs succeed at shakeups because player skill is in responses and planning, Tab-heavy MMOs wouldn't because player 'skill' and power is in their gear and builds around that gear. Do we even measure 'above average' in PvP Tab Target MMOs by player skill? Not 'the best'. Just 'two average people randomly meet on a field and fight'. I expect the more geared player to win that 90% of the time. The difference is that when Action skill stuff and forced errors are involved, the other player might figure out something or learn something beyond 'Oh, I need better gear'.
Imo this is where RPS class matchups come into play. Obviously if it's the same class, then the more geared person should win more times, but with a good RPS system (with the addition of augments on top of it) you might circumvent some of the gear power. And I think that's what Steven means when he says that only 50% of player power will depend on gear. And if the gear balance is in such a way that tier 5 doesn't just obliterated tier 4 - the difference in power would be even less.
I've seen countless battles where undergeared players won against overgeared ones through purely class RPS, and have seen cases where better knowledge of both classes played a roll in winning in spite of RPS. Add to that some soft dmg rng, augments factor and personal mechanical/strategical skill and you have yourself a somewhat fair pvp system.
Now obviously none of this would prevent some people from leaving, just because they can always find a reason to leave the game. But I do believe that, if designed well enough, Intrepid can minimize the player loss in Ashes.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2022
MMOPRGs should not be taking the concept of "losing streaks" from MOBAs.
If what you want to play is an MMOBA - great. Or even an MMOFPS. But, that is not an RPG.
Comments
And just as I try to show the best features of L2 here, Noaani tries to show EQ's best feature too. And that many big expansions that kept the game alive for this long is in fact a huge accomplishment and imo completely justifies its mention.
But yes, afaik EQ(2) were an NA thing, cause before getting into the bigger internet in the 2010s, I haven't even heard of it. And even after hearing about it, it was very rare to see a person that played it. Kinda same with L2, though L2 is rarely mentioned due to its low size, while EQ is just an older game, with EQ2 getting low recognition because it came out around WoW (same as L2) and we all know which game is more popular.
1. Renewed interest because people need time to try to understand it and see if it has somehow made their skill level more viable (nearly never actually does this, but some get to imagine it does, long enough to train more or realize they were just on a bad streak)
2. Shakeups in the meta mean that you can swap to something you consider more powerful easily (at the beginning of every match) and keep playing even if you are incorrect in that assessment, especially if you happen to win against one of those people who is doing the same thing but with a less suitable character.
Fighting Gamers know this situation all too well, people flock to new games because they haven't learned their 'tier' in those games yet. Often the reaction is just 'I was below average at all those OTHER games before but maybe THIS time, there's a CHANCE!' (of course discounting the fact that their fundamental skills are lacking and if they do win it's by ignoring this fact as much as possible through some initially-hard-to-counter mechanic).
Apply the above to a game where opponents who play better actually gain concrete mechanical advantages over you over time, and they both fizzle out pretty fast.
Competitive games work in this model of longevity because they don't have persistent gear in them.
I guess it's a case of seeing what you see. The first time I heard of L2 was when we had people join our guild that were ex-L2 players. I didn't know it existed because I wasn't looking at or for a new game.
If you played L2 at the time, you wouldn't see a whole lot of EQ or EQ2 players around - because they would have still been playing EQ and EQ2.
Combat in BnS was extremly bad though.
It was all about who could click as many buttons as possible while dodging and strafing.
Only a very small % of players could play that well, and it made ALOT of players quit.
Yea EQ and UO were much much bigger in EU than L2 and even bigger with DaoC.
Problem why players dont meet them is becouse people from EQ/UO/DaoC etc generally avoided the "WoW kids" XD
WoW players generally started playing in their teens with other teens that had not played any other mmorpg either
0dbea148-8cb8-4711-ba90-eb0864e93b5f
The first example that comes to mind was a new upgrade to old gear in one of the L2's updates. Before that updates there was a fairly big problem with Berserk class and its OP stuns. So in the update NCsoft added a new upgrade to an older set of gear that gave 50% stun resist. The class itself didn't really go down in power. They could still overpower hard mobs and could still proc quite a few stuns in a crowd (cause it was an aoe dash stun ability), but the overall impact of that class became less, because a ton of people upgraded their old sets.
Now that's obviously a fairly direct nerf to a failed piece of balance (that being the OP stun ability), but I'm just saying that updates in mmos can still influence the pvp matchups w/o impacting the whole game too much.
