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.
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.
However,
“ 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.”
You described a master, the person who took the time to learn game mechanics, right here in equalized PvP.
The person who lost in equalized PvP proved they are an inferior player with more time they geared out.
They are not a master or better player.
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.
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.
just give the lowbies the seige equipment :P they be fine lol (I just image a child firing a balista) lol
there could also be some lower level mobs that can play into seigewarefare too i reckon or harvesting maybe even crafting, harvesting could supply resource stockpiles wood/stone/ore/leather (various quality based on harvester level) these stockpiles can be used during seiges by crafters to make better version of repairkits or upgrade kits for seige equipment based on crafter skill level (these items will only last for seige duration) These items could be impactful enough thats that crafters might even be the key to winning over combatant. I feel this would allow harvester/crafters a play in seiges outside of fighting aswell and be impactful
Low level characters will feel like the working class in real life and that's fine, that will incentivize them to explore the world, grow and play with others!
Unlike other mmorpg's who feed them like a mommy flying the airplay spoon into your mouth...just play the game and stop feeling entitled to do everything within it, for god sake.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Logistical superiority doesn’t make an individual a better player. That’s what gear is, a logistical advantage.
Equalization removes that advantage. All that’s left is mastery.
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 then it has to be accessible and not a ridiculous economy strength game that decides your own gameplay strength so strongly.
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.
It would be mightily myopic of Intrepid to create a low skill ceiling gear dependent game.
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.
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.
Yeah I agree- not sure how that relates to what I was saying. I said progression shouldn't provide "too much" of an advantage. The moment it does, is the moment when progression would fall under the exact category of what you just explained, because both skill and progression should play a factor, rather than the fight being over before it started based on gear score.
There is also other ways of "winning" or coming out on top. I agree that people who master more systems should be rewarded more (risk/reward)- but that doesn't have to manifest itself within the experience of more specialized gameplay systems. It is also possible to design certain systems to operate more in a vacuum if the experience requires that kind of design approach, with the "benefits of mastering more systems" manifesting within other systems where it wouldn't negatively impact the experience too much (for example having equalized pvp, with progression mattering more in other areas of the game, so you can be rewarded for mastering both, without detracring from what pvp is supposed to be about "combat skill"). Not saying this approach should be taken, but I am saying there is not necessarily anything wrong with that approach, which would still allow for your point to remain true even if pvp came down to purely combat skill without influence of progression at all (which is not what I am advocating for in my original point.)
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.
Never said you did either. I just don’t want to see any system bury combat and class design, it can stand alone. Most importantly it’s the vehicle in we interface through the game with creating interactions.
A little background: I'm a avid Eve online player, and many of the systems that AoC is going to have have similar like systems in Eve Online. Eve online however is not a level based system, and that is very good for its pvp playground. Due to Eve online's rock paper scissors systems and role dependancy and specialization options, new players can participate in, and sometimes even perform key roles in pvp. And more importantly no matter what skill level (both player skill and charactar skill point amount) they can all participate in attacking or defending someones home.
How will this be in ashes of creation? If i'm level 20, just got my first tiny house and membership of a node, what will i be able to do to defend my home? Will the level disparity between me and max level attackers make it that i have no chance? will i experiance a dissatisfying time, when i realize that the time and money my character has invested in his or her new home can't realisticly be defended because of level disparity, or will there be options to make yourself usefull?
Here are my suggestions:
Instead of a fixed amount of players, have it set to combined level. Eg 50 lvl 40 players attack, Total pool of levels is 200, the defending team can defend with 40 level 50 players, or 100 level 20 players (Or any combination resulting up to 200 level pool)
Siege weapon efficiency is independant of level or class. This will allow lower level players to partake without having to use immersion breaking scaling effects.
Battleground is split up in brackets of similar levels whenever possible.
When not all levels are equally important in node warfare, the game will become a must be max level to participate, wich will lead to stagnation, and ultimatly player decline and will prevent new player influx
what about high level players who put time and effort into the game and their character? why shouldn't they be able to contribute more to a siege than boomerdad69 who only plays 2 hours a day and doesn't even want to level up? you are dismissing those players.
Is already said low level players will be able to contribute in different ways. but when it comes to actual fights, the higher level player should be able to contribute more.
also, if you think about it, you don't go to a war, your country has soldiers who spend years training and preparing and go to war so you don't have to. back then, there were warriors and soldiers who defended the villages and cities. so why should da low level 20 farmer be able to win a war instead of a lvl 50 soldier?
Logistical superiority doesn’t make an individual a better player.
If a game calls for players to have good logistics, then a player with logistical superiority is a better player than an otherwise equal player, but whom does not have that logistical superiority.
It is odd that you would suggest otherwise.
If the game asks a thing of players, then obviously players being able to meet that request makes them better players of that game than players that are not able to meet that request.
Logistical superiority doesn’t make an individual a better player.
