klokwerkaos Posted November 11, 2020 Posted November 11, 2020 (edited) I've seen several people discuss that it has been discussed that between game seasons (ages) characters will age and gain a bonus for being from a previous age. This presents a few problems to me that I believe I've found a solution to that also solves another traditional MMO problem. The first problem I am looking at is this presents an unfair advantage from a new player's perspective to an older player. That said, it's also thematically consistent and logical that this should be the case, but this is also a video game so sometimes reality needs to bend in certain ways to remember the game part of the game also needs to be fun to play for everyone. This is my proposition that also solves another long standing issue of "how do you keep old content relevant?" First as each age changes various things change presumably, and this has been done to good effect by say, world of warcraft over the years, less so in early years more so lately. They even recently added a mechanic that lets you go back and play as the world once was (in standard, not classic, the chromie thing), which not only makes their old content relevant again, and a nice hit of nostalgia for those that crave it, but our case this solves a huge problem for player power disparity. So here's my thought: When an age is retired, grab the base campaign progression however that is defined, cut all the extra side missions and stuff, just the baseline experience. New players have the option of playing through just the base campaign for each age in single player mode (probably single player mode, but could be MMO style if it's popular enough), meaning they completed the minimum amount of content to qualify for characters of that age to be considered relevant to the modern day world. This also trains newer players on how the current situation has come about and teaches them the history, bringing them up to speed with older players about what is going on. Once all prior ages are complete they can then build characters with the aged templates afforded to vets. This allows that yes, while their progression was faster and easier, they did at least play that content. Them being new will still very much be reflected in their gear, wealth, and social standing in the world, so they don't get free progression, they just get even footing. They also, still miss out not just wealth and social standing, but the opportunity to have an effect on that age. Additionally new players aren't required to do this, they can just jump in at the newest era and have a fledgling and start affecting the world now. I do think however that once someone has completed all the prior ages that they should be able to unlock all current bonuses as well as make a character from any of the prior ages they choose. All in all this sets up so that: A) veteran experience is respected the story isn't changed by new players coming in, and they will have accumulated more wealth and influence in that time than a newer player. B) new players aren't forced to take a mechanical disadvantage C) people can still opt to play newer or older characters as they choose for RP purposes to fulfill their fantasy regardless of being a new player or veteran For some quick lore explanations: Why does a newly created character have the advantages of former ages if they just showed up to the current age? This can be a lot of reasons. Firstly, maybe they weren't "as sentient" earlier on, and instead just operated as a more or less mindless undead existing on the periphery and are only recently more cognoscente. Second, maybe they were cognoscente, but from elsewhere or preferred to keep to themselves for all those years and are just coming around to participating in modern society. Thirdly, perhaps they are a fluke and were just made stronger in unlife than is typical, a prodigy of sorts. This can go on for quite a bit, but the end result is that the proposed solution: 1) makes older content relevant and instead of "throwing it out" retires it only to be used when needed/desired. 2) solves an unnecessary power disparity that while logical, puts new players at a distinct disadvantage which will turn them off from the game. (new life blood is crucial to MMOs, while the vets have paid to keep the lights on, some of them will move on, and dollars need to come from somewhere if growth is to happen) 3) is lore friendly while upholding the logical power disparity. What does this solution entail logistically? Not too much (he said completely ignorantly), basic maintenance on the old content and probably 1-4 weeks or so where it's down and not available during the new age launch while that age is streamlined to cover just the basic plot beats to get players current for that age and the new age is getting hotfixes and such. FYI: Those are numbers I pulled from my butt without understanding anything about the budgeting or staffing in the hypothetical future. Edited November 11, 2020 by klokwerkaos