I'm sure I've said this before, but while it is rare that you and I share the same view point, when we do I am often impressed at how succinctly you are able to express it.
Now, I am of the opinion that this doesn't mean an immediate death knell for a game like Ashes. To me, the best chance this game has of long term, massive success (which I would count as a sustained 1,000,000+ subscriber count for 5 or more years) is to provide those players that are losing (and will continue to lose) a good enough game experience regardless of that loss.
This is the foundation of basically every argument I make on these forums.
As is evident from Ashes forums/reddit/discord - only a select few have played L2, and that's considering that L2 is one of the inspirations for the game and has been namedropped by Steven himself in multiple interviews/streams. So in theory any english-speaking L2 enjoyer would at least try to follow the game. And the fact that out of hundreds of different vocal people in this community barely a dozen have played L2 shows that its western influence was very low.
So what I'm saying is that both L2 and EQ(2) had their audiences in several places, but had way bigger in some places while way smaller ones in others.
0dbea148-8cb8-4711-ba90-eb0864e93b5f
That explains it a bit better then.
SoE never really focused at all on CIS countries. There was a minor effort with a Russian version of EQ2, but they did a poor, rushed job of translation, had little in the way of support, and didn't offer physical copies of the game as far as I know (the game was a multi-day download for me for a few years).
The game had a solid French, Spanish and Italian community, along with English speakers from the EU, for the entire time I played it, but I can't say I ever came across any other European language speakers.
Well then let's actually circle back from both directions because this is pretty useful to talk about.
In an Action-y game with Ashes' goals, when a class or the meta gear that class wears is nerfed, no matter how justifiably, the overall landscape of the game changes. In those cases the question is not 'will the dedicated players who pay enough attention to realize the implications of this, appreciate the change'. It is 'will the players who were losing interest or stopped playing, see this as meaningful, return, and stay'.
A change in game landscape affects those who are active and playing. It increases the engagement for externals and 'peripherals' only through things like streams and that one thing that MOBAs and FightGames do differently.
And from the other direction then, you mentioned BDO earlier so I'll reference that.
When BDO makes big balance changes, one of the first things they do is make it much easier for every single player in the game to 'reroll' to a new class at least once. This decently mimics the MOBA and FightGame function. "You think your character is better now? Great!" "You think a different character is strong now and that we messed up balance and you know how to win? Great!"
Both those types play more, and the game flatly gives them the ability to do this by letting them transfer skills, weapons, and the fact that all classes in the game can wear the same armor (there's only like 10 individual Glove slot options in the entire game, of which a whopping 3 are viable). To them, this is a beneficial structure.
Take a Tab based game now where gear and build trumps your twitch skills and even pattern recognition abilities. Basically just make gear determine more. But your main Archetype is set, and BiS for Cleric and BiS for Ranger are totally different gear pieces. The group sitting on the giant pile of gear due to winning more often before, can adapt faster, and so they win again, and they can do this without any meaningful change to their actual ability to play.
Ashes will probably never let this happen. The most we'll get is the change of perception of 'what's the best Secondary Archetype', 'what's the best in slot for this archetype', or 'what's the best team comp'.
None of those things reset the situation because your opponents were winning due to 'Dominance Skill' not 'Instance Skill'. Most people can do that analysis. If you 'need to fight in PvP against strong enemies to learn and improve', but those enemies are too strong for you to see if you're improving (or in some cases, even get a chance to improve), most people can see this as a losing situation and stop. MOBAs solve this by 'matchmaking' and 'resetting'. MMOs provide neither.
Make the new expansion an event that would show all the people who left that there's something cool to come back to and give them a taste of the new stuff during said event. Imo that's a shoddy design. I'd prefer a "something new for all" approach rather than "you can switch to smth else if you wanna". Now obviously that's a much more difficult thing to design properly, but imo it'd feel much better to return to your main character and see all the new stuff that you can do with it rather than coming back just to switch to something else completely.
By the looks of it Steven has a similar idea, with archetype being never-changing and all, but we'll have to see what he'll come up with for returnee players. But if making a new BiS takes longer than getting an old one, the weaker players will have some time to catch up. The returnees would know what they want (that is if we have the event I mentioned), so they'd have a rough plan of action and be preoccupied with it for some time. The top people would be fighting each other in lvl6 node sieges because you'd most likely have to change some nodes around to unlock the new content.
