Leveling the playing field in instanced PvP

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Guild Wars 2 has equalized gear in PvP. A brand new player can hop right into PvP after character creation and be on an even playing field gear-wise as a player that's been playing since release 10 years ago. Equalized gear coupled with good matchmaking means GW2 PvP is very easy to get into, as there's not an insane time barrier to entry for gear and the game will put you against similarly rated players.

I actually played a ton of GW2. And that is a perfect example of an MMO that entirely separates PVP and PVE. which is exactly what AoC isnt. You could argue WvW is PvX, but anyone who has played it knows the PVE in WVW was just using NPCs as punching bags until another zerg showed up. And a time barrier is a reality when you have PvX progression. You are going to spend far more time to be able to participate in late game content that is both PVE and PVP. Just enabling players to jump right into playing like an endgame beast isnt a great design for an MMORPG that relies on progression. That entire argument is "I dont want to play the rest of the game, let me just play this part."

PvP and PvE are not entirely separate, but the gear cap is reasonably easy to achieve so it's realistic to level and gear several characters in a single day if you wanted. Otherwise I completely agree. I don't want to play other gamemodes if I'm not interested in them, nor would I want others to feel forced to play gamemodes they're not interested in. Imagine if there was a game where you HAD to PvP in order to acquire gear to complete PvE content. The players that only want to PvE would hate it.

I think the separation between gamemodes can be healthy if done well with proper amounts of overlap IF players want to diversify their experience. It's the same reason why "Ashes of Creation is designed for solo players as well as large and small groups." Catering to both solo, small, and large groups of players is important. Same as catering to arena PvP, PvE, and open world PvP players.

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

The analogy is accurate. If you want gear to matter, then the matchmaking should also take into gear so that if you spend TIME to get a better piece of equipment, you'd only get matched against people who have also spent TIME to get a better piece of equipment. That's a great system if you want to artificially shrink the amount of people you can fight against.

Gear does matter, otherwise why even acquire it? And factoring gear quality into matchmaking is pretty pointless when your outcomes against other players would do the job just fine as far as placing you against others during your initial placement matches. So no need to artificially shrink the player pool.

Again, you do not have an accurate perception of how competitive matchmaking works. I am not going to continuously reiterate the explanations. If you want to improve your understanding, read what I wrote above. Otherwise, I don't see this specific part of the discussion going anywhere.

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Again, there's a reason they don't match a 220 lb guy against a guy that weighs 130. Yeah, sure, the 130 guy could win. But that's not a fair fight no matter the outcome. It's just not how actual competitive systems work.

Its not a weight factor. The 130lbs dude isnt going to suddenly grow 7 inches taller and gain 90lbs to compete against that guy. Have a level 1 ranger with shit gear (the office worker) against the max level ranger with raid gear( the champion fighter of the same weight). You dont match those up against eachother. Once you get max level, youre fair game. You have the ability to acquire the same gear as everyone else at that point, so its up to you to get it, thus increasing your characters ability, to further augment your individual skill. If you dont want to play the entirety of the game to progress in an aspect of it, thats your problem, and likely means that this games design isnt your playstyle. If its the way you like to play, you've provided a few examples of games to continue playing in that manner.

See above. Until you acquire the gear to match, then you should not be placed against people who have the better gear. This is fair, it also shrinks the player pool as a consequence. It's perfectly fine for gear and levels to matter in open world PvP and PvE but equalized arenas should be just that, equalized arenas.

Alright, I will just put this here. I don't think you're going to enjoy this game dude.

"We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But you know it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay."[8] – Steven Sharif

I may or may not, but I won't know until the game releases. Plus, isn't the whole point of the forums and discussions to receive player feedback from multiple different perspectives? It's perfectly fine if I don't like the game or certain aspects of it, Steven and the team can do what they want with Ashes. But, I enjoy discussing certain topics like these with other people. It's interesting to see the different viewpoints.

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Guild Wars 2 has equalized gear in PvP. A brand new player can hop right into PvP after character creation and be on an even playing field gear-wise as a player that's been playing since release 10 years ago. Equalized gear coupled with good matchmaking means GW2 PvP is very easy to get into, as there's not an insane time barrier to entry for gear and the game will put you against similarly rated players.

I actually played a ton of GW2. And that is a perfect example of an MMO that entirely separates PVP and PVE. which is exactly what AoC isnt. You could argue WvW is PvX, but anyone who has played it knows the PVE in WVW was just using NPCs as punching bags until another zerg showed up. And a time barrier is a reality when you have PvX progression. You are going to spend far more time to be able to participate in late game content that is both PVE and PVP. Just enabling players to jump right into playing like an endgame beast isnt a great design for an MMORPG that relies on progression. That entire argument is "I dont want to play the rest of the game, let me just play this part."

PvP and PvE are not entirely separate, but the gear cap is reasonably easy to achieve so it's realistic to level and gear several characters in a single day if you wanted. Otherwise I completely agree. I don't want to play other gamemodes if I'm not interested in them, nor would I want others to feel forced to play gamemodes they're not interested in. Imagine if there was a game where you HAD to PvP in order to acquire gear to complete PvE content. The players that only want to PvE would hate it.

I think the separation between gamemodes can be healthy if done well with proper amounts of overlap IF players want to diversify their experience. It's the same reason why "Ashes of Creation is designed for solo players as well as large and small groups." Catering to both solo, small, and large groups of players is important. Same as catering to arena PvP, PvE, and open world PvP players.

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

The analogy is accurate. If you want gear to matter, then the matchmaking should also take into gear so that if you spend TIME to get a better piece of equipment, you'd only get matched against people who have also spent TIME to get a better piece of equipment. That's a great system if you want to artificially shrink the amount of people you can fight against.

