Noaani wrote: » Ace1234 wrote: » Its also important to make sure that gear/level progression doesn't play "too much" of a factor in pvp- that way if a player is behind in progression but is actually more skilled than a player that is further along in progression, they would have a good fighting chance even if at a disadvantage. Character progression is the sum of how good a player is at the game over all.
Ace1234 wrote: » Its also important to make sure that gear/level progression doesn't play "too much" of a factor in pvp- that way if a player is behind in progression but is actually more skilled than a player that is further along in progression, they would have a good fighting chance even if at a disadvantage.
Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » This is a weird take, in Asherons Call a lower level could dominate even the best geared players. Because at the end of the day they fought past the gear, honed their craft and were just better players. When they caught up in gear and wealth, it wasn't even a close match; they absolutely destroyed the people who were now evenly geared. Progression =/= Talent or Superiority. I don't think you understood the point of what I was saying. In fact, you are actually agreeing with what I said, you just don't understand that yet. When you say that the player that originally had worse gear but won in PvP then gets better gear and dominates, that is total agreeance with what I said. Gear matters. That is what I said, and is also what you said. The only difference is that you are starting off with a far worse player against a far better player than I was. In fact, you were probably coming at the situation from a totally unreasonable perspective, as a player that has good gear has already proven to be good at the game in general - that is how they got their gear. Someone that has earned gear in a game is demonstrably better at that game than someone that has not earned gear in that same game. If that second person was as good at the game as you claim, they would have better gear.
Solvryn wrote: » This is a weird take, in Asherons Call a lower level could dominate even the best geared players. Because at the end of the day they fought past the gear, honed their craft and were just better players. When they caught up in gear and wealth, it wasn't even a close match; they absolutely destroyed the people who were now evenly geared. Progression =/= Talent or Superiority.
NiKr wrote: » I think they were just working on different time scales. The first player played for longer but just wasn't as skillful at game's mechanics, while the second player was amazing at mechanics but hadn't played as long to get the gear, cause gear usually just means time, unless you have ties to veteran players that can just give you gear.
Solvryn wrote: » That's a strange take, considering I played Asherons Call at a lower level and was able to dominate most players irregardless of level.
Solvryn wrote: » You described a gear carried individual, not someone of actual acumen and talent.
Vaknar wrote: » I noticed some quoting of the wiki, which I love to see! Here's another quote that seems relevant to the conversation ^_^ "Lower level characters will have usefulness in mass combat that does not depend on their level, such as manning siege weapons, helping repair fortifications, bringing proximity-based buffs to key positions, using stealth or scaling walls. These types of things are relevant to the tide of battle and do not require the player to be max-level or have high combat stats." - Found here, on the wiki!
Noaani wrote: » You yourself know that the guild of our friend with the better gear will have something to say about the situation - which is once again our better geared friend using the social aspects of the game to their advantage. If we limit our discussion to actual reasonable cases, and we actually examine those cases in some depth, the player with the better gear is going to win in the end.
Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » That's a strange take, considering I played Asherons Call at a lower level and was able to dominate most players irregardless of level. If you are going to use examples from games, use games that are still live. I mean, your point here is as easy to refute as - in Asherons call, lower level players were able to beat higher level players. Asherons call is no longer live, and I see no reason at all to not assume a connection between these two facts.
NiKr wrote: » Yeah, that's what I'm used to, but I dunno how Asheron worked.
There's also a chance that the second player's guild were newcomers themselves, so they had better mechanical skill but just didn't have enough time to show it off at max lvl content. I've seen guilds like that show themselves off in L2 too. They'd come to the server later on, but they'd immediately start fighting at a decent lvl just because their overall skill was higher. And once they managed to get better gear - they'd dominate.
Noaani wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Yeah, that's what I'm used to, but I dunno how Asheron worked. It isn't around any more, so it doesn't matter how it worked. Using a game that is no longer live to attempt to prove a point that literally can't be proven in any game that is live today was a foolish thing for that poster to try and do. If we want to talk about literal dead games, we can find all manner of bad mechanics and systems - which is why so many of these games are dead. As such, using an example that can only be found in a game that has had it's servers shut down for well over a decade, and literally can't be found anywhere else - yeah, just not a good argument. There's also a chance that the second player's guild were newcomers themselves, so they had better mechanical skill but just didn't have enough time to show it off at max lvl content. I've seen guilds like that show themselves off in L2 too. They'd come to the server later on, but they'd immediately start fighting at a decent lvl just because their overall skill was higher. And once they managed to get better gear - they'd dominate. I've seen a few guilds like this, some that were successful in taking over a server, and some that failed miserably. One thing all of those that were successful had in common was that they would all avoid even fights if they were under geared. I did see one specific guild get trash talked off the server because they were recorded losing a few small scale skirmishes where the numbers were about even. In games with even a remotely average economy, guilds like this still need assistance from others - and that trash talk saw that no one was willing to side with them, where as the guilds that were successful did manage to have people side with them. This may well play out differently on games without such a robust economy. For reference with that term, I only personally consider two games that I am aware of to have a robust economy - Archeage and EVE (others may, I am just not aware of them). However, in games where the economy is a key pillar of the games design, it needs to offer more importance. Take your L2 example here. You yourself said that most fights were determined by the RPS nature of classes, and gear. In L2, the economy essentially existed to function, it wasn't a core aspect of the game. In order to make a games economy a core aspect, I assume you would agree that this would require making it more important. How do you make it more important other than by making it a bigger factor? The thing is, this doesn't need to all just be via gear. There are other ways in which the economy can assist a player in winning a PvP fight - and that is why I made a point of including consumables in my original point (there are further avenues still, however).