Jaina Chaosweaver of Fate Posted November 11, 2020 Posted November 11, 2020 I've seen several people discuss that it has been discussed that between game seasons (ages) characters will age and gain a bonus for being from a previous age. First point: Don't use 'discuss' twice in a sentence, it is confusing, looks ugly, and in this case, not all that accurate as well. between game seasons (ages) characters will age and gain a bonus for being from a previous age. It has been said that undead age will have an effect on how strong a character is, this has not been elaborated upon though, so the premise of this entire thread is faulty. This is still TBD, and it can mean that it just refers to the fact that characters from a previous age are of a higher level and have better equipment. This presents a few problems to me that I believe I've found a solution to that also solves another traditional MMO problem. What problems, you mention one, which I already pointed out might not be a problem at all, and then move on to another problem that is inherent in most modern MMOs. The only other problem, is one of your own creation in the way you tried to address a supposed problem. The first problem I am looking at is this presents an unfair advantage from a new player's perspective to an older player. Then where is the reward for playing the game from the older player's perspective, if someone new can just jump in, not do all the work they put in previously, and still have all the rewards? By attempting to please everyone, you would end up with an average game, in a game that is not trying to be average. That said, it's also thematically consistent and logical that this should be the case, So you admit that in a game that favours narrative and story and worldbuilding, this would be a logical conclusion when drawing from those points of view. but this is also a video game so sometimes reality needs to bend in certain ways to remember the game part of the game also needs to be fun to play for everyone. I agree that reality needs to sometimes take a step back to allow for the fun of the player and the betterment of the game. I don't however, see why older characters being more powerful would ruin that (see age as level, of course higher-level characters would be stronger than a newly created one, this happens in every game). This is my proposition that also solves another long standing issue of "how do you keep old content relevant?" Who says that old content needs to stay relevant. A large draw for this game is that it is a persistent world. The world stays the same, but old quests and stories change. The old stories become lore and new content appears to replace the old. Also: This is not a long-standing issue, the game has not been released yet. This is a problem with MMOs, but this game will not be an MMO. First as each age changes various things change presumably, and this has been done to good effect by say, world of warcraft over the years, less so in early years more so lately. They even recently added a mechanic that lets you go back and play as the world once was (in standard, not classic, the chromie thing), which not only makes their old content relevant again, and a nice hit of nostalgia for those that crave it, but our case this solves a huge problem for player power disparity. I am going to take this paragraph apart, sentence by sentence. First as each age changes various things change presumably, and this has been done to good effect by say, world of warcraft over the years, less so in early years more so lately. Again, with the WoW comparison, this is not a MMO. Also, these changes that you mentioned have infuriated a lot of people who were fans of the series until then. (Can't speak up here myself, have never been a fan and only played it once.) They even recently added a mechanic that lets you go back and play as the world once was (in standard, not classic, the chromie thing), which not only makes their old content relevant again, and a nice hit of nostalgia for those that crave it, but our case this solves a huge problem for player power disparity. This seems to go against the design choice of DHS, with a permanent effect on the world. The operative word here is permanent, this means that being able to go back in time (a power most likely reserved for the gods and higher powers mentioned in the lore), would neglect that part of the design choice. This choice in WoW was also seen by those who used to play WoW that most people preferred the older direction and did not like the new direction of the game (source: FacelessMike). Also, when it was announced, they said that they were not going back to vanilla and got booed of the stage (source: RX_Bishop_MC, Blizcon 2016). So here's my thought: Finally something I can't say anything about. Oh wait, this is a colon, which means that the next paragraph (a single sentence) should be attached to it. When an age is retired, grab the base campaign progression however that is defined, cut all the extra side missions and stuff, just the baseline experience. So when an age is retired, you want them to remove all but the most basic of quests? This would make all the items gained by doing the side-quests, however you define those, completely unobtainable and irrelevant. This seems to exacerbate the problem, by making only some things accessible after the end of the age. This would instead of lowering the disparity, make it even bigger. In The Witcher, the main quest is pushing the story forward, but the side-quests are what build the world. Guess what the game was praised for? New players have the option of playing through just the base campaign for each age in single player mode They can also read the lore that is left behind by the changes wrought by the previous ages. The story would progress only by actions taken in the current age, which the players