If a game calls for players to have good logistics, then a player with logistical superiority is a better player than an otherwise equal player, but whom does not have that logistical superiority.
It is odd that you would suggest otherwise.
If the game asks a thing of players, then obviously players being able to meet that request makes them better players of that game than players that are not able to meet that request.
It makes them more effective if they're equal in mastery. Can't assume how or why they have a logistical advantage, they could have the knowledge of getting it, it could have been handed to them for free.
Real world example,
A person joins their countries military and becomes a soldier. They aren't a better Gunfighter because their military has superior firepower, that comes down to their ability and training. Sure, if they meet equally skilled gunfighters on the battlefield and they have a better kit they have the advantage and thus are more effective. It doesn't make them the better gunfighter.
Perhaps its a point of concision, if you mean effective instead of superior. Then I have nothing to say, because logistical advantages are meant to give someone an edge. In that case, your syntax isn't clear.
Logistical superiority doesn’t make an individual a better player.
If a game calls for players to have good logistics, then a player with logistical superiority is a better player than an otherwise equal player, but whom does not have that logistical superiority.
It is odd that you would suggest otherwise.
If the game asks a thing of players, then obviously players being able to meet that request makes them better players of that game than players that are not able to meet that request.
It makes them more effective if they're equal in mastery. Can't assume how or why they have a logistical advantage, they could have the knowledge of getting it, it could have been handed to them for free.
Real world example,
A person joins their countries military and becomes a soldier. They aren't a better Gunfighter because their military has superior firepower, that comes down to their ability and training. Sure, if they meet equally skilled gunfighters on the battlefield and they have a better kit they have the advantage and thus are more effective. It doesn't make them the better gunfighter.
Perhaps its a point of concision, if you mean effective instead of superior. Then I have nothing to say, because logistical advantages are meant to give someone an edge. In that case, your syntax isn't clear.
I think you are just getting confused with "better player" and "better PvP'er".
Let's take your example, but move it back to Roman times (a better analogy).
Back in Rome, it was expected that a soldier would supply their own kit. Thus, a soldier that was had more money and thus better armor and weapons was indeed a better soldier. The skill of that person may not be any greater than the person next to them, but due to them having better gear, they are overall better.
In fact, even if our better geared friend is less good than the person next to then, they still stand a better chance of survival.
what about high level players who put time and effort into the game and their character? why shouldn't they be able to contribute more to a siege than boomerdad69 who only plays 2 hours a day and doesn't even want to level up? you are dismissing those players.
Is already said low level players will be able to contribute in different ways. but when it comes to actual fights, the higher level player should be able to contribute more.
also, if you think about it, you don't go to a war, your country has soldiers who spend years training and preparing and go to war so you don't have to. back then, there were warriors and soldiers who defended the villages and cities. so why should da low level 20 farmer be able to win a war instead of a lvl 50 soldier?
The topic isn't about being equal, effective or having a chance against those players, but letting those players have something to do during node sieges that makes them feel that their contributing to the defense. Gear, level, skill should all attribute to combat effectiveness, feeling usefull isn't nessicarily combat effectivness. But as Vaknar posted:
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!
Logistical superiority doesn’t make an individual a better player.
If a game calls for players to have good logistics, then a player with logistical superiority is a better player than an otherwise equal player, but whom does not have that logistical superiority.
It is odd that you would suggest otherwise.
If the game asks a thing of players, then obviously players being able to meet that request makes them better players of that game than players that are not able to meet that request.
It makes them more effective if they're equal in mastery. Can't assume how or why they have a logistical advantage, they could have the knowledge of getting it, it could have been handed to them for free.
Real world example,
A person joins their countries military and becomes a soldier. They aren't a better Gunfighter because their military has superior firepower, that comes down to their ability and training. Sure, if they meet equally skilled gunfighters on the battlefield and they have a better kit they have the advantage and thus are more effective. It doesn't make them the better gunfighter.
Perhaps its a point of concision, if you mean effective instead of superior. Then I have nothing to say, because logistical advantages are meant to give someone an edge. In that case, your syntax isn't clear.
I think you are just getting confused with "better player" and "better PvP'er".
Let's take your example, but move it back to Roman times (a better analogy).
Back in Rome, it was expected that a soldier would supply their own kit. Thus, a soldier that was had more money and thus better armor and weapons was indeed a better soldier. The skill of that person may not be any greater than the person next to them, but due to them having better gear, they are overall better.
In fact, even if our better geared friend is less good than the person next to then, they still stand a better chance of survival.
Then syntax and concision, “better” reads with hubris and arrogance. Definitely a word to be spoken rather then written, especially on the forums.
What you seem to truly describe is what is called battlefield effectiveness in professional militaries (US vet here). To which I have nothing to disagree with.
I do not disagree with your Roman analog either because a great gun fighter doesn’t translate to being good soldier. As what you described are parts of good soldiering.
