Lot of strong feelings, but a system's more than the sum of its parts. Waiting to see clear details on itemization and equipment system's before tearing them apart, a la carte.
What @tugowar said. There will still be a way for guilds to help its members improve etc, all this will do is hinder elitist mentality.
That is not what @tugowar said. Also, there is no guaranteed that not having this system will hinder elitist mentality because elitism doesn't come from this system, it's inherent to the player. If someone is elitist and this system isn't in place, then they will find other ways to be an elitist. Tugowar said it will be an inconvenience to not have this in place.
"What tugowar said" means I agree with him... then I expand upon it with my own opinion... Nowhere did I say that tugowar said what I think.
@lexmax yes that's the most likely the way they'll do it. Even though they said they don't want players to "snoop on your gear", an opt in system would solve that. It would however encourage elitist mentality. You won't be able to join groups unless you opt in to show them your gear/spec, etc.
If a person decides to join any guild that is elitist that is their choice.
Talked about normal groups. Like dungeon groups or pugs.
Although I love having a sneaky peak at people's gear I do believe for Ashes inspection shouldn't be necessary and should be an optional choice rather than mandatory.
By the sounds of the diversity involved in Ashes when it comes to your character spec, gear and weapon choices I feel that having an inspection mode encourages slight elitistism especially when it comes to raids. Not for gear level, but I wouldn't want to be rejected from a raid because the raid leader thought my equipment choices were not good regardless of my performance.
I want to play my class in the way that makes me feel good and have fun, that's why I'm drawn to Ashes. They are allowing us to have great diversity with how we play the "role" we enjoy playing
However I also want to be proud of the choices I've made so if the option is available to share my characters details then I shall
and if you reject me from a raid because you don't like my dwarf bard/whatever with bagpipes then I don't want to be part of your raid anyway xD I'll go make ma own raid xD
...if all raids are complete-able by people of any gear level, how silly that would be?
This would mean game has extremely low competitiveness and that WILL push a lot of people away.
There SHOULD be different levels on content, complete-able on different levels of gear (and skill, but gear also). And if there IS a content that REQUIRES higher gear level, then people who form the raids need to know who they can invite, for the simple reason not to waste everybodys time.
It is a hard question, and not an easy choice.
I would personally prevent gear inspection in open world, but I don't know how I would solve the problem of raid leaders trying to form raids that can actually complete the content.
And I am totally NOT for all content be complete-able by everyone, because if this is how it would be I would certainly think twice if I would want to play such game.
I need a challenge, and I need to feel that my progress allows me to reach some content that i was not able to reach previous to my effort.
It's not my intention to knock your preference of play, because we're all entitled to our opinions. But, I just don't understand some people's fascination/love of "gated content". So far, to my knowledge, Intrepid has stated that there would be no gated-requirement to any open world content. I honestly can't speak on if that would also apply to instanced content, or arena's.
Imo, this line of thinking is what has led to the stagnation of the mmo genre. I hear the common refrain, "People want a challenge!". Yet, their idea of "challenge" usually typifies the drab formula of getting the best gear, as soon as possible...clearing the nearest dungeon as soon as possible, while farming it for better gear...quickly moving on to the next dungeon...rinse, repeat. If that is fun for some people, cool by me. No hate. But, it was my impression that Ashes was trying to deviate from that kind of linear progression, end game content mentality.
Will dungeons have a certain level of difficulty? Yes. Will they be able to be completed by any level of player? Highly unlikely, but I won't say impossible. How do you find out? You freaking explore, and find out yourself. That's what an "adventure" is about. Exploration. If you happen upon a dungeon, gather a party to explore, and find out that you can't get but so far...then just leave, get a bit stronger, then try again. Everything doesn't need a signpost that says, "X level of player, BEGONE! But, if you're Y level of player, COME ON IN!".
Steven gives an example as to how being able to view people's equipment can lead to an elitist behavior by pointing to raid leaders telling people "You're not welcome in this raid", and while this might be an unwanted behavior, i have to say, the majority of times a raid leader tells a player they aren't welcome in a said raid, it is because that player will be a hindrance to the team. It is useful to have a tool to check if a certain player is good enough to contribute to finishing a raid.