who spent time going through the earlier campaign would be too busy doing other things to affect the current story. It would also negate the point of there being new things and of our actions filling in the new pages of the Necroliberatas. (probably single player mode, but could be MMO style if it's popular enough), Here there seems to be some sort of miscommunications: The main game mode will be six player parties going on missions together, this would allow for single player parties easily, but MMO style raids are not going to be a thing. meaning they completed the minimum amount of content to qualify for characters of that age to be considered relevant to the modern day world. How would that solve any problem? It would alienate the people who were actually there and it would make the last age seem less of a fight than it was. Stripped of the side stories, the content would seem less, which would also make it seem as though the next age had more work put in than the previous age, even though that is untrue. This also trains newer players on how the current situation has come about and teaches them the history, bringing them up to speed with older players about what is going on. That is the point of the Necroliberatas and the lore of the game being persistent. If you don't want to know exactly what happened in the previous age, you don't need to know it, but if you want to, it is all preserved in the Necroliberatas and the lore of the game. If you don't want to read the lore, you could get someone else to explain it to you (there are many in the fandom who would love to explain it), or you could watch a video on what happened (there are members of the fandom with youtube channels who would be willing to put up lore videos like that). Once all prior ages are complete they can then build characters with the aged templates afforded to vets. Why would the aged templates be different for older players than for newer players? Older players just are more powerful, they are at a higher level and have spent more time and points on the character than a newer player. That is just game logic, not even realism as it would be in the lore of the game (though it is compatible with it, as most great game mechanics are). This allows that yes, while their progression was faster and easier, they did at least play that content. Their progression being easier would invalidate the effort done by older players. Them being new will still very much be reflected in their gear, wealth, and social standing in the world, so they don't get free progression, they just get even footing. Them being new would not be represented in their gear if your solution was used, because gear will also age and gain mystical powers (sentient weapons discussion) with age. They will get free progression, because they get up to the even footing for older players. This invalidates the progression that older players have made before then. They also, still miss out not just wealth and social standing, but the opportunity to have an effect on that age. Yes, and they could also get the same effect by reading the Necroliberatas or watching youtube videos summarizing the progress of an age. OR getting an older player to tell them what happened. Additionally new players aren't required to do this, they can just jump in at the newest era and have a fledgling and start affecting the world now. This is supposed to be the new player experience, not a railroaded story that clearly does not have a lot of the context left. They are supposed to start as a new character, a newly dead. I do think however that once someone has completed all the prior ages that they should be able to unlock all current bonuses as well as make a character from any of the prior ages they choose. How would that work? Your suggestions do not show how that would work lore-wise and gaining power from going through a story is not what is supposed to be the game. All in all this sets up so that: A) veteran experience is respected the story isn't changed by new players coming in, and they will have accumulated more wealth and influence in that time than a newer player. B) new players aren't forced to take a mechanical disadvantage C) people can still opt to play newer or older characters as they choose for RP purposes to fulfill their fantasy regardless of being a new player or veteran All in all, this sets it up so that: (two corrections, next one, remove the awkward end of the line at point A) A) Veteran experience would be respected either way, the story would be there for new players to experience in the Necroliberatas and by asking older players, and the wealth and influence disparity is what you wanted to address in this post (for the most part, as I understood it). B) Levels are a mechanical disadvantage? That is the same thing but not lore-friendly. C) People can still opt to play newer or older characters for RP purposes to fulfill their fantasy regardless of whether or not this is implemented. For some quick lore explanations: Another sentence I can't say anything about! This time it is actually for real. Why does a newly created character have the advantages of former ages if they just showed up to the current age? Yes, why do they have that advantage? What would be the explanation for that? Well, let's take a look at them one by one. Firstly, maybe they weren't "as sentient" earlier on, and instead just operated as a more or less mindless undead existing