Now, to clarify. I do not feel gear should be the most important factor in deciding an outcome, the player should always dictate efficacy and the game should support that. Especially when it comes to combat. May the best people(s) win.
Now, to clarify. I do not feel gear should be the most important factor in deciding an outcome
Did I say that this was or should be the case?
I said that gear will be *A* factor, a statement that I pointed out to you in my first direct reply to you when I said that you actually agree with me but dont realize it.
Gear will be *A* factor, you agree with this.
This means that there will be times when a player that is less good at PvP is able to beat a player that is better than them, but has worse gear - where the results of the matchup would be reversed in a gear normalized setting. In order for gear to be *A* factor, this has to happen. If this never happens, then gear is never a factor at all
This is all stuff you agree with me on, as I said right from the beginning - you just didn't realize.
A person that is shit probably isnt going to be able to use gear to bridge the gap between them and someone that is great at their class. However, someone that is fairly good will probably be able to use better gear to beat someone that is quite good (ie, a little better).
The problem there is, when you look at standard deviation of any kind of human skill, 90% of players will be within a range where gear will be what makes the difference in many fights, because most players are fairly close in terms of skill level.
Now, to clarify. I do not feel gear should be the most important factor in deciding an outcome
Did I say that this was or should be the case?
I said that gear will be *A* factor, a statement that I pointed out to you in my first direct reply to you when I said that you actually agree with me but dont realize it.
Gear will be *A* factor, you agree with this.
This means that there will be times when a player that is less good at PvP is able to beat a player that is better than them, but has worse gear - where the results of the matchup would be reversed in a gear normalized setting. In order for gear to be *A* factor, this has to happen. If this never happens, then gear is never a factor at all
This is all stuff you agree with me on, as I said right from the beginning - you just didn't realize.
A person that is shit probably isnt going to be able to use gear to bridge the gap between them and someone that is great at their class. However, someone that is fairly good will probably be able to use better gear to beat someone that is quite good (ie, a little better).
The problem there is, when you look at standard deviation of any kind of human skill, 90% of players will be within a range where gear will be what makes the difference in many fights, because most players are fairly close in terms of skill level.
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.
I'm going to quickly go over my reasoning as to why I think the economy will have an impact on gear/progression more akin to Archeage and EVE than to most other games (L2 is somewhat mid tier in this regard).
Steven has said the games economy is a core aspect of the game. In order for the economy to be a core aspect of the game, it needs to feed back to individual player power - anything that is a core aspect of any game needs to feed in to individual player power.
Even things like node construction feed back to individual player power - even if by indirect means.
The core thing with the games economy though, is that it is the method by which many other aspects of the game will feed back to individual player power. There is no point in owning a freehold, spending time producing a product and then selling it - if the money you gain from that can not be used to increase your individual player power, then what was the point in it all?
While some of this concept of using the economy to gain personal power will absolutely come via Ashes over-enchanting system, that is absolutely not the only place it can come from. Another solid way to allow players to put their economic prowess to play in PvP (or PvE) is via consumables. Since all players have access to all consumables, the only difference between what players will actually use is in what they can afford to use.
You could also allow for temporary/rented ability augments that players could pay a fee to have access to for a week, or a month, or what ever (a concept that could also be used for other things).
They could also have enhancement stones that are very expensive crafted items, much as we have for PvP season placement now.
There are many other ways this could be done. While over-enchanting is indeed one major way I have no doubt players will be able to turn wealth in to power, it is absolutely not the only way I expect it to be done.
Now, to clarify. I do not feel gear should be the most important factor in deciding an outcome
Did I say that this was or should be the case?
I said that gear will be *A* factor, a statement that I pointed out to you in my first direct reply to you when I said that you actually agree with me but dont realize it.
Gear will be *A* factor, you agree with this.
This means that there will be times when a player that is less good at PvP is able to beat a player that is better than them, but has worse gear - where the results of the matchup would be reversed in a gear normalized setting. In order for gear to be *A* factor, this has to happen. If this never happens, then gear is never a factor at all
This is all stuff you agree with me on, as I said right from the beginning - you just didn't realize.
A person that is shit probably isnt going to be able to use gear to bridge the gap between them and someone that is great at their class. However, someone that is fairly good will probably be able to use better gear to beat someone that is quite good (ie, a little better).
The problem there is, when you look at standard deviation of any kind of human skill, 90% of players will be within a range where gear will be what makes the difference in many fights, because most players are fairly close in terms of skill level.
I was making my position clear, concise.
I mean, I made your position fairly clear back when I said you agree with me, but just didn't realize it.
Logistical superiority doesn’t make an individual a better player.
If a game calls for players to have good logistics, then a player with logistical superiority is a better player than an otherwise equal player, but whom does not have that logistical superiority.
It is odd that you would suggest otherwise.