Gear does matter, otherwise why even acquire it? And factoring gear quality into matchmaking is pretty pointless when your outcomes against other players would do the job just fine as far as placing you against others during your initial placement matches. So no need to artificially shrink the player pool.

Again, you do not have an accurate perception of how competitive matchmaking works. I am not going to continuously reiterate the explanations. If you want to improve your understanding, read what I wrote above. Otherwise, I don't see this specific part of the discussion going anywhere.

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Again, there's a reason they don't match a 220 lb guy against a guy that weighs 130. Yeah, sure, the 130 guy could win. But that's not a fair fight no matter the outcome. It's just not how actual competitive systems work.

Its not a weight factor. The 130lbs dude isnt going to suddenly grow 7 inches taller and gain 90lbs to compete against that guy. Have a level 1 ranger with shit gear (the office worker) against the max level ranger with raid gear( the champion fighter of the same weight). You dont match those up against eachother. Once you get max level, youre fair game. You have the ability to acquire the same gear as everyone else at that point, so its up to you to get it, thus increasing your characters ability, to further augment your individual skill. If you dont want to play the entirety of the game to progress in an aspect of it, thats your problem, and likely means that this games design isnt your playstyle. If its the way you like to play, you've provided a few examples of games to continue playing in that manner.

See above. Until you acquire the gear to match, then you should not be placed against people who have the better gear. This is fair, it also shrinks the player pool as a consequence. It's perfectly fine for gear and levels to matter in open world PvP and PvE but equalized arenas should be just that, equalized arenas.

Alright, I will just put this here. I don't think you're going to enjoy this game dude.

"We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But you know it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay."[8] – Steven Sharif

I may or may not, but I won't know until the game releases. Plus, isn't the whole point of the forums and discussions to receive player feedback from multiple different perspectives? It's perfectly fine if I don't like the game or certain aspects of it, Steven and the team can do what they want with Ashes. But, I enjoy discussing certain topics like these with other people. It's interesting to see the different viewpoints.

I never told you to not voice your opinion. I am simply showing you the intended design of this game.

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Guild Wars 2 has equalized gear in PvP. A brand new player can hop right into PvP after character creation and be on an even playing field gear-wise as a player that's been playing since release 10 years ago. Equalized gear coupled with good matchmaking means GW2 PvP is very easy to get into, as there's not an insane time barrier to entry for gear and the game will put you against similarly rated players.

I actually played a ton of GW2. And that is a perfect example of an MMO that entirely separates PVP and PVE. which is exactly what AoC isnt. You could argue WvW is PvX, but anyone who has played it knows the PVE in WVW was just using NPCs as punching bags until another zerg showed up. And a time barrier is a reality when you have PvX progression. You are going to spend far more time to be able to participate in late game content that is both PVE and PVP. Just enabling players to jump right into playing like an endgame beast isnt a great design for an MMORPG that relies on progression. That entire argument is "I dont want to play the rest of the game, let me just play this part."

PvP and PvE are not entirely separate, but the gear cap is reasonably easy to achieve so it's realistic to level and gear several characters in a single day if you wanted. Otherwise I completely agree. I don't want to play other gamemodes if I'm not interested in them, nor would I want others to feel forced to play gamemodes they're not interested in. Imagine if there was a game where you HAD to PvP in order to acquire gear to complete PvE content. The players that only want to PvE would hate it.

I think the separation between gamemodes can be healthy if done well with proper amounts of overlap IF players want to diversify their experience. It's the same reason why "Ashes of Creation is designed for solo players as well as large and small groups." Catering to both solo, small, and large groups of players is important. Same as catering to arena PvP, PvE, and open world PvP players.

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

The analogy is accurate. If you want gear to matter, then the matchmaking should also take into gear so that if you spend TIME to get a better piece of equipment, you'd only get matched against people who have also spent TIME to get a better piece of equipment. That's a great system if you want to artificially shrink the amount of people you can fight against.

Gear does matter, otherwise why even acquire it? And factoring gear quality into matchmaking is pretty pointless when your outcomes against other players would do the job just fine as far as placing you against others during your initial placement matches. So no need to artificially shrink the player pool.

Again, you do not have an accurate perception of how competitive matchmaking works. I am not going to continuously reiterate the explanations. If you want to improve your understanding, read what I wrote above. Otherwise, I don't see this specific part of the discussion going anywhere.

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Again, there's a reason they don't match a 220 lb guy against a guy that weighs 130. Yeah, sure, the 130 guy could win. But that's not a fair fight no matter the outcome. It's just not how actual competitive systems work.

Its not a weight factor. The 130lbs dude isnt going to suddenly grow 7 inches taller and gain 90lbs to compete against that guy. Have a level 1 ranger with shit gear (the office worker) against the max level ranger with raid gear( the champion fighter of the same weight). You dont match those up against eachother. Once you get max level, youre fair game. You have the ability to acquire the same gear as everyone else at that point, so its up to you to get it, thus increasing your characters ability, to further augment your individual skill. If you dont want to play the entirety of the game to progress in an aspect of it, thats your problem, and likely means that this games design isnt your playstyle. If its the way you like to play, you've provided a few examples of games to continue playing in that manner.

See above. Until you acquire the gear to match, then you should not be placed against people who have the better gear. This is fair, it also shrinks the player pool as a consequence. It's perfectly fine for gear and levels to matter in open world PvP and PvE but equalized arenas should be just that, equalized arenas.

Alright, I will just put this here. I don't think you're going to enjoy this game dude.

"We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But you know it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay."[8] – Steven Sharif

I may or may not, but I won't know until the game releases. Plus, isn't the whole point of the forums and discussions to receive player feedback from multiple different perspectives? It's perfectly fine if I don't like the game or certain aspects of it, Steven and the team can do what they want with Ashes. But, I enjoy discussing certain topics like these with other people. It's interesting to see the different viewpoints.