Having the ability to view people's equipment will only lead to an elitist behavior if a certain player uses it that way. If this is the case, then that player is the inherent problem. It is that player who is toxic, and is using this inspection tool to be an elitist. Guild leaders and Raid leaders are the people who benefit from this most, and if a player tells someone they aren't welcome somewhere because they don't have the right gear, then that is probably for the better. Keep in mind, if that person is serious about getting better in the game, then they can play other parts of the game to get stronger. Strong enough to join whatever that activity might have been. So, it isn't the option that is inherently elitist friendly, it's more about how it is used. I would love it if such an option exists in the game. Anyways, what do you guys think?
1: Hindrance to the group/raid largely depends on the playstyle of the leader. In NWO, it was common to be kicked from a party by leaders who wanted to speed run several dungeons in one hour. Anyone who was new to the dungeon and didn't know/follow the speed run course got kicked quite quickly. Gear score was gated by the dungeons.
2: I am fashion over function. Playing the story-role of my character is more important to me than efficient combat. Gamers tend to focus almost exclusively on maximizing efficient combat. I tend to still find ways to defeat dungeons solo even with subpar gear.
3: In Ashes, some mobs/bosses will be unkillable - we will have to find other means besides combat to diffuse the threat. Party roles won't always be about combat and gear score. It's not really about the gear - it's about how effective the character is at their roles - whatever their self-proclaimed roles are. If they can accomplish their tasks, gear score shouldn't matter.
4: In Ashes, it will probably be more important to know what augments a character has, rather than their gear score.
I didn't understand Steven's concept about how not having a gear score promotes community bonding.
I think the answer is in reasons #3 & #4, of your previous post.
Imo, while gear will play an important role, it won't be the "end all, be all", in regards to tackling the challenges the game throws the players way.
Will having better gear make things more efficient/easier? Most likely. But, that doesn't mean that those with "non-optimal" gear can't succeed, either.
Without tools that focus on/emphasize gear, I'm guessing that Steven is hoping players will focus more on...players.
Looking at what gear you have is '0' guarantee of performance. The fact that some people want pre-emptive knowledge to use as a factual performance indicator, rather than giving someone the opportunity to prove themselves and actually seeing their performance, is elitism.
It is a way for people to weed out the majority of players without even knowing how good they really are. It is a way to select only the very best...in the eyes of the beholder at least. It is a way to impose requirements, restriction and ultimately rule.
I have no time for such...'rulers'. I will happily join anyone who knows how to treat people as something other than the crap on their shoe because they dont fit their min maxed model.
A community game isnt about picking only the very best like an expensive university, its about everyone being an acceptable standard so they can play together with anyone. Anyone who is infatuated with only the very best, has to by definition be elitist.
I don't want to be "inspectable" by strangers at all, because it would reduce my pvp edge, and it would detract from the cool mysteriousness factor of the item(s) that the other player doesn't recognize on me. With that said, there should definitely be the option to temporarily allow another player to inspect your gear. This way, you can share selectively and show your gear to friends, guildies, and raid leaders at your discretion.
This game is bringing back the legendary, the awe moments. etc... So to think there will not be people/guilds caring about gear for raids and other activities is just silly. There is nothing wrong with those types of people; if you don't like that don't apply; find a guild or friends that play like you. Having an option to see gear is a good and convenient way to help anyone who needs that information. Now with the cryptic dialogue from Kevin and Steven ... I would say to them. More options you can toggle is always the best policy. Give your audience more freedom to play this game the way they want.
There's hardly much point in not allowing at least some form of it. There are no doubt going to be other ways in which raid leaders can bench mark players. Like directly asking, which is time consuming, but effective. "is that the sword of infinite demon slaying, or a rusty iron sword?" asks leader
"it's the sword of infinite demon slaying" replies guildie leader, dubious, suggests "then you shouldn't have any problem killing those demons over there" the guildie nervously replies "uhh... of course not hehe" and goes off to get rekt for his lie.
The leader could do this for each and every member of his raid team, every raid, for the entire game... and he probably should almost always vet new people if he wants to be effective.
Or there could be a handy inspection option instead of just graphical cues.
However, graphical cues could certainly work... if EVERY single item in the game has a unique graphical appearance.
It is interesting to read the different perspectives and i see both sides. It is tough for me to imagine having difficulty raid content and not having some type of minimum gear to use. I completely agree that player skill makes a huge difference but for some content you really need to have a certain amount of gear. I do not feel strong on either side of the argument so i am just curious on which way Intrepid goes. i already posted what i believe they are planning to do so no need to rehash that.
This game is bringing back the legendary, the awe moments. etc... So to think there will not be people/guilds caring about gear for raids and other activities is just silly. There is nothing wrong with those types of people; if you don't like that don't apply; find a guild or friends that play like you. Having an option to see gear is a good and convenient way to help anyone who needs that information. Now with the cryptic dialogue from Kevin and Steven ... I would say to them. More options you can toggle is always the best policy. Give your audience more freedom to play this game the way they want.