If the game asks a thing of players, then obviously players being able to meet that request makes them better players of that game than players that are not able to meet that request.
It makes them more effective if they're equal in mastery. Can't assume how or why they have a logistical advantage, they could have the knowledge of getting it, it could have been handed to them for free.
Real world example,
A person joins their countries military and becomes a soldier. They aren't a better Gunfighter because their military has superior firepower, that comes down to their ability and training. Sure, if they meet equally skilled gunfighters on the battlefield and they have a better kit they have the advantage and thus are more effective. It doesn't make them the better gunfighter.
Perhaps its a point of concision, if you mean effective instead of superior. Then I have nothing to say, because logistical advantages are meant to give someone an edge. In that case, your syntax isn't clear.
look at jordan, better than anyone else. can he he win 1v5? nope. he needs pippen, rodman, kerr and the rest.
this is a team game, not eso or gw sitting on a corner killing bad players. you can still shine as an individual player in a team game, if that's what you want, and lead your team to victory.
A little background: I'm a avid Eve online player, and many of the systems that AoC is going to have have similar like systems in Eve Online. Eve online however is not a level based system, and that is very good for its pvp playground. Due to Eve online's rock paper scissors systems and role dependancy and specialization options, new players can participate in, and sometimes even perform key roles in pvp. And more importantly no matter what skill level (both player skill and charactar skill point amount) they can all participate in attacking or defending someones home.
How will this be in ashes of creation? If i'm level 20, just got my first tiny house and membership of a node, what will i be able to do to defend my home? Will the level disparity between me and max level attackers make it that i have no chance? will i experiance a dissatisfying time, when i realize that the time and money my character has invested in his or her new home can't realisticly be defended because of level disparity, or will there be options to make yourself usefull?
Here are my suggestions:
Instead of a fixed amount of players, have it set to combined level. Eg 50 lvl 40 players attack, Total pool of levels is 200, the defending team can defend with 40 level 50 players, or 100 level 20 players (Or any combination resulting up to 200 level pool)
Siege weapon efficiency is independant of level or class. This will allow lower level players to partake without having to use immersion breaking scaling effects.
Battleground is split up in brackets of similar levels whenever possible.
When not all levels are equally important in node warfare, the game will become a must be max level to participate, wich will lead to stagnation, and ultimatly player decline and will prevent new player influx
The only time a lower level will not be slotted is in the case of castle siege.
The only time a lower level will not be slotted is in the case of castle siege.
Or if there are more than enough players at the level cap.
While a lower level character may be perfectly able to perform some activities, they are not going to be better at them than a level capped player.
Since it is highly unlikely that those activities will be all that is required, there will still be times when players need to fight directly. I know for a fact that if I am running a siege, I'll send a group of players to where ever the activities that lower level players can take part in are happening.
I mean, if a lower level player is able to have the same impact using a siege engine as a level capped player using that same siege engine can have, then I look at that is being able to take out a level capped players worth of effectiveness, by actually just taking out a lower level player.
The only time a lower level will not be slotted is in the case of castle siege.
Or if there are more than enough players at the level cap.
While a lower level character may be perfectly able to perform some activities, they are not going to be better at them than a level capped player.
Since it is highly unlikely that those activities will be all that is required, there will still be times when players need to fight directly. I know for a fact that if I am running a siege, I'll send a group of players to where ever the activities that lower level players can take part in are happening.
I mean, if a lower level player is able to have the same impact using a siege engine as a level capped player using that same siege engine can have, then I look at that is being able to take out a level capped players worth of effectiveness, by actually just taking out a lower level player.
Well if everyone in their node partakes either levels scale. Which would suck. Or stats don’t have a great disparity, which would piss off higher levels.
The only time a lower level will not be slotted is in the case of castle siege.
Or if there are more than enough players at the level cap.
While a lower level character may be perfectly able to perform some activities, they are not going to be better at them than a level capped player.
Since it is highly unlikely that those activities will be all that is required, there will still be times when players need to fight directly. I know for a fact that if I am running a siege, I'll send a group of players to where ever the activities that lower level players can take part in are happening.
I mean, if a lower level player is able to have the same impact using a siege engine as a level capped player using that same siege engine can have, then I look at that is being able to take out a level capped players worth of effectiveness, by actually just taking out a lower level player.
Well if everyone in their node partakes either levels scale. Which would suck. Or stats don’t have a great disparity, which would piss off higher levels.
Everyone in the node is signed up to defend.
Not everyone participates.
Sieges have a cap on them, either 250 or 500.
Large nodes will have more citizens than that, let alone citizens from their vassal nodes that are also automatically signed up as defenders.
A metropolis could well have a few thousand people that are citizens of it, or of it's vassals, and potentially another few thousand players that would happily join in on the defense of that node. An example of this would be that the citizens of an economic or scientific metropolis would probably not want to lose a second node of their same type to a siege, as that lowers the potency of their nodes metropolis level benefit.