on the periphery and are only recently more cognoscente. Not being as sentient, or being a mindless undead implies that somehow, something without a mind or sentience could store the experience enough to learn from it. A quick tip: Look up the definitions, for the words before you use them. Animals can learn, they aren't sapient, but they have a mind. They are sentient: They can respond to things going on around them. They have a mind, they can learn. The word you are looking for is sapience: human-like thought and the wisdom to use it. Technically it means wisdom and just wisdom, but wisdom implies human thought. Also: cognisant? The ability to have thoughts and awareness? Animals are cognizant and you just learned that they would not fall under the mindless category. And the problem with this explanation is that it would require there to be mindless undead around, even in deep strikes into enemy territory, where you would not want those around. Second, maybe they were cognoscente, but from elsewhere or preferred to keep to themselves for all those years and are just coming around to participating in modern society. Cognisant. If they were from elsewhere they would have been destroyed, or would not be able to get to where the current age is taking place. An undead on the continent where the dragons live, for example, would find it difficult to get to another continent, and to survive on the continent where the dragons might take offence to its existence. Thirdly, perhaps they are a fluke and were just made stronger in unlife than is typical, a prodigy of sorts. And that would be something that would be unlikely at the best, and completely random chance at worst. On top of that, all the non-mindless undead (if mindless undead even exist) raised in an age being stronger than the undead raised in the previous age would be ridiculous. And if some of them are, the Liches would just absolutely love to find out why exactly it is so. This can go on for quite a bit, but the end result is that the proposed solution: I can continue shooting down lore explanations for quite a bit as well. 1) makes older content relevant and instead of "throwing it out" retires it only to be used when needed. Why would it be relevant outside of lore? And why would the content been thrown out in the first place? Archeology is a thing that exists, it could be rare artifacts instead, found in special archeological missions or something like that, instead of suddenly always having been there in the form of a weapon or armour for the newly risen undead. 2) solves an unnecessary power disparity that while logical, puts new players at a distinct disadvantage which will turn them off from the game. Why would there not be a power disparity between older and newer players? Older players have put in more time, and should be rewarded. It is not as though the new players will be punished, the older players will be rewarded. 3) is lore friendly while upholding the logical power disparity. No it is not, as I pointed out numerous times. What does this solution entail logistically? A lot of problems, a lot of quest would need to be remade to not mention different sidequests, the quests for the last age would need to be carefully curated, new interactions would need to be made with the old players' characters doing the quest in the first place. Not too much (he said completely ignorantly) Yeah, that did sound pretty ignorant, if a English Major with no clue how to create a good game could point out so many flaws in a minute. basic maintenance on the old content and probably 1-4 weeks or so where it's down and not available during the new age launch while that age is streamlined to cover just the basic plot beats to get players current for that age That sounds like a lot of work. Summarizing is an art of its own that requires a good writer to spend a lot of time seeing what is and isn't important to the story, and can make chekhov's gun characters be something that could not be done (prime example, director Chris Columbus wanted to cut Dobby from HPCoS). FYI: Those are numbers I pulled from my butt without understanding anything about the budgeting or staffing in the hypothetical future. Yeah, it was quite clearly something you completely made up. This is also very important: Please remember that a lot of things that you bring up have been discussed already, most of the points that you have brought up are still work in progress. That said, please remember that we, in the fandom, really like new people with enthusiasm. But your tone can use some work, you mentioned that you don't want to order people around, yet your use of language is very commanding. As an English Major, who is used to reading five layers deep in a ten-line poem, I still could not find where you were not strongly suggesting the direction at the least. One last suggestion: Your giant posts make it so that it is exhausting to write a comprehensive reply to each point. Try to reign it in, in the replies at least, so that we are not too tired with making one reply to one of your posts to reply to your other posts. This really feels like steamrolling, which is part of various argumentative fallacies, such as straw-manning, misrepresentation, misdirection, and false premises. It took me close to 2.5 hours to make this reply, do proper fact checking on what has been said, and do the layout. Please, for the love of the gods, make your posts shorter.