And to support those who lose the sieges and all the returnees who might no longer be citizens, you could have some update-related bonuses for new citizens, which would let them catch up to the stronger bois even more. And it could even promote migration of more casual players who were still playing the game.
In other words, you'd raise up the power floor w/o immediately raising the ceiling. Yes, it wouldn't be a complete reset, but it would at least rebalance the power on the server.
Something new for all. New class entirely. Easy trick. "Here's a new class, maybe THIS one is the one for you!"
Everyone complains that it is OP because they don't know how to beat it... then they learn... then we're back where we started.
Getting new BiS technically 'can't' take 'longer' than getting an old one, we're talking about like 'balance changes mean that Ranger/Tank is now awesome' and the previously superstrong Fighter/Bard is not'.
Unless Ranger/Tank was terrible before, that means that there are a bunch of Ranger/Tank already. The better ones amongst those now dominate. Who did this affect? All it does is 'dethrone' one group. If it doesn't do more than that, then it wasn't a shakeup.
So if we assume that there is a proper shakeup to 'keep things fresh', you've made 'the people who got effectively buffed' feel better, and some of the ones who used to play might return, but for the other 80% or so who left because "Fighter/Bards stomp my friend group which doesn't have a Fighter/Bard", they gained nothing that makes them go 'oh yeah let's come back and try again!'. Because they already left, and if they were gone for long, they know that 'the other group' that is their 'rival' or whatever who 'always won because they had a Fighter/Bard' is now stronger than them in other ways.
But like I said, not really trying to convince. My entire 'thing' in Fighting Games is to try to fix this, to try to convince people 'give it a try, you CAN actually learn in a way other than having this frustrating experience'. I expect our Ashes content to be similar.
Just noting that you're different. When you're in the thick of it, trying to teach and convince people to stay because 'things aren't that bad, we can still improve', and they're having the same flat/generally unsatisfying experience every time... idk. I can't just write off people who want to give up in that situation as 'not being serious enough'. It's a game.
One thing I will remind though...
It's not that people who are 'not at the top' are leaving. It's that the 'bottom half' are leaving. And the 'bottom quartile' doesn't feel any positive effects in competitive situations in that way no matter what the devs do unless those devs are literally 'rewarding people with strength, for losing'.
I don't know of any MMOs that go so far as to reward the losing group with power.
EDIT: Realized that we might be literally 'losing the thread' in terms of how it connects to the topic.
MOBAs succeed at shakeups because player skill is in responses and planning, Tab-heavy MMOs wouldn't because player 'skill' and power is in their gear and builds around that gear. Do we even measure 'above average' in PvP Tab Target MMOs by player skill? Not 'the best'. Just 'two average people randomly meet on a field and fight'. I expect the more geared player to win that 90% of the time. The difference is that when Action skill stuff and forced errors are involved, the other player might figure out something or learn something beyond 'Oh, I need better gear'.
Archeage would always make mid tier gear easier to acquire before adding a new tier of gear at the top tier, as an example.
This basically comes down to the difference between distribution of gear based on content difficulty rather than content duration. The notion of players catching up only works in settings where gear is based on content duration.
In games where it is distributed via content difficulty, players generally obtain gear that is available on the hardest content they are able to take on, and then they kind of hit a wall. Giving players more time to take on that content isn't generally going to mean anything, as time is not the limit they have come up against.
To be fair, I don't know of any PvP MMO's that put gear in to the content difficulty group above. Ashes seems like it is attempting to be partially this - which is why I am here - but it does mean catch up mechanics require entire rebalancing of content, or entire new gear acquisition paradigms.
Both of these are actually more work than just adding new content for players - which from my perspective is what this entire thing here is trying to circumvent.
Put perhaps a different way - if your content is distributed via many small actions, it is easy enough to create catch up mechanics. If your gear is distributed via content difficulty, you are best served by just adding new content.
Only saw this reply now, so here is my late reply.
Certainly the second option, as action combat gives those game the point of innovation, to be an "advantage" over competitors, but even tho the technology is far more advanced for Action combat nowadays than previosly its still has performace flaws for MMORPGs especially ones with high amounts of players without the use of channels to limite numbers of players on screen. Its even fair to say that even currently AC MMORPGs are still somehow a niche, but a growing one specially with recent titles.