I never told you to not voice your opinion. I am simply showing you the intended design of this game.

Yes, I understand. However, whether or not I will enjoy this game has no bearing on the discussion.

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Guild Wars 2 has equalized gear in PvP. A brand new player can hop right into PvP after character creation and be on an even playing field gear-wise as a player that's been playing since release 10 years ago. Equalized gear coupled with good matchmaking means GW2 PvP is very easy to get into, as there's not an insane time barrier to entry for gear and the game will put you against similarly rated players.

I actually played a ton of GW2. And that is a perfect example of an MMO that entirely separates PVP and PVE. which is exactly what AoC isnt. You could argue WvW is PvX, but anyone who has played it knows the PVE in WVW was just using NPCs as punching bags until another zerg showed up. And a time barrier is a reality when you have PvX progression. You are going to spend far more time to be able to participate in late game content that is both PVE and PVP. Just enabling players to jump right into playing like an endgame beast isnt a great design for an MMORPG that relies on progression. That entire argument is "I dont want to play the rest of the game, let me just play this part."

PvP and PvE are not entirely separate, but the gear cap is reasonably easy to achieve so it's realistic to level and gear several characters in a single day if you wanted. Otherwise I completely agree. I don't want to play other gamemodes if I'm not interested in them, nor would I want others to feel forced to play gamemodes they're not interested in. Imagine if there was a game where you HAD to PvP in order to acquire gear to complete PvE content. The players that only want to PvE would hate it.

I think the separation between gamemodes can be healthy if done well with proper amounts of overlap IF players want to diversify their experience. It's the same reason why "Ashes of Creation is designed for solo players as well as large and small groups." Catering to both solo, small, and large groups of players is important. Same as catering to arena PvP, PvE, and open world PvP players.

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

The analogy is accurate. If you want gear to matter, then the matchmaking should also take into gear so that if you spend TIME to get a better piece of equipment, you'd only get matched against people who have also spent TIME to get a better piece of equipment. That's a great system if you want to artificially shrink the amount of people you can fight against.

Gear does matter, otherwise why even acquire it? And factoring gear quality into matchmaking is pretty pointless when your outcomes against other players would do the job just fine as far as placing you against others during your initial placement matches. So no need to artificially shrink the player pool.

Again, you do not have an accurate perception of how competitive matchmaking works. I am not going to continuously reiterate the explanations. If you want to improve your understanding, read what I wrote above. Otherwise, I don't see this specific part of the discussion going anywhere.

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Again, there's a reason they don't match a 220 lb guy against a guy that weighs 130. Yeah, sure, the 130 guy could win. But that's not a fair fight no matter the outcome. It's just not how actual competitive systems work.

Its not a weight factor. The 130lbs dude isnt going to suddenly grow 7 inches taller and gain 90lbs to compete against that guy. Have a level 1 ranger with shit gear (the office worker) against the max level ranger with raid gear( the champion fighter of the same weight). You dont match those up against eachother. Once you get max level, youre fair game. You have the ability to acquire the same gear as everyone else at that point, so its up to you to get it, thus increasing your characters ability, to further augment your individual skill. If you dont want to play the entirety of the game to progress in an aspect of it, thats your problem, and likely means that this games design isnt your playstyle. If its the way you like to play, you've provided a few examples of games to continue playing in that manner.

See above. Until you acquire the gear to match, then you should not be placed against people who have the better gear. This is fair, it also shrinks the player pool as a consequence. It's perfectly fine for gear and levels to matter in open world PvP and PvE but equalized arenas should be just that, equalized arenas.

Alright, I will just put this here. I don't think you're going to enjoy this game dude.

"We're very clear with our objective and philosophy on the game and we understand that they may not appeal to everybody. But you know it is an important reciprocal relationship between the content that's related to PvE and the content that's related to PvP and they feed off of each other. They're catalysts for change: Their progression, their development. It's things that people can value when they see something earned and they see something lost. That elicits an emotional response from the player: That they've invested time in to either succeed or fail; and PvP allows for that element to be introduced into gameplay. And we're very clear that is our objective: That risk versus reward relationship, that achievement-based mentality. Not everybody's going to be a winner and that's okay."[8] – Steven Sharif

I may or may not, but I won't know until the game releases. Plus, isn't the whole point of the forums and discussions to receive player feedback from multiple different perspectives? It's perfectly fine if I don't like the game or certain aspects of it, Steven and the team can do what they want with Ashes. But, I enjoy discussing certain topics like these with other people. It's interesting to see the different viewpoints.

I never told you to not voice your opinion. I am simply showing you the intended design of this game.

Yes, I understand. However, whether or not I will enjoy this game has no bearing on the discussion.

Just stating my assumption based on what you're advocating for in this discussion in comparison to what Intrepid is stating as their intent for design of their game.

SirChancelot

Dolyem wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Gui10 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I am siding with @NiKr on this one. Without the ability to switch things up via gear, you have less flexibility for playstyle and making builds. I get the OP trying to focus on player skill for arenas, but skill can also come from creating builds, and acquiring gear. I am by no means a huge PVE player, but if I manage to snag an amazing piece of gear and its gives me zero boost in any competitive PvP, thats lame as hell.

You can still switch things up via gear absolutely! The base armor stars are locked in but other than that, you have all the freedom to pick perks and addons such as frost resist, bleed sesist, % critical chance, % chance to cause bleed, % chance to proc heal, etc etc.

Dolyem wrote: »

Also, separating gear stats acquired through PVE for competitive PVP is directly contradicting the PvX mentality. To become great at PvP, you should need to acquire the gear through PvE

I agree 100% with the PvX side of things for all world PvP (node sieges, owpvp, caravan sieges, castles, etc) but I think adding this feature for arenas only would be great.