So my impression is that Steven doesn't want the toxicity that follows with showing your gear to people. It becomes more of a huge barrier to entry for new players, casual players, or players who are simply afraid they don't cut it. And that winds up being a lot of players. They will essentially be cut-off from ever experiencing those cool aspects of the game, so I totally get why Steven is trying not introduce mechanics that are exclusionary in their effect.
I advocated for a selective inspection ability in my earlier post, but even that will bring the exact kind of toxic elitism that Steven is afraid to have fostered here. The only option he really has is to not allow anyone to inspect for stats at all, and this may also include things like linking the item in chat, trade windows, etc. He is between a rock and a hard place for sure with this, and I'm not sure what the best trade off solution would be to help the most people.
One potential solution that I could see sort of working would be an achievements system (sort of). An achievement system could be introduced that tracks all sorts of achievement metrics for the players, and something other players could inspect. That way raid groups can tell if you have done X content at X difficulty etc. "We see you've made it to boss 3 of that other raid, so we will take a chance on you blah blah...."
I think this is a worthwhile discussion. I find myself agreeing with certain aspects of both the 'for' and 'against' arguments...so good points all round, folks! It might be more clear to all once the actual gameplay starts, and we can feed back to IS from experience.
...if all raids are complete-able by people of any gear level, how silly that would be?
This would mean game has extremely low competitiveness and that WILL push a lot of people away.
There SHOULD be different levels on content, complete-able on different levels of gear (and skill, but gear also). And if there IS a content that REQUIRES higher gear level, then people who form the raids need to know who they can invite, for the simple reason not to waste everybodys time.
It is a hard question, and not an easy choice.
I would personally prevent gear inspection in open world, but I don't know how I would solve the problem of raid leaders trying to form raids that can actually complete the content.
And I am totally NOT for all content be complete-able by everyone, because if this is how it would be I would certainly think twice if I would want to play such game.
I need a challenge, and I need to feel that my progress allows me to reach some content that i was not able to reach previous to my effort.
Your statement is correct, provided that gear level is a direct indicator of character capability. This is not true in all games, and it is possible that development is not going in that direction.
For the purpose of argument, lets say that past tier 1 gear, stat improvement is minimal. Instead, gear starts to grant augments to skills that were not previously available or abundant. You may end up in a situation where the challenges of later raids involve mechanics that require the abilities granted by a given tier of gear, rather than a requirement for a given level of damage mitigation or attack power.
As an example,
Lets say you are going for some content that has a mechanic where a mob periodically does a large AoE attack that is barely survivable with peak damage mitigation. It isn't possible to heal the raid/group through this either due to the rate of damage, or due to healer resources (mana or whatever). Maybe there is tier 2 and 3 gear out there that gives you an augment on a skill that grants iframes. Now, it is no longer a question of what tier gear you have, but rather, "do you have two .75 second iframe skills slotted with less than a 60 second cool down."
When a conversation is shifted to capabilities like the above, gear may not be a direct requirement. Maybe specific classes have skills that fit the requirement, and as such need less of that tier gear to do the specific content. If different content requires different gear, it demands competitiveness, but can not be rated in the linear fashion that we are used to.
I can't speak to your personal preferences, but I think mechanics could be implemented in late game content that would satisfy most of your stated concerns.
@WarkovOne potential solution that I could see sort of working would be an achievements system (sort of). An achievement system could be introduced that tracks all sorts of achievement metrics for the players, and something other players could inspect. That way raid groups can tell if you have done X content at X difficulty etc. "We see you've made it to boss 3 of that other raid, so we will take a chance on you blah blah...."
Oh god, please no. There will be an achievement system, and I for one will be for it not being able to be linked in chat. If you have ever played WOW or ESO, or really any system that has the ability to link achievements then you have experienced the {Anal} or {Bacon}spam that occurs, usually around a shutdown. (In a game with a person named Bacon having helped build it, I expect the latter.)
The other problem becomes the chicken and egg issue. Randoms will not take people without the achievement, people can't get the achievement because they are casuals and maybe don't have an active guild that has run it before, leading to a whole new level of toxic as people post "Running X dungeon, link achieve for inv." Just like gearscore, it becomes an exercise in stupidity. "We require you to have a GS average of 190 to run with us, even though the loot that drops is 180."