People trying this innovation are increasingly becoming fond of the action combat through the experience in those games.
Its a positive feedback loop.
Aren't we all sinners?
I mean, there's no doubt action MMO's will get better - they can't really get worse imo.
The audience may well be growing, but I've not seen any evidence of this in the last 8 years or so, but I also haven't looked for it specifically. From what I can see though, the audience wanting an action combat MMO is currently mostly just a subset of the people wanting a PvP MMO - and that in itself is a niche that can barely maintain a AAA MMORPG as it is.
Im not really sure about this subset connection between people who want PvP MMORPGs and people who want Action Combat MMORPGs, to be honest its the first time i see someone making this correlation, so i suppose its just a personal correlation?
Aren't we all sinners?
I have discussed my theory in the past as to why I do not believe such a game can actually even exist - though no one has even tried.
I see, so it is personal, but still makes sense, if we take in consideration someone who is already involved in the genre would have a bias of good PvE from the best games in this aspect (WoW and FFXIV) which are mostly tab target and no Action Combat MMORPG won the challenge against them in this aspect.
I wonder if that would still apply for someone who had their first experience with MMORPGs in an Action combat one.
Aren't we all sinners?
I am skeptical of anyone that says they want one now though. They are wanting an idea of what they think an action combat MMO should be.
Are you talking about someting like NWO are you talking about an MMO Hack & Slash like Lost Ark?
i kinda put both of them in the same category as Action Combat MMORPGs
(mmorpgs where the absolute majority of the skills aren't required to have a target to be used)
(even tho i kinda prefer New world's bootleg dark souls combat over Lost arks isometric Moba looking action combat tho).
Aren't we all sinners?
You're basically singing the tune of how much "the norm" of gear/gear systems suck in most mmo's and how it's basically being relied on too heavily as a source of entertainment even though it's at the price of pvp combat competition...including more competition as the more high gear you get the better quality farm you get, therefore the more money you get.
Popular gaming genre's in gaming, only reward no-life/dedicated/skilled players via smarts, game knowledge and reaction.
MMORPG's, heavily reward these 3 types of player, is that a problem? hell yes it's a problem because it's completely unnecessary. If an mmorpg very fun and more importantly, has competition to keep re-igniting fun/purpose then they won't leave, owning a castle for bragging and control rights (no economy benefit) is great, cosmetically better than most, great, can have a gold/platinum emblem next to their name for this month because they are winners of x or pvp, great.
Why are we rewarding the players that are most likely to stay, the most, it's outrageous.
How do we make gear not so relevant in determining victory in PvE/PvP but still relevant enough for people to be proud of it? that's up for debate.
All I will say is, even though it's an exciting rush to think about gear and set bonuses dramatically improving a character and their trade I still think this a short lived experience, big stats and big enchants just open gateways, in terms of entertainment and putting a smile on someone's face it's simply too short lived!
imo it's definitely an area to improve, especially in regard to it stunting the growth of an mmo and their potential popularity into the competitive space as apposed to being stuck in the declining/too nerdy/outcast populated WoW PvE focused / transmog space.
Rewarding players for losing isn't a good idea
1) Rewarding players for participating? hell ye!
2) Rewarding the most dedicated players less (provided the system is fun to play!)? hell ye!
(bring 1 and 2 relatively close and you have a fair mmo system)
(ps, I missed your opinion on BDO combat and its "low potential" to a mass audience and I just have to you're dead wrong, disgustingly so! It's the true future of combat you're having a pop at! )
I don't consider NWO to be action combat. From what I remember of the game (played it briefly when it launched) there is an amount of directional play involved in combat, but most tab target games have that to a degree anyway. Since you need to have a target to use most single target attacks in NWO, I personally think that puts the game squarely in the realm of tab target if we are to assume a dichotomy.
Lost Ark is not a game that I personally consider to be an MMORPG. It is an online ARPG.
To me (and many others - though I'd assume not everyone) the cornerstone content of an MMORPG is it's raid content. This is the part all action combat games miss, and is why my opinion is that action combat is far better suited to PvP than it is to PvE, and tab target is far better suited to PvE than it is to PvP.
I mean, I can name some examples of good action combat PvP games. I can name some examples of good tab target PvE games. I have yet to either see or play a good tab target PvP game, or a good action combat PvE game.
