Protecting Our Casuals: Gear

One big concern I have for AoC is that gear will end up providing too much power. AoC is already a game that will greatly reward those who play a lot which is why I believe that it is imperative for gear to only account for at most 20-30% of a character's power.

People will enjoy grinding out their gear even if each piece gives small increments of power increase. These small increments of power increase will allow the bulk of the population to not feel like they are so out geared that they cannot even come close to competing. This is very important because when those casual players will die over and over to a hardcore player that severely outgears them without any chance of fighting back, they will be very likely to just quit. Hardcore players will have other advantages (gold, skill, etc.) anyway because they play a lot more and there is no reason to further widen the gap between casual and hardcore players.

Please understand that I am not against rewarding those who invest more time into the game. I am just suggesting that their reward should not create such a great disparity between them and casual players. I truly believe that this can greatly help the health of the game and its population.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

SongRune

I was asked to respond to your most likely response, because I am Azherae's groups "defensive bolt-action sniper", and she felt it would make more sense for you to engage with me for one last chance at this not ending up useless.

Snipers have a particular role in group combat, that changes the shape of the game and makes it more tactical in terms of how situations can viably occur. We used to play Paladins, in the past, and I played as Strix. As our team's sniper, my job was to take control of certain paths through the map by finding a spot with the right lines of sight and making it difficult for enemies to hold or use these positions or routes of travel. From my perch on high, I have the ability to change the shape of the environment for my team, and limit or define the enemy's available tactics. My role in this position is slow, cautious, tactical. I decide what I am going to focus on, and wait for and defeat threats that follow those paths. My adaptation to the match is based on the shifting tactics and positions of the teams as a whole, and the rest is largely about who is in my space. This is different for a front-liner. Their reactions are based on speed, mobility, and immediate-term tactical reactions. They have to focus on positioning in terms of seconds, and the positions of other teammates and enemy players. To them the game is quick and reactive, and the tactics involved are a combination of overall team strategy, and micro-scale "can I aim properly on reaction at this moving target that just appeared?" "will I defeat this threat before they can take me down or do I need to retreat, and to what position? where will they go and what allies will be under threat if I do?". For such people, the game is linear, because there are less good tactics. There's much more twitchy speed. Just being surprised by randomness can be a real answer.

This is what they experience in PvE, too. This is the part of PvE that they think about. Their experiences are very different from ours. Neither better or worse, but the games have a very different shape from their position. From where I'm sitting, and with the styles I play, if I hadn't put specific effort into understanding how their experiences work, I could very easily have gotten the impression that those things simply weren't what the game was about. It would look like things were about tactics, planning, and a type of awareness and decision-making that, while they experience it, is only one part of a larger whole.

Even when we experience these situations ourselves, when someone finally makes it through your team and gets to your perch, the situation has already changed. Because I am the one in charge of the lines, if I've chosen a good position, the opponent must be unpredictable to get through. My presence and position force my opponent to adapt, and sometimes those adaptations must be crazy. For a front-liner, that's not what's happening. Front-liners are just trying to do their most effective offensive tactic better than the other person, and without failing, because that is the most effective way to do it. If someone manages to get up to me, past my sight and space control, and through my team, I'm not expecting to take down the assassin or fighter threatening me with my pistol unless I've been playing the game for a while, and both knew what to expect, and had developed the skills to confront it by being able to be calm and respond appropriately. Random deaths before I've developed this skill and experience don't even register as memorable, because they aren't, and I know that this will come down to tactics and knowledge of possible opponent adaptations (which I will of course have lots of time to think about).

Ludullu

SongRune wrote: »

and she felt it would make more sense for you to engage with me

Wait, Azherae is a she? Not like that changes anything, but that's good to know for future reference, cause I'm pretty sure I've been referencing her as a he

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

There's a lot to unravel there from your bias toward PvP, I'm not even against PvE but I'm very much against PvE being the highlight attraction that is the focus of most if not at content updates in a supposedly massive multiplayer title.

I've been telling you this for a while now, but you mistakenly use massively multiplayer and PvP synonymously.

PvE content is about cooperation, and as such has as much - if not more - of a place in an MMO.

You're allowed to not like PvE as much as PvP, and that's fine. However, this stance here is just objectively wrong.

Mag7spy

PvP and PvE are equally both the same for being a mmo it all depends how they are designed at the end of the day. If someone says PvE or PvP can be more both are skewed based on their own bias.

If one feels more like a mmorpg for PvP or PvE it has to be looked at as a per game bias. Older mmos would feel less mmorpg compared to new ones because of the types of content and world events, but it all depends again what happens exactly on a per mmorpg bias.

Okeydoke

PvP content is also about cooperation, and as such has as much - if not more - of a place in an MMO.

Welp that'll do it for me for the day. I'll be here all week.