We don't yet know what system decides who participates and who doesn't of the players that are signed up. It may well just be a first come first served, or it may be up to the Mayor in regards to a node defense - we just don't know at this stage.
However, if there is the option for someone to pick who participates and who does not (which there really should be, it's such an easy thing to abuse otherwise), then they will likely pick level capped players over non-level capped players.
It is worth pointing out that the above only really applies to large scale node sieges - metropolis nodes. There is actually a real possibility that lower level players won't have the financial capacity to own housing in a metropolis node - again we just don't know.
@Noaani so you're basically up for another very hardcore mmorpg experience where gear and money decide your power tremendously.
Answer, you've been playing for 2 years as an Archer, new player joins the server and he is also an Archer+Mage sub type and heavy commits to his sub to save on augment and other costs as much as possible he loves PvP.
3 year point (he's been playing for 1 year and you 3), you both play the same hours and everyday, he is fed up he can't buy gold for gear to catch up to players 2 years ahead, fresh start server begins, tell him why shouldn't he join it.
The biggest question, why should new players join your server. Your preference has no care for competitive growth.
Also the Romans didn't have many months of years or training, this is a fantasy game so as far as everyone is concerned, we're all trained in the ways of Sparta like in the movie 300 and rng lucked not getting thrown off a cliff as a baby. Gear is good but does not make a man.
@Noaani so you're basically up for another very hardcore mmorpg experience where gear and money decide your power tremendously.
I didn't say it would be "tremendously".
I said it would exist, and gave a few examples of ways it could exist. I wouldn't expect all of the examples I gave to exist in Ashes.
I mean, the only alternative to a game where the economy can be used to facilitate players gaining advantage are games like WoW where everything that can give players an advantage is character bound.
As soon as you make gear tradeable, you open things up to allow people to get gear via playing the games economy.
I mean, the entire point of an MMORPG is that those other factors (such as the economy) are a thing, and those things impact other things (such as PvP). If a developer wanted to make a game where those other factors didn't impact things like PvP, they would just make a game without those other factors.
Answer, you've been playing for 2 years as an Archer, new player joins the server and he is also an Archer+Mage sub type and heavy commits to his sub to save on augment and other costs as much as possible he loves PvP.
3 year point (he's been playing for 1 year and you 3), you both play the same hours and everyday, he is fed up he can't buy gold for gear to catch up to players 2 years ahead, fresh start server begins, tell him why shouldn't he join it.
This is *LITERALLY* the reason developers do progression resets in MMO's.
In a game like WoW, it is a new level cap. This makes all previous gear essentially redundant, and puts all players at the level cap on the same footing (more or less). When players have run through the leveling content of the new expansion, they are going to be fairly evenly equipped.
In a game like Archeage, this involved XL and Trion providing easy access to a specific tier of gear just before adding a new tier. Thus newer or otherwise lesser geared players can more easily upgrade to the quality of gear they have, before everyone starts going after the new tier that is about to come out.
I don't know if L2 did this, but it has been common practice in most MMO's since about 2006. I fully expect Intrepid to do something along these lines.
Edit to add, even if you ignore the above concept that will be present in Ashes, with your above scenario, you are completely forgetting the concept of diminishing returns.
In Archeage, I was playing several tiers (arguably several dozen tiers) above all of the above gear resets. The reason I was able to keep up with players spending literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on the game was because they were chasing that 0.1%, whereas I stopped at the 1%. They put about 75% of their effort in to that 0.1%, while I simply didn't.
If a game has a never ending, steady climb of constant progression without any diminishing returns, then I would essentially automatically opt to play either a different game, or no game.
I absolutely would not play a game that had that specific design, and wouldn't expect anyone else to either.
@Noaani a 0.1% player on Archeage is 100% or more effective than a "1%" player and I'm not even joking, they had every reason to literally buy into more power.
If L2 and Archeage were games where you could never buy gold the game monsterously award the player who invests the most time into it and "being more skilled" is almost zero factor, no mmorpg's of the past are hard enough to compliment skill (old systems that are easily macro'd, tab > lock on). This is totally against the "multiplayer" aspect of the game, it's not a game when you begin or finish it is a chore similar to r/l, when a player starts an mmo game they start off as a baby and they have to literally wait until they're a full blown adult for some agency, only buying gold sped up the aging process.
The mmo genre heavily relying on worked gear to always be an improvement over what you had is an old concept, "resets" are just cheap thrills essentially creating a fresh start scenerio when the players previously definetly couldn't care less about it and would likely vote to complete new content with their current gear.
I could mention how Ultima Online did gearing or how New World (for all its wrongs obv) actually made a positive with alternative gear which helped amplify your classes abilities, a literal tailoring job (imagine that, TAILORED gear, instead of over enchanting gear that passively does skilled work for you!), BUT you'd ignore it because you have a fixed agenda on what an mmorpg should be.