If I put in the time to get amazing gear, I want to be able to use it in every aspect of the game, especially the competitive instanced PVP. And switching gear should require you to have that gear. Not having an entire wardrobe to pick from at will. Otherwise you can basically ignore the rest of the game to only PvP. Vote is no.

I always found it interesting when people enjoy winning knowing they have a stat advantage over their opponents. If I beat someone like that, it feels cheap. I would rather win knowing I played better than due to the fact that I farmed for longer than they did/got luckier. But to each their own.

I enjoy winning with gear that I have earned, thus earning that advantage if there even is one. I have even more fun if I outplay someone who has slightly or even far better gear than I do, but you cant do that if everyone is a cookie-cutter stat block. Wanting everyone to have the same crap, to me, is just lazy and doesnt want to put the work in on the PVE side of things, and I am even saying that as a PvP sociopath.

Yeah that's a philosophical difference. I don't want to be able to earn advantages, it takes away the satisfaction of knowing I fought better than they did because I wouldn't know if I won because of gear or skill. I'm not saying there's no skill in acquiring gear or putting together good builds, but that's completely different than fighting skill and actually being good at PvP. I liken it to having a numbers advantage over your opponent(s). For example, if an arena match was 6v5, the team with 6 will have an advantage at all times. If I was on the team of 6 and won, that would feel lame. If I lost, that also feels lame. It's a lose-lose for me. At that point, I don't know why I'd even play. But that's why I prefer games with equalized gear systems in PvP.

I look at it like training for a fight irl. If I put more work in and train harder than the other person and I make myself mentally stronger than my opponent, I am working to give myself an advantage over my opponent. Or should I limit myself to the exact same amount of training as them at the same limitations of strength and endurance instead of pushing myself beyond my own capabilities?

Stats on gear in MMOs reflect the strength your character would attain from acquiring that gear. So if you fight someone too strong for you due to them putting more work in? Put more work into it yourself.

You're overlooking the fact that there are weight classes in fighting.

I've been an athlete all my life. There's a reason they don't match a 220 lb guy against the guy that weights 130. People wouldn't enjoy watching such a one-sided fight either. The weight difference in fighting is equivalent to gear advantages in games.

Well of course you have weight classes. But if you take a 195lbs office worker who has never been in a fight in his life against a Lightheavyweight Champion at the same weight, they will get absolutely destroyed.

See that analogy described the skill difference. Gear difference would be giving the office worker metal gauntlets while the champion has rubber gloves. Now it's less about who is more skilled, because someone just had better gear...

Where as if they both get access to the same line up of gloves it levels the paying field and the skill dominates more.

In an RPG its not just the players skill, your characters stats factors into its ability. This is reflected in gear acquired, and level achieved. Itd be one thing if none of the items gave stats, and only provided armor and damage modifiers. But gear stats in RPGs are meant to reflect the strength and power gained through getting that item. And even then, nobody in this instance would stop the champ from putting on some gauntlets they pick up as well. Both players have access to the gear, its just a matter of them picking it up.

I already said I'm not sure OPs idea belongs in ashes...
That being said I feel like for something like a instanced leader board the bragging rights would mean more if it was skill-based as opposed to someone who's had more free time...

If it's going to be instanced either way they could make two different leagues, one where it's bring your own gear and one where gear is issued of an equalizing tier set. Have two different leader boards.

SirChancelot wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Gui10 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I am siding with @NiKr on this one. Without the ability to switch things up via gear, you have less flexibility for playstyle and making builds. I get the OP trying to focus on player skill for arenas, but skill can also come from creating builds, and acquiring gear. I am by no means a huge PVE player, but if I manage to snag an amazing piece of gear and its gives me zero boost in any competitive PvP, thats lame as hell.

You can still switch things up via gear absolutely! The base armor stars are locked in but other than that, you have all the freedom to pick perks and addons such as frost resist, bleed sesist, % critical chance, % chance to cause bleed, % chance to proc heal, etc etc.

Dolyem wrote: »

Also, separating gear stats acquired through PVE for competitive PVP is directly contradicting the PvX mentality. To become great at PvP, you should need to acquire the gear through PvE

I agree 100% with the PvX side of things for all world PvP (node sieges, owpvp, caravan sieges, castles, etc) but I think adding this feature for arenas only would be great.

If I put in the time to get amazing gear, I want to be able to use it in every aspect of the game, especially the competitive instanced PVP. And switching gear should require you to have that gear. Not having an entire wardrobe to pick from at will. Otherwise you can basically ignore the rest of the game to only PvP. Vote is no.

I always found it interesting when people enjoy winning knowing they have a stat advantage over their opponents. If I beat someone like that, it feels cheap. I would rather win knowing I played better than due to the fact that I farmed for longer than they did/got luckier. But to each their own.

I enjoy winning with gear that I have earned, thus earning that advantage if there even is one. I have even more fun if I outplay someone who has slightly or even far better gear than I do, but you cant do that if everyone is a cookie-cutter stat block. Wanting everyone to have the same crap, to me, is just lazy and doesnt want to put the work in on the PVE side of things, and I am even saying that as a PvP sociopath.

Yeah that's a philosophical difference. I don't want to be able to earn advantages, it takes away the satisfaction of knowing I fought better than they did because I wouldn't know if I won because of gear or skill. I'm not saying there's no skill in acquiring gear or putting together good builds, but that's completely different than fighting skill and actually being good at PvP. I liken it to having a numbers advantage over your opponent(s). For example, if an arena match was 6v5, the team with 6 will have an advantage at all times. If I was on the team of 6 and won, that would feel lame. If I lost, that also feels lame. It's a lose-lose for me. At that point, I don't know why I'd even play. But that's why I prefer games with equalized gear systems in PvP.