This forum is turning into a lul fest. Starting to just come here to harvest luls lol

Mag7spy

Okeydoke wrote: »

PvP content is also about cooperation, and as such has as much - if not more - of a place in an MMO.

Welp that'll do it for me for the day. I'll be here all week.

This forum is turning into a lul fest. Starting to just come here to harvest luls lol

Honestly I'm a hardcore pvpers but it comes down to people not understand both sides be it the pvp side or pve side and having assumptions.

The thing is I've been playing mmos longer then most people here as well as different mmorpgs. I've done plenty of PvE as well lmao.

Noaani

Okeydoke wrote: »

PvP content is also about cooperation, and as such has as much - if not more - of a place in an MMO.

Welp that'll do it for me for the day. I'll be here all week.

This forum is turning into a lul fest. Starting to just come here to harvest luls lol

But PvE content is also about competition.

In fact, the game that had the most competition that I have played is still EQ2 - a game with no PvP.

This is why there were literally no guides at all to top end content, and indeed most top end content still has no guides.

The notion that you need to be able to kill another player character in order to compete with them is just false.

Okeydoke

Mag7spy wrote: »

but it comes down to people not understand both sides be it the pvp side or pve side and having assumptions.

Yeah definitely a lot of that going on, on both sides. There is a good bit of common ground that can be found. Some of the differences between the two camps are irreconcilable though unfortunately.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

PvP and PvE are equally both the same for being a mmo it all depends how they are designed at the end of the day.

This is an point I agree with you on, especially in regards to design.

A game in the L2 family of games will always see PvP content as more important. That is just how the games are designed. Players that have mostly played (or originally played) games from this family would naturally have this opinion.

Games from the EQ family of games will have PvE as the more important. That is just how the games are designed. Players that have mostly played (or originally played) games from this family would naturally have this opinion.

Players that are able to step out of their own perspective and experiences will see that both are right in their own way, and thus neither is more or less important, it is just how each game is developed.

Since Ashes seems to me to be trying to bridge the gap between those two families of games, it would stand to reason that PvE and PvP are equally as important as each other.

Okeydoke

Noaani wrote: »

The notion that you need to be able to kill another player character in order to compete with them is just false.

Yeah I know. Pvers compete for world firsts, speed runs, efficiency, whatever else, I'm sure you can list more. I agree, those are all valid things to compete over. Who can do pve best basically, that's 100% a competition and it doesn't require killing each other.

I dunno, there's just simple, undeniable facts that people on both sides refuse to acknowledge for the other side, unless it benefits their viewpoint. People do it to you, you do it to them. I'm 1000% sure I've done it before, I try not to though. Just luls at this point reading this forum. Seems worse since the weather update.

Mag7spy

Okeydoke wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

but it comes down to people not understand both sides be it the pvp side or pve side and having assumptions.

Yeah definitely a lot of that going on, on both sides. There is a good bit of common ground that can be found. Some of the differences between the two camps are irreconcilable though unfortunately.

I don't even really see myself in the PvP camp, does nto mean im in the Pve camp of course lol. I am simply in the Ashes of creation camp and PvX camp. Simply want them to make Ashes as the inteded design has been talked about. I don't want it to turn into a PvE game or a PvP game with no pve content. I just want people to want the game for what is it being designed to be and give it a chance. PvX will feel as a true mmorpg and they have good design ideas Steven always is talking about and why so many people have backed it.

Dygz

Mag7spy wrote: »

Honestly I'm a hardcore pvper

Mag7spy wrote: »

I don't even really see myself in the PvP camp

What???

Mag7spy

Dygz wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Honestly I'm a hardcore pvper

Mag7spy wrote: »

I don't even really see myself in the PvP camp

What???

That is why you don't understand me lol. Me being against pve servers is because i want ashes as ashes. PvX

Dygz

I understand being a PvPer who wants Ashes to be PvX.
It is true for the vast majority of PvPer Ashes fans that they are against PvE servers because they want Ashes to stick to the core dev goal of being PvX.

So, what I don't understand is what you consider the PvP camp to be.

Mag7spy

Being in the pvp camp is pushing for more hardcore PvP servers, more pvp options, less pvp penalties. Though they are more points you won't see until more of the system in game are finished and being tested. So thoughts and voices on it won't be as bad as there is pvp in PvX so people don't have anything to complain about really atm. In contrast to PvErs wanting pure pve servers since they don't like the idea of PvX, where Pvpers do like PvX and won't say much until later on more than likely.

Me having played shadowbane being hardcore pvp, and even age of conan on a PvP server. I'd want PvX where it is fair because that is the best way for game to grow and be successful. This needs to be the last mmorpg i play i don't trust any other games in the future. Maybe a sci-fi mmorpg would be cool though.

NishUK

Noaani wrote: »

I've been telling you this for a while now, but you mistakenly use massively multiplayer and PvP synonymously.