Before there can be what I would consider a solid action combat based MMORPG that is not PvP exclusive, someone needs to work out how to have 20 players all using an action combat system on a single boss without resorting to either cheap and tacky tricks, and with scope for sufficient variation.
As I have explained in several threads here by now, this is the part that I simply do not consider to be possible.
Well Raid is the only end game creation birthed from the simple systems of 'PvE only'/'instanced' mmos.
It's not so much of a high entertainment level from the Raid itself, it's more so of a small purpose via you performing your role and the biggest reason being collecting and obtaining gear all dressed and sandwiched in lore and story.
When I say simple systems btw, I specifically mean the small amount of systems where players can obtain entertainment or thirst desirably. Raising Gear Score is one, reading and absorbing content is two, collection and achievement system is three (which was then quickly sullied by WoW Tokens/P2W).
Koreans, always focus on player competitive aspects at the forefront, I'd say pretty much as far away as possible to where no one can say that "I can play this alone".
In regards to action combat from B&S and BDO, they didn't go nearly as competitive and player need focused as they usually do, I think they were happy to settle with the project that is action combat existing in an mmo , which is a performance and netcode marvel and then attempt to build mmo systems around it, at which both of them failed pretty miserably. BDO even locked trading and limited marketplace/AH pricing as to put a massive halt on dedicated players making economy and progression look stupid!
But what I wanted to say was, neither of them even put anything into proper grouping and dungeoning so it's completely unjustified to even say "well I can't name one action combat where more normal mmo PvE works", it was never attempted and still isn't attempted.
I think I understand your wavelength to a degree, like why make development more difficult, just go with tab targetting and focus on polishing what we're fighting, the "actual content" but what are most players, mainly outside of these forums crying about the most "I want to see combat!" and I don't blame them because standards, tech and past experiences from multiple genres taken into account, tab target (alone!) is a relic when it comes to the potential of user input, it's limited and it's exhausted and I would need another wall of text to cement that...
Well I can quickly mention one instance, in the "hybrid" system that is Archeage where the most dedicated players of that pool detest and cry about Mages and Archer's a fair amount of their power is all in the auto targeted abilities, it's boring and drowns out other viable options in both PvE and PvP!
Well yeah, this is my point.
Action combat works in PvP, but not PvE. You can make a good game around it if PvP is what you are doing, but not if you want content in the game that competes with others in the genre.
I mean, it's not as if BDO doesn't have PvE content, and it's not as if the developers aren't trying to make it as good as they can. It is simply a case of the combat system not allowing for content that is comparable to other MMO's that have a combat system that allows for better content.
In other words, you can have an action combat system, OR you can have good PvE content. It is my hypotheses that you can't have both, but that is backed up by no one having managed to create both as yet. OK, so, the best PvP class for the entire time I played Archeage was the Darkrunner. It was a melee class.
So, I'm not too sure where your comments here are coming from.
The only complaints about spell casters was in relation to mageball as a tactic - and that used non-targeting abilities.
New World is not an MMORPG.
Ok let's start from the top a bit, no sarc, (maybe just snark)?
You MIGHT be making some assumptions about why I say things and I was avoiding 'throwing out backstory' to lessen the drift of the thread but clarifying my position might have that effect in the other way.
1. Popular COMPETITIVE Genres reward those types of players. Competitive genres are the niche thing here. I base this on my involvement with Fighting Games, competitive space sims, and of course, MMORPGs. I am all for increasing people's interest and willingness to participate in those games.
2. Humans perceive rewards relative to what everyone else gets. in competitive games. This is debatable to a point, but I can't even manage to convince most people that both rank-down and rank-up in SFV are 'rewards' because they both put you closer to 'matches with people of your own level of skill'. That should be good, right? Since enjoying those matches is the point.
3. I personally think all MMOs should have combat systems at minimum more like MOBAs. Don't like Isometric? May I suggest Predecessor? I also think that all MMO gear should make a given player meaningfully better at playing the game the way they want to play it and not just 'the way that is better flat out'. I'm waiting for a game that achieves that.
4. I would love BDO combat in PvP if it wasn't plagued with the standard issues of lag/rollback, low TTK, and high technological accessibility requirement. I don't know why one would call BDO in particular the future of combat, given that until you are at least at my level, you don't even get to actually 'participate' in the 'fight' part if you don't win. You use your skill to dance around carefully so that you get the engage to do your combo, or you fail and your opponent touches you with their combo and you explode. Learning BDO PvP is entirely 'being destroyed dozens of times every time you mis-step' until you learn what 'don't mis-step' is, except that your opponents don't have true patterns like Dark Souls/Elden Ring.