I look at it like training for a fight irl. If I put more work in and train harder than the other person and I make myself mentally stronger than my opponent, I am working to give myself an advantage over my opponent. Or should I limit myself to the exact same amount of training as them at the same limitations of strength and endurance instead of pushing myself beyond my own capabilities?

Stats on gear in MMOs reflect the strength your character would attain from acquiring that gear. So if you fight someone too strong for you due to them putting more work in? Put more work into it yourself.

You're overlooking the fact that there are weight classes in fighting.

I've been an athlete all my life. There's a reason they don't match a 220 lb guy against the guy that weights 130. People wouldn't enjoy watching such a one-sided fight either. The weight difference in fighting is equivalent to gear advantages in games.

Well of course you have weight classes. But if you take a 195lbs office worker who has never been in a fight in his life against a Lightheavyweight Champion at the same weight, they will get absolutely destroyed.

See that analogy described the skill difference. Gear difference would be giving the office worker metal gauntlets while the champion has rubber gloves. Now it's less about who is more skilled, because someone just had better gear...

Where as if they both get access to the same line up of gloves it levels the paying field and the skill dominates more.

In an RPG its not just the players skill, your characters stats factors into its ability. This is reflected in gear acquired, and level achieved. Itd be one thing if none of the items gave stats, and only provided armor and damage modifiers. But gear stats in RPGs are meant to reflect the strength and power gained through getting that item. And even then, nobody in this instance would stop the champ from putting on some gauntlets they pick up as well. Both players have access to the gear, its just a matter of them picking it up.

I already said I'm not sure OPs idea belongs in ashes...
That being said I feel like for something like a instanced leader board the bragging rights would mean more if it was skill-based as opposed to someone who's had more free time...

If it's going to be instanced either way they could make two different leagues, one where it's bring your own gear and one where gear is issued of an equalizing tier set. Have two different leader boards.

to me thats no different than PVE and PVP servers honestly. No need to separate the player base

Blindside wrote: »

I always found it interesting when people enjoy winning knowing they have a stat advantage over their opponents. If I beat someone like that, it feels cheap. I would rather win knowing I played better than due to the fact that I farmed for longer than they did/got luckier. But to each their own.

If you have a stat advantage, it is because you earned that stat advantage.

You claim to be an athlete of some description. Do you feel bad when you beat someone knowing full well you have chosen to spend more time training than they have? Because that is the same thing. In an MMO, players have the choice to go out and get that stat advantage. Anyone that doesn't have it made the choice to not go out and get it.

That is on them, not you.

If you go in to a fight in an MMO with a stat advantage, it is because you are playing that MMO as a whole better than they are. An MMO isnt about just one fight, which seems to me to be what a few of you want. An MMO is about the whole game - how well you play the whole game should matter, and how well you play the whole game is directly reflected in your gear.

Ludullu

Blindside wrote: »

Imagine if there was a game where you HAD to PvP in order to acquire gear to complete PvE content. The players that only want to PvE would hate it.

And Ashes is literally that game. And it takes inspiration from exactly such games.

Most people in L2's arenas fought in cross-class battles instead of inner-class ones. People had different lvls of gear and different rps matchups in pretty much every single fight. At the start of the ladder season you'd get a certain amount of points and would then get matched up against people with roughly the same amount (as long as there was enough of players to do that).

If you fell too low due to your shitty gear, you still had chances against weaker rps matchups, and if you were at the top - you could still get brought down by a stronger rps enemy (if player skill was equal).

But L2's arenas gave a ton of tangible rewards for people who performed well, so most players understood that they had to properly level up and equip their character if they wanted to compete. And in order to do that they had to both pve and pvp in the open world (cause, you know, it was a pvx game).

And you know what people did to have a fun casual pvp in "equal" gear? Just went to a local open world arena location and fought each other there. Guilds practiced there when they wanted and trained their weaker players in pvp too. And quite often it'd be a fun and social event. This type of stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr9EHmL-1uM

p.s. for the love of fucking god, remove my ping from your messages. I've gotten 21 fucking pings from yall.

Noaani wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

I always found it interesting when people enjoy winning knowing they have a stat advantage over their opponents. If I beat someone like that, it feels cheap. I would rather win knowing I played better than due to the fact that I farmed for longer than they did/got luckier. But to each their own.

If you have a stat advantage, it is because you earned that stat advantage.

I fully understand that earning better gear takes time, effort, and/or luck. However, in a competitive mode, allowing stat advantages is not indicative of a fair environment.

Noaani wrote: »

You claim to be an athlete of some description. Do you feel bad when you beat someone knowing full well you have chosen to spend more time training than they have? Because that is the same thing. In an MMO, players have the choice to go out and get that stat advantage. Anyone that doesn't have it made the choice to not go out and get it.

That is on them, not you.

No, I don't feel bad if I have chosen to spend more time training (or if I have been more efficient in my training) because that's not the issue. If I get matched against someone below my weight class or if I'm in a separate skill division, then I will and have felt bad about it. It's not a fair match because I have a weight advantage and/or a proven skill advantage. On the other hand, if my opponent is in my weight bracket and around the same 'rating' I'm at, then it's fair and whoever wins, wins.

As an example, the comparison would be having a 220 lb varsity athlete competing against a 130 lb varsity athlete. The stat advantage of weight (or gear in games) makes a huge difference. Also, proven skill in the form of win ratio or mmr also makes a big difference. That is why there is a distinction between varsity and jv as well as the division (D1 to D3) of school you compete for. Similarly, a varsity athlete vs. a jv athlete is also not a fair match. I'm not saying that stat advantages aren't part of competitions or games, but if they are, then the appropriate separation measures must be made otherwise it's not a fair or competitive environment.