Being ruled out of all but the most accommodating groups puts you in a a catch 22 situation. Need to do raids to get the best mats to make the gear but cant do the raids cuz you already have to have the best gear to get in the group to do them.........
Or you can do it like first groups did it.
Form you own party, and invite people with gear level like yours is. Then put in some effort, like the first groups did (groups that now farm that raid) and complete the raid.
Everyone wants an easy ride with groups that already have the gear, and complain when those groups don't invite them, but no one wants to put in some effort like those groups did when they wiped for days until they learned the mechanics, all in weak gear.
Groups that put that much effort, and then managed to gear up and now have an easyer job have absolute right to invite only people on their gear level if they desire to do so. They payed the price, now they get to collect the rewards.
If they are kind enough to invite a new player or two, that's great for those players and they should be grateful, but in no way are those players entitles for an invite, or have right to consider those groups elitists.
In fact such players that complain about it would then be "entitled leechers".
Anyone has ability to put in an effort to form his own party, and to invite players on his own gear level and attempt to do the content, and wipe, wipe, learn, learn, pay the repair costs. Until finally he will understand it, beat it, and start gearing up.
So people (and i'm talking here to people in general who complain) do that instead of complaining. Noone likes to hear complaining of entitled lowbies who think they have right on all the easy rides at expense of people who payed the blood price to get there.
So, say I have top tier gear but generally don't perform well in group dynamics. This should be achievable because no separation of PvE/PvP gear. Guild/Raid leader inspects my gear, invites me on raid, I get wiped and don't really help my team.
Or, I excel at Raiding/PvP and rely less on gear due to my mad skills. I have less than top tier gear, but don't need it. Guild/Raid leader inspects my gear and doesn't let me in. They don't benefit from my mad skills.
What's the point? Judging players based on their gear seems odd to me. Besides, are they inspecting the gear I am wearing or all gear in my inventory? What if I am carrying bad ass heavy armor and massive DPS two handed weapon, but on battlefield I don leather and a low tier bow?
I see no "one fits all" solution here, as many others have indicated. But isn't inspecting a players gear and making a judgement call judging a book by it's cover?
It should be honor based, "Do you think you can handle this and benefit us?" -"Yes." "Okay, you're in." -"No." "Alright, grab next one."
And if they lie? Well, I don't see that not happening sometimes anyways so...
How do you find out? You freaking explore, and find out yourself. That's what an "adventure" is about. Exploration. If you happen upon a dungeon, gather a party to explore, and find out that you can't get but so far...then just leave, get a bit stronger, then try again. Everything doesn't need a signpost that says, "X level of player, BEGONE! But, if you're Y level of player, COME ON IN!".
Sadly only rare players think like that, and there lies the problem.
Most players, if allowed to enter a dungeon and then get wiped harshly and repeatedly, they will not think "oh I must get stronger and then come back", in fact most players will come to forums and spam threads complaining how dungeon they entered to is too hard, and complain endlessly how it needs to be nerfed.
This is sad reality, and this is the reason why content needs signposts "above Y level of players please enter". Because most players are like that. If they are allowed somewhere they expect to be able to do that content.
And those players will not listen to reason, or think like you.
As I said, that is unfortunate reality. This is why content needs to be gated.
This is why coffee cups in some countries must have text "THIS IS HOT", this is why signs at zoos need to be posted "DO NOT SWIM WITH ALIGATORS".
You think, having to have level tag on dungeon is sad? Man, you should look around yourself, the world is a sad place...
This seems like a sad view indeed. Trying to appease one crowd over another is a constant battle, I will agree to that. But making sign post telling you where you should or should not adventure? Where in the real world does that happen?
As a white male in America I know there are some streets that are more dangerous than others. I lived in what I consider a pretty hard ghetto in Kansas City MO. for quite some time. I knew where not to go at night. But NEVER did someone stop my car and go "You're white, this is rough ass gangster territory and it's 1:00am. Turn around dude."
@Azathoth While i think you're right regarding that judging someone shouldn't be solely based on gear, i have to say there is a fallacy in your example. You said " say I have top tier gear but generally don't perform well in group dynamics. This should be achievable because no separation of PvE/PvP gear. Guild/Raid leader inspects my gear, invites me on raid, I get wiped and don't really help my team.." This doesn't really make sense because you say the player in the example, you, has good gear. In fact, the best gear. You seem to forget that having high tier gear requires that you play top tier content, and play them enough times to get all of your equipment. If a player has high tier gear, then that player is most likely highly skilled in the game because they've spent hours/days/weeks/months playing dungeons/raids to get their gear. This insane time spent playing these dungeons/raids makes them familiar with the mechanics, which puts that top tier player, at least, above average. Put it simply, if someone has good gear, then they're skilled in playing most if not all dungeons/raids because to get a good gear, you've to spam them a lot.