Quamobrem Posted November 11, 2020 Posted November 11, 2020 I agree that the problems you mention could become an issue, but disagree with your solution. I think there are better ones, that preserve more of the idea that ancient undead are generally more powerful and older players get to be rewarded for playing so long. One possibility could be making bonuses from early Ages still available in later ages, but harder to obtain. Since most of the bonuses I've seen the devs talk about are actually on armor and weapons (Have they directly said characters themselves will get age-exclusive abilities?), that's *partially* solved by allowing you to trade for low-Age gear with older players, but that's probably not enough. I'd suggest making it possible to find gear with those low-age bonuses, but not craft it, either as a random drop or as very difficult quest rewards. That way, you can still get top-tier items in a thematically appropriate way. If there are age-based abilities for the characters themselves, you could still do the same thing. They're easier to find in the appropriate age, then require more and more difficult content as the game goes on. Maybe you can no longer develop the abilities yourself, but *can* obtain them by absorbing the essence of a more ancient undead. Maybe low-age players can grant "gifts" to newer players that give them those abilities, or you could obtain them from defeating older players in PvP. Maybe you can gain them by doing something important in the lore. So like, each Age the old abilities and items would get *harder* to obtain, but still be obtainable if you work hard enough. Older players would mostly be stronger than newer ones, but newer ones who put in the time could eventually catch up. 1 2
klokwerkaos Posted November 11, 2020 Author Posted November 11, 2020 [uSER=492]@Jerion 'Wyverntamer' Kràl[/uSER] I may be wrong, but I feel like your post comes across as overly critical and a bit hostile, but I will note I'm not offended, but I think this stems from some other things that either you don't realize, or, don't care about. I will try to address the things I think are relevant briefly. Please remember that a lot of things that you bring up have been discussed already, most of the points that you have brought up are still work in progress. I am aware, I can't understand everything that has been discussed, nor the current state of the mindset of the devs, nor can you. But your tone Text doesn't have tone, only what the reader subjectively infers and I can't be responsible for your inner thoughts. I do however, take great pains to try to be understanding and careful with tone, but I am also aware some people will find a problem with anything they disagree with on the internet. While you have voiced concern, others have enjoyed what I've suggested in some forms, and that's to be expected, people will always have mixed feelings and differing opinions about projects they care about. I would suggest if you're not interested in what I have to say, please don't read it then. I promise I've already done everything I can to be able to communicate effectively and efficiently. I will not always succeed as well some days as others because I am human and prone to fault, and I would think a mature person in any community would have that as a baseline understanding. If you presume that you're better than me and are capable of instructing me as you seem to repeatedly indicate, particularly as someone that didn't finish their degree and isn't a professor, and also wasn't solicited for help, I would say that's more about you than me. I would strongly ask this one time, kindly, you not continue with this kind of discussion because it's kind of personally offensive, not in tone, but in the content of being very condescending. You don't know me or my background, but as a fellow human I'd like to be treated with dignity and respect. In short, socially speaking, ignorance is not a crime, willfull ignorance is. We are all ignorant and don't know what we don't know. The way to help, if that is your intention, while giving respect and dignity to others, might be rather than chastising me personally, show me a link to where something has been discussed and explain why you think it's important. If you would like to interact respectfully, please consider that your ideas need to stand on their own merits, and also, that if you present an argument that is actually better than mine, I am happy to improve and change my position, but that requires your argument stands on it's own merit, not on a claim of credential. Good ideas and information can come from any source. Case in point: So when an age is retired, you want them to remove all but the most basic of quests? This would make all the items gained by doing the side-quests, however you define those, completely unobtainable and irrelevant. This seems to exacerbate the problem, by making only some things accessible after the end of the age. This would instead of lowering the disparity, make it even bigger. In The Witcher, the main quest is pushing the story forward, but the side-quests are what build the world. Guess what the game was praised for? I concede, your idea is better than mine. My thought process was that streamlining it would help newer players not get lost and be able to get through the content in a timely fashion, but as you pointed out, maybe that's exactly what they want? Additionally I figured less files and clutter would probably be easier to maintain over time. But I would agree that if something like this were implemented, you are correct, having the full experience available is probably better overall in a values sense. This will be the only point I concede in your post. Bear in mind I didn't respond to everything, particularly the snarky and biting parts as I'm not interested in fighting about e-peen size, but rather, how to find the best solution, and I'd appreciate it greatly if you can respect that boundary going forward...very specifically, I don't consent to being chastised and talked down to. If you have a specific problem with something someone says, please take it to a responsible and impartial moderator so that they can do the moderating. This is still TBD That's why I'm addressing it. Then where is the reward for playing the game from the older player's perspective, if someone new can just jump in, not do all the work they put in previously, and still have all the rewards? I think you are failing to understand a few basics here. While that feels nice to get a special buff as an older player, it's kinda like getting an exclusive skin. It feels good for a limited time, but eventually that thrill wears off. Generally speaking the best way to go about rewarding veteran loyalty is through cosmetics, which is likely to happen here . Consider a small event where you get a special sword skin if you complete the activity that is then retired. New players can't gripe about that so much because they didn't do the activity, and further, they aren't missing out on power, just having that specific skin which may or may not return in a resurrections of