Noaani wrote: »

If you go in to a fight in an MMO with a stat advantage, it is because you are playing that MMO as a whole better than they are. An MMO isnt about just one fight, which seems to me to be what a few of you want. An MMO is about the whole game - how well you play the whole game should matter, and how well you play the whole game is directly reflected in your gear.

Your performance in one gamemode shouldn't have a direct correlation to how you perform in another. There may be some overlap, but I wouldn't expect to be excel at PvE simply because I am good at PvP and vice versa. This may be a difference in philosophies.

@Blindside What is really the purpose of base-lining stats in instanced PvP other than to avoid having to participate in the rest of the games content? If everyone has the same access to the same gear and simply have to actively play the game to attain it to compete with each other, how is this unfair if everyone has to abide by the same aspects of gameplay and progression? Having the OP proposed style of play would separate the PVP and PVE community, which is what PvX game design actively discourages. The whole point of the design is to require players to participate in both PVP and PVE in order to progress in either content category.

Blindside wrote: »

Being really good at one gamemode shouldn't have a direct correlation to how you perform in another.

The game doesnt have "modes", it just has "the game".

I would agree that if we were playing something like an FPS with a CTF mode, a FFA mode and what ever other modes games like that have, then sure, being better at one mode shouldnt give you an advantage over players in another mode.

In Ashes, if there is some way to go back to the game menu, pick a different game mode other than persistent world MMO, and play in that, then sure, I would agree with your argument. However, logging in to the persistent world game, going to an arena and beginning a match is all taking place in that persistent world game mode, and as such, should be subject to benefits from other aspects of that game mode.

As I said earlier in this thread, a few people are trying to turn a persistent world game in to a lobby game.

The best way for people that play lobby games to look at an MMO is that the entire live game - from launch to shutdown - is a single match in one game mode. Achieving this is *literally* the point of spending tens of millions of dollars on creating a persistent world and acquiring the hardware to run it on.

If you aren't interested in a persistent world, why are you even here?

Your arguments are akin to me going to Epic and saying that Fortnite should have a "world" between matches, where players can go off an do things, and get gear and new abilities and then bring those abilities back to the matches.

That would be trying to turn a lobby game in to a persistent world game. As an argument, it makes no sense. Persistent world games are a thing,and lobby games are a different thing. Rather than trying to turn games from one to the other, you just decide which it is of the two you like, and you play those games.

Edit, also, your weight class argument is flawed. That would be like fighting someone of a different level in an MMORPG. Most games - Ashes included - discourage this.

Gear is much more akin to training, as within reason, effort in = results out. That is why I ignored the entire weight class argument and instead mentioned training.

Dolyem wrote: »

@Blindside What is really the purpose of base-lining stats in instanced PvP other than to avoid having to participate in the rest of the games content? If everyone has the same access to the same gear and simply have to actively play the game to attain it to compete with each other, how is this unfair if everyone has to abide by the same aspects of gameplay and progression? Having the OP proposed style of play would separate the PVP and PVE community, which is what PvX game design actively discourages. The whole point of the design is to require players to participate in both PVP and PVE in order to progress in either content category.

I mentioned this in another thread, but there are 8 primary archetypes in AoC and 64 total combinations of primary and secondary archetypes. In games, I generally have a main that I spend the most time on, but I learn really quickly and get bored fast, so I tend to play every single spec that is available. Other multiclassers may have other reasons for spreading themselves out, but that's mine. Personally, I feel like I would get burnt out leveling and gearing all 64 combinations along with whatever different builds that would be possible to make. It goes without saying that this likely isn't a widespread concern, but offering methods to progress that are unique to each gamemode along with equalizing gear in instanced arenas are a way to allow people to:

Compete on as even of a playing field as possible, where PvP skill is the primary isolated and tested variable.
Allow people to test out as many as/all of the different combinations of archetypes before deciding to commit to one as their main.

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

@Blindside What is really the purpose of base-lining stats in instanced PvP other than to avoid having to participate in the rest of the games content? If everyone has the same access to the same gear and simply have to actively play the game to attain it to compete with each other, how is this unfair if everyone has to abide by the same aspects of gameplay and progression? Having the OP proposed style of play would separate the PVP and PVE community, which is what PvX game design actively discourages. The whole point of the design is to require players to participate in both PVP and PVE in order to progress in either content category.

I mentioned this in another thread, but there are 8 primary archetypes in AoC and 64 total combinations of primary and secondary archetypes. In games, I generally have a main that I spend the most time on, but I learn really quickly and get bored fast, so I tend to play every single spec that is available. Other multiclassers may have other reasons for spreading themselves out, but that's mine. Personally, I feel like I would get burnt out leveling and gearing all 64 combinations along with whatever different builds that would be possible to make. It goes without saying that this likely isn't a widespread concern, but offering methods to progress that are unique to each gamemode along with equalizing gear in instanced arenas are a way to allow people to:
Compete on as even of a playing field as possible, where PvP skill is the primary isolated and tested variable.

Allow people to test out as many as/all of the different combinations of archetypes before deciding to commit to one as their main.

By the sounds of it, you get bored because you are playing boring games.

Also, you would only need to level 8 characters in Ashes, not 64.

Noaani wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

@Blindside What is really the purpose of base-lining stats in instanced PvP other than to avoid having to participate in the rest of the games content? If everyone has the same access to the same gear and simply have to actively play the game to attain it to compete with each other, how is this unfair if everyone has to abide by the same aspects of gameplay and progression? Having the OP proposed style of play would separate the PVP and PVE community, which is what PvX game design actively discourages. The whole point of the design is to require players to participate in both PVP and PVE in order to progress in either content category.