Solvryn wrote: » There are many titles that ran their lifespan in, still doesn’t address mastery.
Noaani wrote: » Actually, I didn't. All I said about player skill was that one was better than the other in PvP. You assumed a gear carried individual.
Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » There are many titles that ran their lifespan in, still doesn’t address mastery. No, it doesn't. But I wasn't using that to attempt to explain it. I explained "mastery" here - in the post where I quoted you, rather than the post where I quoted someone else. Noaani wrote: » Actually, I didn't. All I said about player skill was that one was better than the other in PvP. You assumed a gear carried individual. I will add to my point - any game with a combat system worth a damn would take longer to master the combat system than it takes to level to the cap, and indeed longer than it takes to get geared up. EQ2, as an example (a game that is still live, by the way), I would say that you hadn't mastered your class until you had been playing for a solid 3 years. You could be ok at your class, perhaps even fairly good - but not a master. I know Asherons Call had a much more simple combat system, and maybe that allowed people to "master" it before they hit the level cap. However, that isn't a good thing.
NiKr wrote: » In both node wars and sieges every single citizen participates, so it's not lvl-dependent there. The impact of lower lvls will just be smaller. Node sieges might also have the same siege machines that can be operated by lower lvl players, so that could be the biggest role you could play as a lowbie. In theory Intrepid could add some war goals for purely low lvl characters, but I don't think we've heard about anything like that so far.
Solvryn wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » There are many titles that ran their lifespan in, still doesn’t address mastery. No, it doesn't. But I wasn't using that to attempt to explain it. I explained "mastery" here - in the post where I quoted you, rather than the post where I quoted someone else. Noaani wrote: » Actually, I didn't. All I said about player skill was that one was better than the other in PvP. You assumed a gear carried individual. I will add to my point - any game with a combat system worth a damn would take longer to master the combat system than it takes to level to the cap, and indeed longer than it takes to get geared up. EQ2, as an example (a game that is still live, by the way), I would say that you hadn't mastered your class until you had been playing for a solid 3 years. You could be ok at your class, perhaps even fairly good - but not a master. I know Asherons Call had a much more simple combat system, and maybe that allowed people to "master" it before they hit the level cap. However, that isn't a good thing. A gaming being alive or dead is moot.
You described a master, the person who took the time to learn game mechanics, right here in equalized PvP.
Being good at socio-economics and logistics does not make you a better PvPer, it means you’re geared. And ArcheAge was notorious for gear over skill.
Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » There are many titles that ran their lifespan in, still doesn’t address mastery. No, it doesn't. But I wasn't using that to attempt to explain it. I explained "mastery" here - in the post where I quoted you, rather than the post where I quoted someone else. Noaani wrote: » Actually, I didn't. All I said about player skill was that one was better than the other in PvP. You assumed a gear carried individual. I will add to my point - any game with a combat system worth a damn would take longer to master the combat system than it takes to level to the cap, and indeed longer than it takes to get geared up. EQ2, as an example (a game that is still live, by the way), I would say that you hadn't mastered your class until you had been playing for a solid 3 years. You could be ok at your class, perhaps even fairly good - but not a master. I know Asherons Call had a much more simple combat system, and maybe that allowed people to "master" it before they hit the level cap. However, that isn't a good thing. A gaming being alive or dead is moot. Nope. If you are talking about a system or mechanic that can be found in many games - or at least in a half dozen games, then talking about how games that are no longer live did that system or mechanic is perfectly valid. However, if the only example of a system or mechanic you can find is from a game that has been shut down for over a decade, then it isn't worth bringing up. MMO development - as an industry - is quite small. MMO developers know the systems other games have used, and what the results of those systems was. If a game uses a system, and no one copies it at all, that is because no one in the industry thought it was a good idea. You described a master, the person who took the time to learn game mechanics, right here in equalized PvP. No I didn't. You are making one of the mistakes (one of the many, many mistakes) Mish makes on these forums all the time. You read a comment that had an example, and you automatically just made the assumption of extremes By your own logic here, literally every player that ever wins a normalized 1v1 PvP match must be a master. If that is not what you intend to say (that literally every player that wins normalized PvP must then be a master at that game), then feel free to explain to me how you came to teh conclusion you came to, based on the actual comment I made. Being good at socio-economics and logistics does not make you a better PvPer, it means you’re geared. And ArcheAge was notorious for gear over skill. Nope, but being good at the economy makes you better at the game as a whole, and all aspects of the game should be subject to all other aspects of the game. if you are better at PvP than me, you absolutely should be able to mess up my economic game through PvP. Likewise, I should be able to mess up your PvP game via economic gameplay. If you disagree with the above statement, feel free to explain yourself. I assume you believe that players should be able to mess up others economic game via PvP (item drops on death, etc), so why is it that you don't think it should be true in the opposite direction?