Based off of old principals I would literally advise no young person I ever bumped into to start an mmorpg because I would bring up the huge cons of constantly needing to play for relevance and making sure you're always there for the "resets" etc etc. You're not bridging any gaps, you're just here to make mmorpg's a closed space that is ideal for YOU, there is no "Massive Multiplayer" in the equation!
I'm fully expecting a skilled Level 30 to be able to beat a crappy Level 50 me. Just play and have fun.
Nah this injustice can never happen! Your gear and level should auto squash him and that truly IS the essence of Player vs Player interaction and what makes mmorpg's the magic experience that we're all after!
What is a game where you can't be Sir Alan Sugar and say "you're fired"...AND somehow retain youthful mechanics AND where every idea and business strategy is irrelevant vs fixed parameter's or combat stats in the game.
Comments
A gaming being alive or dead is moot.
However,
“ 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.”
You described a master, the person who took the time to learn game mechanics, right here in equalized PvP.
The person who lost in equalized PvP proved they are an inferior player with more time they geared out.
They are not a master or better player.
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.
just give the lowbies the seige equipment :P they be fine lol (I just image a child firing a balista) lol
there could also be some lower level mobs that can play into seigewarefare too i reckon or harvesting maybe even crafting, harvesting could supply resource stockpiles wood/stone/ore/leather (various quality based on harvester level) these stockpiles can be used during seiges by crafters to make better version of repairkits or upgrade kits for seige equipment based on crafter skill level (these items will only last for seige duration) These items could be impactful enough thats that crafters might even be the key to winning over combatant. I feel this would allow harvester/crafters a play in seiges outside of fighting aswell and be impactful
Low level characters will feel like the working class in real life and that's fine, that will incentivize them to explore the world, grow and play with others!
Unlike other mmorpg's who feed them like a mommy flying the airplay spoon into your mouth...just play the game and stop feeling entitled to do everything within it, for god sake.
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. 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.
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?
Logistical superiority doesn’t make an individual a better player. That’s what gear is, a logistical advantage.
Equalization removes that advantage. All that’s left is mastery.
That’s it, that’s all there is to it.
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 then it has to be accessible and not a ridiculous economy strength game that decides your own gameplay strength so strongly.
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.
Yeah I agree- not sure how that relates to what I was saying. I said progression shouldn't provide "too much" of an advantage. The moment it does, is the moment when progression would fall under the exact category of what you just explained, because both skill and progression should play a factor, rather than the fight being over before it started based on gear score.
There is also other ways of "winning" or coming out on top. I agree that people who master more systems should be rewarded more (risk/reward)- but that doesn't have to manifest itself within the experience of more specialized gameplay systems. It is also possible to design certain systems to operate more in a vacuum if the experience requires that kind of design approach, with the "benefits of mastering more systems" manifesting within other systems where it wouldn't negatively impact the experience too much (for example having equalized pvp, with progression mattering more in other areas of the game, so you can be rewarded for mastering both, without detracring from what pvp is supposed to be about "combat skill"). Not saying this approach should be taken, but I am saying there is not necessarily anything wrong with that approach, which would still allow for your point to remain true even if pvp came down to purely combat skill without influence of progression at all (which is not what I am advocating for in my original point.)
Never said you did either. I just don’t want to see any system bury combat and class design, it can stand alone. Most importantly it’s the vehicle in we interface through the game with creating interactions.
what about high level players who put time and effort into the game and their character? why shouldn't they be able to contribute more to a siege than boomerdad69 who only plays 2 hours a day and doesn't even want to level up? you are dismissing those players.
Is already said low level players will be able to contribute in different ways. but when it comes to actual fights, the higher level player should be able to contribute more.
also, if you think about it, you don't go to a war, your country has soldiers who spend years training and preparing and go to war so you don't have to. back then, there were warriors and soldiers who defended the villages and cities. so why should da low level 20 farmer be able to win a war instead of a lvl 50 soldier?
If a game calls for players to have good logistics, then a player with logistical superiority is a better player than an otherwise equal player, but whom does not have that logistical superiority.
It is odd that you would suggest otherwise.
If the game asks a thing of players, then obviously players being able to meet that request makes them better players of that game than players that are not able to meet that request.
It makes them more effective if they're equal in mastery. Can't assume how or why they have a logistical advantage, they could have the knowledge of getting it, it could have been handed to them for free.
Real world example,
A person joins their countries military and becomes a soldier. They aren't a better Gunfighter because their military has superior firepower, that comes down to their ability and training. Sure, if they meet equally skilled gunfighters on the battlefield and they have a better kit they have the advantage and thus are more effective. It doesn't make them the better gunfighter.
Perhaps its a point of concision, if you mean effective instead of superior. Then I have nothing to say, because logistical advantages are meant to give someone an edge. In that case, your syntax isn't clear.