I mentioned this in another thread, but there are 8 primary archetypes in AoC and 64 total combinations of primary and secondary archetypes. In games, I generally have a main that I spend the most time on, but I learn really quickly and get bored fast, so I tend to play every single spec that is available. Other multiclassers may have other reasons for spreading themselves out, but that's mine. Personally, I feel like I would get burnt out leveling and gearing all 64 combinations along with whatever different builds that would be possible to make. It goes without saying that this likely isn't a widespread concern, but offering methods to progress that are unique to each gamemode along with equalizing gear in instanced arenas are a way to allow people to:
Compete on as even of a playing field as possible, where PvP skill is the primary isolated and tested variable.

Allow people to test out as many as/all of the different combinations of archetypes before deciding to commit to one as their main.

By the sounds of it, you get bored because you are playing boring games.

Also, you would only need to level 8 characters in Ashes, not 64.

What constitutes a game as boring is subjective. Personally, I have the most fun when I am learning new things. No matter how good I am at something, I recognize that there is always something I could've done better. However, if I feel like the situation is not productive or is repetitive, I get bored.

And yes, but I would have to gear all 64 assuming they aren't pigeonholed into a single build per archetype combination or if gear isn't account-bound.

I would rather we not derail the thread though, my personal view on these topics have no bearing on the discussion.

Blindside wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

@Blindside What is really the purpose of base-lining stats in instanced PvP other than to avoid having to participate in the rest of the games content? If everyone has the same access to the same gear and simply have to actively play the game to attain it to compete with each other, how is this unfair if everyone has to abide by the same aspects of gameplay and progression? Having the OP proposed style of play would separate the PVP and PVE community, which is what PvX game design actively discourages. The whole point of the design is to require players to participate in both PVP and PVE in order to progress in either content category.

I mentioned this in another thread, but there are 8 primary archetypes in AoC and 64 total combinations of primary and secondary archetypes. In games, I generally have a main that I spend the most time on, but I learn really quickly and get bored fast, so I tend to play every single spec that is available. Other multiclassers may have other reasons for spreading themselves out, but that's mine. Personally, I feel like I would get burnt out leveling and gearing all 64 combinations along with whatever different builds that would be possible to make. It goes without saying that this likely isn't a widespread concern, but offering methods to progress that are unique to each gamemode along with equalizing gear in instanced arenas are a way to allow people to:
Compete on as even of a playing field as possible, where PvP skill is the primary isolated and tested variable.

Allow people to test out as many as/all of the different combinations of archetypes before deciding to commit to one as their main.

By the sounds of it, you get bored because you are playing boring games.

Also, you would only need to level 8 characters in Ashes, not 64.

What constitutes a game as boring is subjective.

Yes it is.

And you stated that you get bored in games.

Ergo, from your subjective perspective, you play boring games.

Also, gear isnt account bound. The ability to buy and sell gear in the open economy is kind of one of the cornerstones of the game.

Noaani wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Being really good at one gamemode shouldn't have a direct correlation to how you perform in another.

The game doesnt have "modes", it just has "the game".

I would agree that if we were playing something like an FPS with a CTF mode, a FFA mode and what ever other modes games like that have, then sure, being better at one mode shouldnt give you an advantage over players in another mode.

In Ashes, if there is some way to go back to the game menu, pick a different game mode other than persistent world MMO, and play in that, then sure, I would agree with your argument. However, logging in to the persistent world game, going to an arena and beginning a match is all taking place in that persistent world game mode, and as such, should be subject to benefits from other aspects of that game mode.

As I said earlier in this thread, a few people are trying to turn a persistent world game in to a lobby game.

The best way for people that play lobby games to look at an MMO is that the entire live game - from launch to shutdown - is a single match in one game mode. Achieving this is *literally* the point of spending tens of millions of dollars on creating a persistent world and acquiring the hardware to run it on.

If you aren't interested in a persistent world, why are you even here?

Your arguments are akin to me going to Epic and saying that Fortnite should have a "world" between matches, where players can go off an do things, and get gear and new abilities and then bring those abilities back to the matches.

That would be trying to turn a lobby game in to a persistent world game. As an argument, it makes no sense. Persistent world games are a thing,and lobby games are a different thing. Rather than trying to turn games from one to the other, you just decide which it is of the two you like, and you play those games.

Edit, also, your weight class argument is flawed. That would be like fighting someone of a different level in an MMORPG. Most games - Ashes included - discourage this.

Gear is much more akin to training, as within reason, effort in = results out. That is why I ignored the entire weight class argument and instead mentioned training.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. There are going to be a few instanced scenarios in Ashes according to the wiki. For example, arenas fall into this category (https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Arenas) as well as castle and node sieges, and certain dungeons (https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Instancing). So yes, arenas are a different gamemode that is separate from the rest of the persistent open world.

Notice how I don't care whether gear affects the PvP in the persistent open world, but I care about whether it affects it in the separate, instanced PvP content that has the potential to have esports and is likely to have a rating system.

From the wiki:

eSports is not the main focus, but the game will naturally move in that direction if the game play is compelling, competitive and fun.
The arena ladder system records a player's progress within PvP seasons based on their arena win/loss ratios.

Blindside wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Being really good at one gamemode shouldn't have a direct correlation to how you perform in another.

The game doesnt have "modes", it just has "the game".

I would agree that if we were playing something like an FPS with a CTF mode, a FFA mode and what ever other modes games like that have, then sure, being better at one mode shouldnt give you an advantage over players in another mode.

In Ashes, if there is some way to go back to the game menu, pick a different game mode other than persistent world MMO, and play in that, then sure, I would agree with your argument. However, logging in to the persistent world game, going to an arena and beginning a match is all taking place in that persistent world game mode, and as such, should be subject to benefits from other aspects of that game mode.

As I said earlier in this thread, a few people are trying to turn a persistent world game in to a lobby game.