PvE content is about cooperation, and as such has as much - if not more - of a place in an MMO.

You're allowed to not like PvE as much as PvP, and that's fine. However, this stance here is just objectively wrong.

The problem is the scope.

I played Ultima Online strictly PvE and different crafting, gear sets and tailoring your 720 skill points towards PvE was very enjoyable and deep experience, then if you go to the PvP shard to get better scrolls from bosses with this setup you have to be careful and give full respect to PvP build opposing players invading, which usually involves getting out with your life.
A scenerio like this needed co-operation, ie PvE strong players teaming up with however many PvP builds to have a decent chance of doing the champion spawn 100%. UO's "class system" was literally extreme, be all out in PvE skill build, be somewhat of a 50/50 freak or go full out in PvP skill build and I'm not sure if we'll see something like this again due to the faults of:

>> "Why am I strong as hell vs a dragon or a humanoid monster and weak vs a fellow human? I don't understand themematically nor do I enjoy it...I would like to compete on most if not all levels!"
>> Generally creating an "us vs them" scenerio, these kind of game designs is what leads to "toxicity" of which all companies need to take note of.

I don't know if you truly want Ashe's to be a PvX game but for the most part you bang on about EQ2 like it's the poster child for exceptional PvE co-op content which appears to me like you are either scared of the general attitude of the general forums being more PvP orientated and want to be the "PvE is great!" towncryer OR you genuinely want Ashe's to be the PvE and PvP dream.

The PvE + PvP at an exceptional level imo a fools stance, unless ofc you're forcing the world into an instanced affair, you're not wanting to gel the audiences, you're happy with them doing their own thing.

Whatever your stance is, I don't think I'll ever agree with it, I think with the amount of posts you've done it's correct to assume you only think of mmorpg's as a co-op PvE/Raid experience with the world and its systems always 2nd.
For a PvX game, Intrepid giving in to all your suggestions is going to cripple them into the exact same competitive road and appeal as FF14/WoW and while focusing on open world aspects this development is going to take so many more years, and at what risk is that huge development cycle going to have.
Riot's MMO might come out before Ashe's...if it wasn't for FF14 riding on WoW's failings, Square Enix would of perhaps crippled themselves under the weight of bad selling and appeal FF's after 10 and ofc 15 which was cooking for roughly 10 years (and ofc they had to push the FF7 remake button to save themselves!)...
I want this genre evolved, screw your huge focus PvE narrative.

BlackBrony

Tulima wrote: »

So this thread still lives huh

I think everyone agrees that the more time you put in the stronger you should be and thus more likely to win encounters.

This is wrong, Efficiency matters. 10 hours from you are not the same as 10 hours from Noaani, who maximizes even logging with a bot so doesn't lose time logging in.

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

The PvE + PvP at an exceptional level imo a fools stance, unless ofc you're forcing the world into an instanced affair, you're not wanting to gel the audiences, you're happy with them doing their own thing.

The options are either make a game that is one, make a game where both are exceptional, or make ESO2.

It is clear from everything that Intrepid have shown us that they are going for exceptional.

As such, when I talk about content in this game, I talk about it in relation to how I believe it should be based on the notion that both PvE and PvP will be exceptional. I also expect the economy to be exceptional as well (for reference, I consider Archages economy to be "good", not great, let alone exceptional)

I would personally rather they aim for that and miss, than aim to be ESO2 and succeed.

Based on the above idea, there is literally no reason at all why a game can't have exceptions PvE (including some instanced encounters), yet still have a fantastic PvP system.

Sure, that PvP system won't be a thing in those instances, but assuming there are not too many of them - and that those that exist have mechanics to prevent them from being used as an escape from PvP, then there really shouldn't be an issue from literally any reasonable person.

Assuming the idea is exceptional PvE, PvP and economy, and assuming the absolute basic notion of preventing instances from being an escape from PvP are in place, literally the only argument people could possibly have about instanced content in a game like Ashes is that there will be a small number of encounters where they can't troll raids.

That really is it.

Noaani

BlackBrony wrote: »

Tulima wrote: »

So this thread still lives huh

I think everyone agrees that the more time you put in the stronger you should be and thus more likely to win encounters.

This is wrong, Efficiency matters. 10 hours from you are not the same as 10 hours from Noaani, who maximizes even logging with a bot so doesn't lose time logging in.

I actually did have a macro for a few years that started up the game, two combat trackers, opened up a browser with two specific pages, and opened up the guild voice chat.

Efficiency really is king.

Ferryman

According to the wiki, there will be about 80% open world dungeons/raids and 20% instanced versions. Instanced dungeons are mainly related to the story somehow. I honestly thought there would be a little bit more instanced dungeons or raids available but I am personally fine with that plan, if it is still up to date.

Child Item