I think you are just getting confused with "better player" and "better PvP'er".
Let's take your example, but move it back to Roman times (a better analogy).
Back in Rome, it was expected that a soldier would supply their own kit. Thus, a soldier that was had more money and thus better armor and weapons was indeed a better soldier. The skill of that person may not be any greater than the person next to them, but due to them having better gear, they are overall better.
In fact, even if our better geared friend is less good than the person next to then, they still stand a better chance of survival.
The topic isn't about being equal, effective or having a chance against those players, but letting those players have something to do during node sieges that makes them feel that their contributing to the defense. Gear, level, skill should all attribute to combat effectiveness, feeling usefull isn't nessicarily combat effectivness. But as Vaknar posted:
Then syntax and concision, “better” reads with hubris and arrogance. Definitely a word to be spoken rather then written, especially on the forums.
What you seem to truly describe is what is called battlefield effectiveness in professional militaries (US vet here). To which I have nothing to disagree with.
I do not disagree with your Roman analog either because a great gun fighter doesn’t translate to being good soldier. As what you described are parts of good soldiering.
Now, to clarify. I do not feel gear should be the most important factor in deciding an outcome, the player should always dictate efficacy and the game should support that. Especially when it comes to combat. May the best people(s) win.
Did I say that this was or should be the case?
I said that gear will be *A* factor, a statement that I pointed out to you in my first direct reply to you when I said that you actually agree with me but dont realize it.
Gear will be *A* factor, you agree with this.
This means that there will be times when a player that is less good at PvP is able to beat a player that is better than them, but has worse gear - where the results of the matchup would be reversed in a gear normalized setting. In order for gear to be *A* factor, this has to happen. If this never happens, then gear is never a factor at all
This is all stuff you agree with me on, as I said right from the beginning - you just didn't realize.
A person that is shit probably isnt going to be able to use gear to bridge the gap between them and someone that is great at their class. However, someone that is fairly good will probably be able to use better gear to beat someone that is quite good (ie, a little better).
The problem there is, when you look at standard deviation of any kind of human skill, 90% of players will be within a range where gear will be what makes the difference in many fights, because most players are fairly close in terms of skill level.
I was making my position clear, concise.
Steven has said the games economy is a core aspect of the game. In order for the economy to be a core aspect of the game, it needs to feed back to individual player power - anything that is a core aspect of any game needs to feed in to individual player power.
Even things like node construction feed back to individual player power - even if by indirect means.
The core thing with the games economy though, is that it is the method by which many other aspects of the game will feed back to individual player power. There is no point in owning a freehold, spending time producing a product and then selling it - if the money you gain from that can not be used to increase your individual player power, then what was the point in it all?
While some of this concept of using the economy to gain personal power will absolutely come via Ashes over-enchanting system, that is absolutely not the only place it can come from. Another solid way to allow players to put their economic prowess to play in PvP (or PvE) is via consumables. Since all players have access to all consumables, the only difference between what players will actually use is in what they can afford to use.
You could also allow for temporary/rented ability augments that players could pay a fee to have access to for a week, or a month, or what ever (a concept that could also be used for other things).
They could also have enhancement stones that are very expensive crafted items, much as we have for PvP season placement now.
There are many other ways this could be done. While over-enchanting is indeed one major way I have no doubt players will be able to turn wealth in to power, it is absolutely not the only way I expect it to be done.
I mean, I made your position fairly clear back when I said you agree with me, but just didn't realize it.
look at jordan, better than anyone else. can he he win 1v5? nope. he needs pippen, rodman, kerr and the rest.
this is a team game, not eso or gw sitting on a corner killing bad players. you can still shine as an individual player in a team game, if that's what you want, and lead your team to victory.
The only time a lower level will not be slotted is in the case of castle siege.
Or if there are more than enough players at the level cap.
While a lower level character may be perfectly able to perform some activities, they are not going to be better at them than a level capped player.
Since it is highly unlikely that those activities will be all that is required, there will still be times when players need to fight directly. I know for a fact that if I am running a siege, I'll send a group of players to where ever the activities that lower level players can take part in are happening.
I mean, if a lower level player is able to have the same impact using a siege engine as a level capped player using that same siege engine can have, then I look at that is being able to take out a level capped players worth of effectiveness, by actually just taking out a lower level player.
Well if everyone in their node partakes either levels scale. Which would suck. Or stats don’t have a great disparity, which would piss off higher levels.
Everyone in the node is signed up to defend.
Not everyone participates.
Sieges have a cap on them, either 250 or 500.
Large nodes will have more citizens than that, let alone citizens from their vassal nodes that are also automatically signed up as defenders.
A metropolis could well have a few thousand people that are citizens of it, or of it's vassals, and potentially another few thousand players that would happily join in on the defense of that node. An example of this would be that the citizens of an economic or scientific metropolis would probably not want to lose a second node of their same type to a siege, as that lowers the potency of their nodes metropolis level benefit.