The best way for people that play lobby games to look at an MMO is that the entire live game - from launch to shutdown - is a single match in one game mode. Achieving this is *literally* the point of spending tens of millions of dollars on creating a persistent world and acquiring the hardware to run it on.

If you aren't interested in a persistent world, why are you even here?

Your arguments are akin to me going to Epic and saying that Fortnite should have a "world" between matches, where players can go off an do things, and get gear and new abilities and then bring those abilities back to the matches.

That would be trying to turn a lobby game in to a persistent world game. As an argument, it makes no sense. Persistent world games are a thing,and lobby games are a different thing. Rather than trying to turn games from one to the other, you just decide which it is of the two you like, and you play those games.

Edit, also, your weight class argument is flawed. That would be like fighting someone of a different level in an MMORPG. Most games - Ashes included - discourage this.

Gear is much more akin to training, as within reason, effort in = results out. That is why I ignored the entire weight class argument and instead mentioned training.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. There are going to be a few instanced scenarios in Ashes according to the wiki. For example, arenas fall into this category (https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Arenas) as well as castle and node sieges, and certain dungeons (https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Instancing). So yes, arenas are a different gamemode that is separate from the rest of the persistent open world.

Notice how I don't care whether gear affects the PvP in the persistent open world, but I care about whether it affects it in the separate, instanced PvP content.

Instances are still a part of the same game mode.

Again, if you can access those instances from the games menu, rather than by having to log in to the persistent world (and probably physically going to the entrance to the arena), then you have a point worth making.

However, as long as you have to log in to the persistent game world, you are in persistent game world mode.

It is maybe worth mentioning that I am all for an MMO setting up a competition server that hosts events every few months, akin to what PoE used to do. Set up events with different rules, players create characters for those events on those servers, and then they compete.

This is how you do a different game mode in an MMO. Not instances.

Noaani wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Blindside wrote: »

Being really good at one gamemode shouldn't have a direct correlation to how you perform in another.

The game doesnt have "modes", it just has "the game".

I would agree that if we were playing something like an FPS with a CTF mode, a FFA mode and what ever other modes games like that have, then sure, being better at one mode shouldnt give you an advantage over players in another mode.

In Ashes, if there is some way to go back to the game menu, pick a different game mode other than persistent world MMO, and play in that, then sure, I would agree with your argument. However, logging in to the persistent world game, going to an arena and beginning a match is all taking place in that persistent world game mode, and as such, should be subject to benefits from other aspects of that game mode.

As I said earlier in this thread, a few people are trying to turn a persistent world game in to a lobby game.

The best way for people that play lobby games to look at an MMO is that the entire live game - from launch to shutdown - is a single match in one game mode. Achieving this is *literally* the point of spending tens of millions of dollars on creating a persistent world and acquiring the hardware to run it on.

If you aren't interested in a persistent world, why are you even here?

Your arguments are akin to me going to Epic and saying that Fortnite should have a "world" between matches, where players can go off an do things, and get gear and new abilities and then bring those abilities back to the matches.

That would be trying to turn a lobby game in to a persistent world game. As an argument, it makes no sense. Persistent world games are a thing,and lobby games are a different thing. Rather than trying to turn games from one to the other, you just decide which it is of the two you like, and you play those games.

Edit, also, your weight class argument is flawed. That would be like fighting someone of a different level in an MMORPG. Most games - Ashes included - discourage this.

Gear is much more akin to training, as within reason, effort in = results out. That is why I ignored the entire weight class argument and instead mentioned training.

I don't think that's entirely accurate. There are going to be a few instanced scenarios in Ashes according to the wiki. For example, arenas fall into this category (https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Arenas) as well as castle and node sieges, and certain dungeons (https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Instancing). So yes, arenas are a different gamemode that is separate from the rest of the persistent open world.

Notice how I don't care whether gear affects the PvP in the persistent open world, but I care about whether it affects it in the separate, instanced PvP content.

Instances are still a part of the same game mode.

Again, if you can access those instances from the games menu, rather than by having to log in to the persistent world (and probably physically going to the entrance to the arena), then you have a point worth making.

However, as long as you have to log in to the persistent game world, you are in persistent game world mode.

I don't know if I agree with that. From what I understand, a persistent world means it continues to exist independently of user interaction. Instanced content in the context of PvP generates a copy of a specific location for a specific group of players. Those are two very different things. I would assume that arenas would be accessed through a menu. The wiki says:

Arena style combat is instanced but spectators may be possible through an interface.
The importance of arenas are obviously that players have an opportunity to participate [and] practice out certain builds from a PvP perspective and can compete with one another within the system.

I would speculate that the interface in question is probably the same one that would be used to enter the instanced content. And, Steven himself said that being able to practice certain builds from a PvP perspective is important. This, in combination with the progression system being horizontal after reaching max level, leads me to believe that gear is going to be equalized.

Ludullu

Here's what seems quite unfair to me. You're asking for something "for free" that pretty much everyone else has to work very hard to get for themselves. You want high end pvp content w/o any time investment, while literally every other high end content in the game requires you to put in hundreds of hours to even get to, let alone participate in.

Why must I spend thousands of hours to get the chance to fight the epic end game boss (which includes pvping another guild for it), while you can just make a character spend 5 minutes on it and immediately go pvp in the best possible gear? How is that fair exactly?

I'm completely fine with arenas having a gear ceiling which is lower than the open world's one (literally what L2 did), but if you want to participate in an mmo's high end content - go play the mmo. I'm glad that GW2 provides a game where you can just play pvp w/o playing the mmo, but Ashes is not trying to take that particular design choice as its inspiration, so GW can be for lobby pvpers as what Ashes is trying to be for the open world pvpers - a game that others can send you to when you ask for that gameplay in a game that's not built for it.