5. My role in my design group is balance (hit boxes, hurtboxes, frame data) for both our Fighting Game content and our MMORPG combat designs so whenever you see me talk about anything, it's at the microlevel. I'm not concerned with whether or not any given MMO's idea 'can be good'. I'm concerned with things like 'hm, Kunoichi's grab range on Suicide Fall is slightly too low for the amount of active frames it has and there's two less invincibility frames during the startup than there needs to be for that to be good'.
6. Potential to a mass audience does not correlate to player retention even in single player games. When I think mass audience I think 'people who can be convinced to buy your game'.
So I absolutely don't mind if BDO is the future of combat (assuming MMOs start integrating GGPO or something). I do believe, however, from just data collection on this forum alone, that I, or someone like me, would have to find a way to teach over 50% of the population the absolute basics of competitive Action Combat for them to even start to think 'this is cool, kinda fun' in a competitive situation. Maybe do some Vindictus match analysis.
If the future of MMOs is 'Just Ashes, Ashes is the best so it absorbs all 100 million MMO players in the world with the skill or tenacity to keep doing this and who won't quit because they understand that losing their fights and Node is part of the narrative for them to enjoy', I am 100% on board for that. I wouldn't even be here if I thought they couldn't achieve at least that.
However I play enough BDO and track their development enough to know that the thing keeping BDO alive on the 'casuals' level is DEFINITELY not the combat system. I'll assume you play it enough that I don't need to explain exactly how their manipulations to retain monthly user metrics work. If not, for everyone else... think EVERYTHING that Steven has promised not to do in Ashes and do ALL OF IT.
So, hopefully now with me off the list of 'people who are just here to oppose proper PvP incentives' and no one else in the thread with those views, you can target the things I say that are actually wrong.
Are We Cool Yet?
@Noaani Dark Runner has not been a top class since auramancy stopped giving the shaken debuff which allowed for trip.
Top geared, little answer classes are archer and especially mage with Arc Lightning being easily one of the most ridicdulous skills in mmo history, to my knowledge anyway!
Now I must work xD
I think we could imitate this through node lvls. If we have some seasonal system that's tied to your actions (mainly pvp ones) within nodes, we could break up its rewards based on which node you're acting in.
If you live in lvl4 node (let's say that's around adventure lvl 25-35) and you participate in caravan pvps and guild wars and other pvp events, you'll get points purely for participation. You'll get a bit more points if you win, but you'll always get some point.
Now let's say you've been on a losing streak and feel like quitting. What this system could do for you to support you is trade you seasonal points in lvl4 node to more points at a lvl3 node. Maybe you get a discount to rebuild your freehold there, or for the citizenship itself. Maybe you get a temporary boost to xp gain, so that you can farm mobs around that node (which might be 15-25).
This way you've rewarded a loser, you still rewarded the winner (because they got what they wanted in the pvp event), you rebalanced the power lvl of 2 nodes (now that lvl3 node has a stronger defender in the case of a siege) and you shifted the marketplace a bit because that higher lvled loser can now farm lower lvled locations better/faster, which brings more money/node points to the lvl3 node.
Now obviously this is just a quick idea that would need a ton of testing/balancing/changing, but I do think that we can minimize player loss in this kind of way. Imo this is where RPS class matchups come into play. Obviously if it's the same class, then the more geared person should win more times, but with a good RPS system (with the addition of augments on top of it) you might circumvent some of the gear power. And I think that's what Steven means when he says that only 50% of player power will depend on gear. And if the gear balance is in such a way that tier 5 doesn't just obliterated tier 4 - the difference in power would be even less.
I've seen countless battles where undergeared players won against overgeared ones through purely class RPS, and have seen cases where better knowledge of both classes played a roll in winning in spite of RPS. Add to that some soft dmg rng, augments factor and personal mechanical/strategical skill and you have yourself a somewhat fair pvp system.
Now obviously none of this would prevent some people from leaving, just because they can always find a reason to leave the game. But I do believe that, if designed well enough, Intrepid can minimize the player loss in Ashes.
If what you want to play is an MMOBA - great. Or even an MMOFPS. But, that is not an RPG.