There can be cases where someone buys a high tier/top player account, but those type of players are extremely rare. Like one in 5000 or something like that. However, i agree that people shouldn't be judged solely on their statistical power.
@SelinaH I see your logic, however it doesn't apply to Ashes gearing as it has been put out so far. There is no BOP/BOE. Some of the "high end" gear is crafted. So it is very possible that character in very best gear bought it, had it given to them by a friend, or is playing an alt that he got the gear from on his main and has no idea how to play the archetype. Will they have some basic knowledge of the game, sure, because unless they just had the account handed to them they will have played a bit. Ashes also says to be different, where the dungeons change, so people who have your very bestest, shiny gear, may have never seen that boss before that day.
I don't envision most of it being a problem, with no fast travel to instances, a limited groupfinder, and the other things that contribute in other games to random hookups being preferable over running stuff with people you know in your immediate area, it will mostly be a moot point. People will rise or fall based on their server/region rep. Just like shit floats, people who are bad will be known and avoided.
So, say I have top tier gear but generally don't perform well in group dynamics. This should be achievable because no separation of PvE/PvP gear. Guild/Raid leader inspects my gear, invites me on raid, I get wiped and don't really help my team.
Or, I excel at Raiding/PvP and rely less on gear due to my mad skills. I have less than top tier gear, but don't need it. Guild/Raid leader inspects my gear and doesn't let me in. They don't benefit from my mad skills.
...
It should be honor based, "Do you think you can handle this and benefit us?" -"Yes." "Okay, you're in." -"No." "Alright, grab next one."
And if they lie? Well, I don't see that not happening sometimes anyways so...
In ideal world It should be honor based and ideally players PERFORMANCE should be valued.
Performance = skill * GEAR
Sometimes skill is a major factor and can boost players performance over another player with lesser skill and better gear.
However, the key here is time.
Raid leader has no time to put 40 people to test to verify their performance. Raid leader can not see the peoples skill (unless he played with them before and knows, but we are talking here about random raid formation).
Raid leader can only see peoples gear level, so (if skill is unknown and performance = skill*gear) he can can only invite based of gear because there is higher probability those people will have better performance.
And if people in good gear are found lacking performance after the wipes, they can be replaced then just as easy.
Honor based method would be ideal, but realistically majority of people will lie just to get invited to raid. And no, sadly, I am not exaggerating.
And raid leader also values his time, he has to make the choices based on probability based on what he can see.
And again, whoever is not happy with choices of some raid leader... he is more then free to CREATE HIS OWN RAID. And then, your raid, your choices. Yes?
Well god damn. What happened to good enough ? We really have moved to... 'sorry, I only hang with the very best !'
MMO "Community". Is there anyone left that knows what that word means? Has it simply become a bastardised lingo having no resemblance to its original meaning ? There is no community if you leave 99% of the players on the trash heap because they dont meet your standards. Such people are not community players. Community is about inclusion.... not exclusion.
AND...if a dungeon is dynamic and ever changing (rather than the typical braindead script).... ...how the hell do you know what skill and gear would be required beforehand anyway ? I am shocked at some of the arguments used to justify elitism.
I agree with @Rune_Relic, although maybe not as passionately.
I also think the argument made by @Gothix "And if people in good gear are found lacking performance after the wipes, they can be replaced then just as easy," applies even if the Raid leader didn't examine gear. I mean if you don't perform well you will likely be replaced even if nobody ever checked your privilege, I mean gear.
As for the comment from @SelinaH, I agree mostly. However, in my example I was aiming more for being invited on a PvP raid for the first time even though I might have only played PvE up until that point. Since PvP gear will be the same as PvE gear, the gear won't indicate if the player is awesome at PvE, PvP or PvX.
It seems like there is a group of players that play to win only, because winning is a good example of having fun. While others play to have fun, and do not necessarily consider losing a huge setback, time/xp/otherwise. There will likely not be a compromise between those most passionate members of each group.
I will conceded that in a group of 7 players that all really want to destroy a Raid, a player that just wants to go fight and have fun might not be the best number 8. On the other side a group of 7 really chilled RP heavy players would benefit from an 8 that's sole purpose is to win, but that number 8 will likely not enjoy that groups dynamic.
