Kesthely wrote: » 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
Solvryn wrote: » Logistical superiority doesn’t make an individual a better player.
Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » 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?
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: » Solvryn wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » Now, to clarify. I do not feel gear should be the most important factor in deciding an outcome
Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
NishUK wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » The only time a lower level will not be slotted is in the case of castle siege.
Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
NishUK wrote: » @Noaani so you're basically up for another very hardcore mmorpg experience where gear and money decide your power tremendously.
NishUK wrote: » 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.
daveywavey wrote: » I'm fully expecting a skilled Level 30 to be able to beat a crappy Level 50 me. Just play and have fun.