Noaani wrote: » Nope, but being good at the economy makes you better at the game as a whole, and all aspects of the game should be subject to all other aspects of the game. if you are better at PvP than me, you absolutely should be able to mess up my economic game through PvP. Likewise, I should be able to mess up your PvP game via economic gameplay. If you disagree with the above statement, feel free to explain yourself. I assume you believe that players should be able to mess up others economic game via PvP (item drops on death, etc), so why is it that you don't think it should be true in the opposite direction?
NishUK wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Nope, but being good at the economy makes you better at the game as a whole, and all aspects of the game should be subject to all other aspects of the game. if you are better at PvP than me, you absolutely should be able to mess up my economic game through PvP. Likewise, I should be able to mess up your PvP game via economic gameplay. If you disagree with the above statement, feel free to explain yourself. I assume you believe that players should be able to mess up others economic game via PvP (item drops on death, etc), so why is it that you don't think it should be true in the opposite direction? Mish here (I dun mind!), lets be realistic here for a second, if Ashe's is to succeed from a solid entertainment standpoint "for most players" I can't imagine Steven setting this games economy up to gain significant PvE and PvP advantages over most players in the same fashion that the likes of L2 and Archeage set up. There is almost no end to how much significantly stronger you can make yourself on these games and only 0.10% or less of the playerbase were even close to ideal gear but at the same time this is what easily drove the economy, so I'm interested to see what's going to drive with economy game with Ashe's and I suspect a lot of nodes and guild upkeep investment. PvP is a risk factor and also one where you could be doing very little in comparison to playing the peaceful game of playing the AH, upgrading gear and gathering or grinding monsters for resources, so the PvP <> Master Banker balance game is a mute comparison. Good players will need to involve themselves into everything but obviously there will be priortize but to think you'll always have a higher gear score as a fellow commited indivdual who has hard settled on a class combination through "winning at economy" would be ridiculous if we're accounting for this game specifically that is brave and bold enough to feature PvP and has made it their task to bring the genre into a serious online contender than it has to be accessible and not a ridiculous economy strength game that decides your own gameplay strength so strongly.
Solvryn wrote: » It would be mightily myopic of Intrepid to create a low skill ceiling gear dependent game. Not all things in MMORPGs are equal.
Character progression is the sum of how good a player is at the game over all. If you are better than me in equalized 1v1 PvP, but I am better than you at playing the market (as an example) and so have gear and better consumables than you, and that allows me to beat you, I am better at the game overall than you, and so should win in a 1v1 fight. Whether you win a 1v1 fight should be based on the sum total of how good you are at the game as a whole, not just on one small aspect of it. As such, if you want to win, put some effort in to other aspects of the game.
NishUK wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It would be mightily myopic of Intrepid to create a low skill ceiling gear dependent game. Not all things in MMORPGs are equal. Never said anything about low skill ceiling and high skill ceilings can be accepted by the people with little time to be on the same level of playing field as me or others in terms of economy and "tailored gear" (hopefully more cosmetic and diverse skill based than strength based). Tekken 8 is coming out before Ashe's I have a great "PvP conquest" to look forward to and I don't think I fancy working hard again near my 40s try harding every single day of the week economy practices to keep within the top 10% of the playerbase gear wise and then additionally watching most of the audience being insects compared to us "elites" of the server. I think its a waste of online potential and it can do better and I'm willing to sacrifice forever addictive gear progression so that many 100s of allies and enemies can feel great competively. I'm really not sad enough of a person to be like "I've got one of the best weapons on server omfg worship me", child mentality, lets play and fight, not go ham on the economy game which there's going to be buying of gold anyway, impossible to stop.