I would think that if a player wants help from the Guild/Raid leader, they can just tell them in Game Chat or Voice Chat what gear they are running. No need to see what others are wearing in a PvP environment.
Since Ashes is oriented toward horizontal progression, I don't think gear is going to play as bigger role as other MMORPGs. From what Intrepid have hinted at, encounters are going to be reliant on class abilities and augments.
This remains to be seen in playtesting, but to my mind the Ashes meta will likely be strategic: "have we got X Y Z classes/augments in the group and do they know the mechanics" because using these abilities correctly is the only way to beat the encounter; rather than "do we have max level gear or max level H/DPS" as in other games.
If raid and dungeon encounters are mostly strategic rather than numerical (and I hope they are), then Ashes will be a paradigm shift from what we are used to in mainstream MMOs.
Comments
Nowhere did I say that tugowar said what I think.
Talked about normal groups. Like dungeon groups or pugs.
Although I love having a sneaky peak at people's gear I do believe for Ashes inspection shouldn't be necessary and should be an optional choice rather than mandatory.
By the sounds of the diversity involved in Ashes when it comes to your character spec, gear and weapon choices I feel that having an inspection mode encourages slight elitistism especially when it comes to raids. Not for gear level, but I wouldn't want to be rejected from a raid because the raid leader thought my equipment choices were not good regardless of my performance.
I want to play my class in the way that makes me feel good and have fun, that's why I'm drawn to Ashes. They are allowing us to have great diversity with how we play the "role" we enjoy playing
However I also want to be proud of the choices I've made so if the option is available to share my characters details then I shall
and if you reject me from a raid because you don't like my dwarf bard/whatever with bagpipes then I don't want to be part of your raid anyway xD I'll go make ma own raid xD
Imo, this line of thinking is what has led to the stagnation of the mmo genre. I hear the common refrain, "People want a challenge!". Yet, their idea of "challenge" usually typifies the drab formula of getting the best gear, as soon as possible...clearing the nearest dungeon as soon as possible, while farming it for better gear...quickly moving on to the next dungeon...rinse, repeat. If that is fun for some people, cool by me. No hate. But, it was my impression that Ashes was trying to deviate from that kind of linear progression, end game content mentality.
Will dungeons have a certain level of difficulty? Yes. Will they be able to be completed by any level of player? Highly unlikely, but I won't say impossible. How do you find out? You freaking explore, and find out yourself. That's what an "adventure" is about. Exploration. If you happen upon a dungeon, gather a party to explore, and find out that you can't get but so far...then just leave, get a bit stronger, then try again. Everything doesn't need a signpost that says, "X level of player, BEGONE! But, if you're Y level of player, COME ON IN!".
In NWO, it was common to be kicked from a party by leaders who wanted to speed run several dungeons in one hour. Anyone who was new to the dungeon and didn't know/follow the speed run course got kicked quite quickly.
Gear score was gated by the dungeons.
2: I am fashion over function. Playing the story-role of my character is more important to me than efficient combat. Gamers tend to focus almost exclusively on maximizing efficient combat.
I tend to still find ways to defeat dungeons solo even with subpar gear.
3: In Ashes, some mobs/bosses will be unkillable - we will have to find other means besides combat to diffuse the threat. Party roles won't always be about combat and gear score. It's not really about the gear - it's about how effective the character is at their roles - whatever their self-proclaimed roles are.
If they can accomplish their tasks, gear score shouldn't matter.
4: In Ashes, it will probably be more important to know what augments a character has, rather than their gear score.
Imo, while gear will play an important role, it won't be the "end all, be all", in regards to tackling the challenges the game throws the players way.
Will having better gear make things more efficient/easier? Most likely. But, that doesn't mean that those with "non-optimal" gear can't succeed, either.
Without tools that focus on/emphasize gear, I'm guessing that Steven is hoping players will focus more on...players.
Just a moderate pupil.
Looking at what gear you have is '0' guarantee of performance.
The fact that some people want pre-emptive knowledge to use as a factual performance indicator, rather than giving someone the opportunity to prove themselves and actually seeing their performance, is elitism.
It is a way for people to weed out the majority of players without even knowing how good they really are. It is a way to select only the very best...in the eyes of the beholder at least. It is a way to impose requirements, restriction and ultimately rule.
I have no time for such...'rulers'. I will happily join anyone who knows how to treat people as something other than the crap on their shoe because they dont fit their min maxed model.