We don't yet know what system decides who participates and who doesn't of the players that are signed up. It may well just be a first come first served, or it may be up to the Mayor in regards to a node defense - we just don't know at this stage.
However, if there is the option for someone to pick who participates and who does not (which there really should be, it's such an easy thing to abuse otherwise), then they will likely pick level capped players over non-level capped players.
It is worth pointing out that the above only really applies to large scale node sieges - metropolis nodes. There is actually a real possibility that lower level players won't have the financial capacity to own housing in a metropolis node - again we just don't know.
Answer, you've been playing for 2 years as an Archer, new player joins the server and he is also an Archer+Mage sub type and heavy commits to his sub to save on augment and other costs as much as possible he loves PvP.
3 year point (he's been playing for 1 year and you 3), you both play the same hours and everyday, he is fed up he can't buy gold for gear to catch up to players 2 years ahead, fresh start server begins, tell him why shouldn't he join it.
The biggest question, why should new players join your server. Your preference has no care for competitive growth.
Also the Romans didn't have many months of years or training, this is a fantasy game so as far as everyone is concerned, we're all trained in the ways of Sparta like in the movie 300 and rng lucked not getting thrown off a cliff as a baby. Gear is good but does not make a man.
I said it would exist, and gave a few examples of ways it could exist. I wouldn't expect all of the examples I gave to exist in Ashes.
I mean, the only alternative to a game where the economy can be used to facilitate players gaining advantage are games like WoW where everything that can give players an advantage is character bound.
As soon as you make gear tradeable, you open things up to allow people to get gear via playing the games economy.
I mean, the entire point of an MMORPG is that those other factors (such as the economy) are a thing, and those things impact other things (such as PvP). If a developer wanted to make a game where those other factors didn't impact things like PvP, they would just make a game without those other factors. This is *LITERALLY* the reason developers do progression resets in MMO's.
In a game like WoW, it is a new level cap. This makes all previous gear essentially redundant, and puts all players at the level cap on the same footing (more or less). When players have run through the leveling content of the new expansion, they are going to be fairly evenly equipped.
In a game like Archeage, this involved XL and Trion providing easy access to a specific tier of gear just before adding a new tier. Thus newer or otherwise lesser geared players can more easily upgrade to the quality of gear they have, before everyone starts going after the new tier that is about to come out.
I don't know if L2 did this, but it has been common practice in most MMO's since about 2006. I fully expect Intrepid to do something along these lines.
Edit to add, even if you ignore the above concept that will be present in Ashes, with your above scenario, you are completely forgetting the concept of diminishing returns.
In Archeage, I was playing several tiers (arguably several dozen tiers) above all of the above gear resets. The reason I was able to keep up with players spending literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on the game was because they were chasing that 0.1%, whereas I stopped at the 1%. They put about 75% of their effort in to that 0.1%, while I simply didn't.
If a game has a never ending, steady climb of constant progression without any diminishing returns, then I would essentially automatically opt to play either a different game, or no game.
I absolutely would not play a game that had that specific design, and wouldn't expect anyone else to either.
If L2 and Archeage were games where you could never buy gold the game monsterously award the player who invests the most time into it and "being more skilled" is almost zero factor, no mmorpg's of the past are hard enough to compliment skill (old systems that are easily macro'd, tab > lock on). This is totally against the "multiplayer" aspect of the game, it's not a game when you begin or finish it is a chore similar to r/l, when a player starts an mmo game they start off as a baby and they have to literally wait until they're a full blown adult for some agency, only buying gold sped up the aging process.
The mmo genre heavily relying on worked gear to always be an improvement over what you had is an old concept, "resets" are just cheap thrills essentially creating a fresh start scenerio when the players previously definetly couldn't care less about it and would likely vote to complete new content with their current gear.
I could mention how Ultima Online did gearing or how New World (for all its wrongs obv) actually made a positive with alternative gear which helped amplify your classes abilities, a literal tailoring job (imagine that, TAILORED gear, instead of over enchanting gear that passively does skilled work for you!), BUT you'd ignore it because you have a fixed agenda on what an mmorpg should be.
Based off of old principals I would literally advise no young person I ever bumped into to start an mmorpg because I would bring up the huge cons of constantly needing to play for relevance and making sure you're always there for the "resets" etc etc. You're not bridging any gaps, you're just here to make mmorpg's a closed space that is ideal for YOU, there is no "Massive Multiplayer" in the equation!
Nah this injustice can never happen! Your gear and level should auto squash him and that truly IS the essence of Player vs Player interaction and what makes mmorpg's the magic experience that we're all after!
What is a game where you can't be Sir Alan Sugar and say "you're fired"...AND somehow retain youthful mechanics AND where every idea and business strategy is irrelevant vs fixed parameter's or combat stats in the game.