that event in the future. The key thing is, cosmetics are pomp, mechanical power disparity is not. When you create artificial power disparity between older and new players you inherently shut off new players coming into the game because they can never, and will never, be able to compete at the level older players can. This is to say nothing of play time and experience, it's simply an obstacle they inherently cannot overcome. When you put that in and shut out new players, the game fizzles and dies a slow death because veterans will find life happens and takes them in different directions, they get bored and move on, or any other of a myriad of factors can occur. The way to keep the game alive at all is to make sure that not only is the game replacing those veterans, with new players who eventually become veterans, but also hopefully achieve a modest amount of growth (not the ever greed driven all consuming perpetually unsustainable corpo growth, but growth enough to have the funds to continue to impress and iterate with new expansions). Without new life blood a society dies. Making it hard not just for new people to come in, but also telling them up front "you will never attain maximum status because you will always be weaker" is a great way to tell them they should find another game to play. I feel like all of this should be pretty well understood as a standard by any veteran gamers, but perhaps where I place the bar is different from others. Not being as sentient, or being a mindless undead implies that somehow, something without a mind or sentience could store the experience enough to learn from it. Not accurate. Undead receive their power supposedly from age, not learning. That can and often is part of it and augments it, but we know explicitly that undead get power just from getting older, not necessarily wiser, maybe not in DH specifically, but definitely in many depictions of Undead. es, and they could also get the same effect by reading the Necroliberatas or watching youtube videos summarizing the progress of an age. OR getting an older player to tell them what happened. You know what's more fun than reading a book or watching someone else play a game for a lot of people? Playing the game yourself and earning the rewards. It seems like you want to create a situation where anyone that wasn't around for mass effect one and two is forced to start at 3, and I have a strong suspicion this is because you view having mechanical advantage over others is worth sacrificing other player's enjoyment and engagement. There are other ways to reward veterans as I have pointed out that don't create disparity. Them being new would not be represented in their gear if your solution was used, because gear will also age and gain mystical powers (sentient weapons discussion) with age. They will get free progression, because they get up to the even footing for older players. This invalidates the progression that older players have made before then. I inherently and strongly disagree with this at a core for all the reasons I have already presented. Your argument doesn't sway me, and I suppose mine doesn't sway you, so I will agree to disagree and continue to believe I am right on this matter and advocate against your stance the best I can on this unless you or others can provide an better argument. Please kindly note the use of the word "better" not "the same argument restated" or "rhetoric" as I'm not interested in either of those. As far as I'm concerned on this, I feel like the motivations here underlying are more selfish and don't regard long term thinking. I've seen many games go in this direction many times, and that is usually right before they collapse from bleeding players. Players that participated got to influence the game's direction if nothing else, where new players are more or less locked into a narrative, which as we all know from playing LoK isn't necessarily a bad thing. What you're advocating for is pretty blatantly anti consumer and very much in-game, borderline non-consensual, coerced classism and I'm strictly against it. I'm especially against it not only in real life, but also in what should be a recreational environment, even though I'll be an early adopter as well and benefit from the privilege regardless of how it pans out. If they were from elsewhere they would have been destroyed, or would not be able to get to where the current age is taking place. An undead on the continent where the dragons live, for example, would find it difficult to get to another continent, and to survive on the continent where the dragons might take offence to its existence. These are possible explanations, difficult is irrelevant. So is time travel and falling from outer space. I'm not trying to get you to LIKE said possible options as I'm fairly convinced you won't like anything that doesn't support your position, I'm just saying there are reasons it can happen, even if not likely. Why would it be relevant outside of lore? And why would the content been thrown out in the first place? Archeology is a thing that exists, it could be rare artifacts instead, found in special archeological missions or something like that, instead of suddenly always having been there in the form of a weapon or armour for the newly risen undead. I don't think you understand the impact it has on a game to throw out old content. It reduces the overall content for newer players, which reduces their time in game, which in turn reduces their overall investment. It also deprives them of the possibility of having a similar experience which feels bad as a player. Not everyone will be lucky enough to have heard of the game before 1.0 If they game survives a decent while like some titles (which is hopefully the goal), some people will just be toddlers when the game comes out and not even be eligible to play, so they should be mechanically penalized in game and told to go play elsewhere? I can't agree with that fundamentally on any level. You have to remember why people play games like this to begin with, for many it's about living out their fantasy, which isn't for most people, playing second fiddle and never being good enough, always in the shadow of others. Many enjoy games, including dark and gritty ones, specifically to not experience those sorts of things that they may otherwise have to deal with IRL. Please, for the love of the gods, make your posts shorter. I promise I do my best to make this so, but like I said, I am human. I also reject that I am responsible for you choosing to spend 2.5 hours responding. Please own that for yourself. You are equally allowed to ignore the post, and also, create a shorter one of your own that makes your point more effectively with less words. As they say, brevity is the soul of wit, so maybe that can be a strength you can use. I, on the other hand, am not trying to be witty, I'm trying to convey ideas effectively. I also understand that my communication style is not for everyone, nor is anyone's, but that we should all make efforts not to attack and criticize a person, but rather, their argument if we wish to effectively disagree.