A community game isnt about picking only the very best like an expensive university, its about everyone being an acceptable standard so they can play together with anyone. Anyone who is infatuated with only the very best, has to by definition be elitist.
There's hardly much point in not allowing at least some form of it. There are no doubt going to be other ways in which raid leaders can bench mark players. Like directly asking, which is time consuming, but effective. "is that the sword of infinite demon slaying, or a rusty iron sword?" asks leader
"it's the sword of infinite demon slaying" replies guildie
leader, dubious, suggests "then you shouldn't have any problem killing those demons over there"
the guildie nervously replies "uhh... of course not hehe" and goes off to get rekt for his lie.
The leader could do this for each and every member of his raid team, every raid, for the entire game... and he probably should almost always vet new people if he wants to be effective.
Or there could be a handy inspection option instead of just graphical cues.
However, graphical cues could certainly work... if EVERY single item in the game has a unique graphical appearance.
I advocated for a selective inspection ability in my earlier post, but even that will bring the exact kind of toxic elitism that Steven is afraid to have fostered here. The only option he really has is to not allow anyone to inspect for stats at all, and this may also include things like linking the item in chat, trade windows, etc. He is between a rock and a hard place for sure with this, and I'm not sure what the best trade off solution would be to help the most people.
One potential solution that I could see sort of working would be an achievements system (sort of). An achievement system could be introduced that tracks all sorts of achievement metrics for the players, and something other players could inspect. That way raid groups can tell if you have done X content at X difficulty etc. "We see you've made it to boss 3 of that other raid, so we will take a chance on you blah blah...."
For the purpose of argument, lets say that past tier 1 gear, stat improvement is minimal. Instead, gear starts to grant augments to skills that were not previously available or abundant. You may end up in a situation where the challenges of later raids involve mechanics that require the abilities granted by a given tier of gear, rather than a requirement for a given level of damage mitigation or attack power.
As an example,
Lets say you are going for some content that has a mechanic where a mob periodically does a large AoE attack that is barely survivable with peak damage mitigation. It isn't possible to heal the raid/group through this either due to the rate of damage, or due to healer resources (mana or whatever). Maybe there is tier 2 and 3 gear out there that gives you an augment on a skill that grants iframes. Now, it is no longer a question of what tier gear you have, but rather, "do you have two .75 second iframe skills slotted with less than a 60 second cool down."
When a conversation is shifted to capabilities like the above, gear may not be a direct requirement. Maybe specific classes have skills that fit the requirement, and as such need less of that tier gear to do the specific content. If different content requires different gear, it demands competitiveness, but can not be rated in the linear fashion that we are used to.
I can't speak to your personal preferences, but I think mechanics could be implemented in late game content that would satisfy most of your stated concerns.
Oh god, please no. There will be an achievement system, and I for one will be for it not being able to be linked in chat. If you have ever played WOW or ESO, or really any system that has the ability to link achievements then you have experienced the {Anal} or {Bacon}spam that occurs, usually around a shutdown. (In a game with a person named Bacon having helped build it, I expect the latter.)
The other problem becomes the chicken and egg issue. Randoms will not take people without the achievement, people can't get the achievement because they are casuals and maybe don't have an active guild that has run it before, leading to a whole new level of toxic as people post "Running X dungeon, link achieve for inv." Just like gearscore, it becomes an exercise in stupidity. "We require you to have a GS average of 190 to run with us, even though the loot that drops is 180."
Form you own party, and invite people with gear level like yours is. Then put in some effort, like the first groups did (groups that now farm that raid) and complete the raid.
Everyone wants an easy ride with groups that already have the gear, and complain when those groups don't invite them, but no one wants to put in some effort like those groups did when they wiped for days until they learned the mechanics, all in weak gear.
Groups that put that much effort, and then managed to gear up and now have an easyer job have absolute right to invite only people on their gear level if they desire to do so. They payed the price, now they get to collect the rewards.
If they are kind enough to invite a new player or two, that's great for those players and they should be grateful, but in no way are those players entitles for an invite, or have right to consider those groups elitists.
In fact such players that complain about it would then be "entitled leechers".
Anyone has ability to put in an effort to form his own party, and to invite players on his own gear level and attempt to do the content, and wipe, wipe, learn, learn, pay the repair costs. Until finally he will understand it, beat it, and start gearing up.
So people (and i'm talking here to people in general who complain) do that instead of complaining. Noone likes to hear complaining of entitled lowbies who think they have right on all the easy rides at expense of people who payed the blood price to get there.
Or, I excel at Raiding/PvP and rely less on gear due to my mad skills. I have less than top tier gear, but don't need it. Guild/Raid leader inspects my gear and doesn't let me in. They don't benefit from my mad skills.
What's the point?
Judging players based on their gear seems odd to me. Besides, are they inspecting the gear I am wearing or all gear in my inventory? What if I am carrying bad ass heavy armor and massive DPS two handed weapon, but on battlefield I don leather and a low tier bow?
I see no "one fits all" solution here, as many others have indicated. But isn't inspecting a players gear and making a judgement call judging a book by it's cover?
It should be honor based, "Do you think you can handle this and benefit us?"
-"Yes." "Okay, you're in."
-"No." "Alright, grab next one."
And if they lie? Well, I don't see that not happening sometimes anyways so...
As a white male in America I know there are some streets that are more dangerous than others. I lived in what I consider a pretty hard ghetto in Kansas City MO. for quite some time. I knew where not to go at night. But NEVER did someone stop my car and go "You're white, this is rough ass gangster territory and it's 1:00am. Turn around dude."
There can be cases where someone buys a high tier/top player account, but those type of players are extremely rare. Like one in 5000 or something like that. However, i agree that people shouldn't be judged solely on their statistical power.
I don't envision most of it being a problem, with no fast travel to instances, a limited groupfinder, and the other things that contribute in other games to random hookups being preferable over running stuff with people you know in your immediate area, it will mostly be a moot point. People will rise or fall based on their server/region rep. Just like shit floats, people who are bad will be known and avoided.
In ideal world It should be honor based and ideally players PERFORMANCE should be valued.
Performance = skill * GEAR
Sometimes skill is a major factor and can boost players performance over another player with lesser skill and better gear.
However, the key here is time.
Raid leader has no time to put 40 people to test to verify their performance. Raid leader can not see the peoples skill (unless he played with them before and knows, but we are talking here about random raid formation).
Raid leader can only see peoples gear level, so (if skill is unknown and performance = skill*gear) he can can only invite based of gear because there is higher probability those people will have better performance.
And if people in good gear are found lacking performance after the wipes, they can be replaced then just as easy.
Honor based method would be ideal, but realistically majority of people will lie just to get invited to raid. And no, sadly, I am not exaggerating.
And raid leader also values his time, he has to make the choices based on probability based on what he can see.
And again, whoever is not happy with choices of some raid leader... he is more then free to CREATE HIS OWN RAID. And then, your raid, your choices. Yes?
What happened to good enough ?
We really have moved to... 'sorry, I only hang with the very best !'
MMO "Community". Is there anyone left that knows what that word means?
Has it simply become a bastardised lingo having no resemblance to its original meaning ?
There is no community if you leave 99% of the players on the trash heap because they dont meet your standards.
Such people are not community players.
Community is about inclusion.... not exclusion.
AND...if a dungeon is dynamic and ever changing (rather than the typical braindead script)....
...how the hell do you know what skill and gear would be required beforehand anyway ?
I am shocked at some of the arguments used to justify elitism.
I also think the argument made by @Gothix "And if people in good gear are found lacking performance after the wipes, they can be replaced then just as easy," applies even if the Raid leader didn't examine gear. I mean if you don't perform well you will likely be replaced even if nobody ever checked your privilege, I mean gear.
As for the comment from @SelinaH, I agree mostly. However, in my example I was aiming more for being invited on a PvP raid for the first time even though I might have only played PvE up until that point. Since PvP gear will be the same as PvE gear, the gear won't indicate if the player is awesome at PvE, PvP or PvX.
It seems like there is a group of players that play to win only, because winning is a good example of having fun. While others play to have fun, and do not necessarily consider losing a huge setback, time/xp/otherwise. There will likely not be a compromise between those most passionate members of each group.
I will conceded that in a group of 7 players that all really want to destroy a Raid, a player that just wants to go fight and have fun might not be the best number 8. On the other side a group of 7 really chilled RP heavy players would benefit from an 8 that's sole purpose is to win, but that number 8 will likely not enjoy that groups dynamic.
This remains to be seen in playtesting, but to my mind the Ashes meta will likely be strategic: "have we got X Y Z classes/augments in the group and do they know the mechanics" because using these abilities correctly is the only way to beat the encounter; rather than "do we have max level gear or max level H/DPS" as in other games.
If raid and dungeon encounters are mostly strategic rather than numerical (and I hope they are), then Ashes will be a paradigm shift from what we are used to in mainstream MMOs.