klokwerkaos Posted November 11, 2020 Author Posted November 11, 2020 I agree that the problems you mention could become an issue, but disagree with your solution. I think there are better ones, that preserve more of the idea that ancient undead are generally more powerful and older players get to be rewarded for playing so long. One possibility could be making bonuses from early Ages still available in later ages, but harder to obtain. Since most of the bonuses I've seen the devs talk about are actually on armor and weapons (Have they directly said characters themselves will get age-exclusive abilities?), that's *partially* solved by allowing you to trade for low-Age gear with older players, but that's probably not enough. I'd suggest making it possible to find gear with those low-age bonuses, but not craft it, either as a random drop or as very difficult quest rewards. That way, you can still get top-tier items in a thematically appropriate way. If there are age-based abilities for the characters themselves, you could still do the same thing. They're easier to find in the appropriate age, then require more and more difficult content as the game goes on. Maybe you can no longer develop the abilities yourself, but *can* obtain them by absorbing the essence of a more ancient undead. Maybe low-age players can grant "gifts" to newer players that give them those abilities, or you could obtain them from defeating older players in PvP. Maybe you can gain them by doing something important in the lore. So like, each Age the old abilities and items would get *harder* to obtain, but still be obtainable if you work hard enough. Older players would mostly be stronger than newer ones, but newer ones who put in the time could eventually catch up. I think you make a good point in that it's definitely doable other ways. My goal was to try and marry the fact that the old experience is not available, which as many other games has shown, has value. Imagine starting Mass Effect with part 3. That wouldn't feel great when you know all your friends played mass effect 1 and 2 and you never can. Also it's effectively throwing away a ton of development time rather than retiring it. But I want to be clear, you're exactly right, there are easier ways to do it, and the key thing is not to create intentional power disparity since that's going to happen and balancing is always an issue anyway, so making it worse on purpose is never a good idea.
CyanStargazer Posted November 11, 2020 Posted November 11, 2020 I do want to point out Klokwerkaos, you make it all sound like that veterans will have extreme buffs for being veterans. At most, veterans might get minor buffs that could be negligible to some degree. We might get a small increase in the amount of gold we get, or even others. Even weapons might not get extreme stat increases, just enough to make them noticeably stronger than other weapons in the age. These stats can build up though, and that's the whole point. From what I'm seeing, you're making it seem like Veterans are god tier players that newer players envy because those veteran players have unique abilities or extreme stat increases. 1 2
klokwerkaos Posted November 11, 2020 Author Posted November 11, 2020 I do want to point out Klokwerkaos, you make it all sound like that veterans will have extreme buffs for being veterans. At most, veterans might get minor buffs that could be negligible to some degree. We might get a small increase in the amount of gold we get, or even others. Even weapons might not get extreme stat increases, just enough to make them noticeably stronger than other weapons in the age. These stats can build up though, and that's the whole point. From what I'm seeing, you're making it seem like Veterans are god tier players that newer players envy because those veteran players have unique abilities or extreme stat increases. That wasn't my issue, I think doing it on purpose is a bad practice to begin with at any level. This is because balance is always a nightmare with any sort of ARPG. Messing that up on purpose is not great. There are lots of ways to reward players that has no mechanical advantage, the best choice is usually cosmetics, but there are other options. The key thing to remember is that these bonuses also compound over time, and eventually , even if the intent isn't to make them big, they will grow to be eventually.
Jaina Chaosweaver of Fate Posted November 11, 2020 Posted November 11, 2020 I may be wrong, but I feel like your post comes across as overly critical and a bit hostile, but I will note I'm not offended, but I think this stems from some other things that either you don't realize, or, don't care about. I will try to address the things I think are relevant briefly. I replied following the academic feedback guide that is required for an academic piece of writing, as I try to approach most things. I am aware, I can't understand everything that has been discussed, nor the current state of the mindset of the devs, nor can you. I do not make claim to understand the mindset of the developers. I just claim that what I said is what has been said before. I have sources that can back me up, do you? Text doesn't have tone, only what the reader subjectively infers and I can't be responsible for your inner thoughts. Then why were you upset about my tone two paragraphs earlier, please do keep some consistency in your inanity. I do however, take great pains to try to be understanding and careful with tone, but I am also aware some people will find a problem with anything they disagree with on the internet. As you do then? While you have voiced concern, others have enjoyed what I've suggested in some forms, and that's to be expected, people will always have mixed feelings and differing opinions about projects they care about. I agree with this sentiment, but be careful about putting words in other people's mouths. Quamobrem (Since Shinybri's reply is on another thread) said that she agrees with the problem you pointed out, which she mentioned could become a problem, it is not yet, but disagreed on what solutions you suggested. I would suggest if you're not interested in what I have to say, please don't read it then. I would suggest, if you are not interested in what the developers have said, please, do not be angry when people point out where you missed things and did not pay attention to what is already established. I promise I've already done everything I can to be able to communicate effectively and efficiently. And yet you requested that I not reply to you, nor that I read what you had to say about my reply to you? I will not always succeed as well some days as others because I am human and prone to fault, and I would think a mature person in any community would have that as a baseline understanding. I have that same basic understanding, but I think that you, in the way you replied to me, and other members of the community, made a very big misstep. It is very aggressive in tone (did you decide whether or not text has tone yet?), and does not work to establish basic communication. If you presume that you're better than me and are capable of instructing me as you seem to repeatedly indicate, particularly as someone that didn't finish their degree and isn't a professor, and also wasn't solicited for help, I would say that's more about you than me. When did I presume to instruct you, outside of basic grammar use that I learned in primary school? And I do not yet have a degree. Yet I also was not aware that we were discussing this on a subject that you had studied, that you were solicited on this for help either, and if you weren't solicited for it, don't be surprised when someone gives you unsolicited advice. I would strongly ask this one time, kindly, you not continue with this kind of discussion because it's kind of personally offensive, not in tone, but in the content of being very condescending. And here I am asked to not reply to your reply? Whyever would you do that, and then write such a massive reply? You don't know me or my background, but as a fellow human I'd like to be treated with dignity and respect. I did treat you with dignity and respect, I replied to you as I would a fellow academic (even a bachelor student is a fellow academic). In short, socially speaking, ignorance is not a crime, willfull ignorance is. Then why would you disregard the words that the developers have said on what direction they want to take the game? We are all ignorant and don't know what we don't know. Yes, we are, that is why a lot of questions have been asked already and most of them have gotten answers, which I referred to in my reply. The way to help, if that is your intention, while giving respect and dignity to others, might be rather than chastising me personally, show me a link to where something has been discussed and explain why you think it's important. The links are generally in the forum, the general questions thread on this forum, everything that @Golden Xan has written, the Necroliberatas (under explore -> lore), the youtube channel, and the twitch streams. These are all places where you can find most of the answers I used. If you would like to interact respectfully, please consider that your ideas need to stand on their own merits, and also, that if you present an argument that is actually better than mine, I am happy to improve and change my position, but that requires your argument stands on it's own merit, not on a claim of credential. I think that me trying to prove why your idea is flawed and why the options that have been presented until now would work, or that the entire problem you tried to fix might not be a problem at all, we still don't know until the game launches and we see what the developers are actually going to do. I concede, your idea is better than mine. My thought process was that streamlining it would help newer players not get lost and be able to get through the content in a timely fashion, but as you pointed out, maybe that's exactly what they want? Additionally I figured less files and clutter would probably be easier to maintain over time. But I would agree that if something like this were implemented, you are correct, having the full experience available is probably better overall in a values sense. Thank you for conceding my point to me. Bear in mind I didn't respond to everything, particularly the snarky and biting parts as I'm not interested in fighting about e-peen size, but rather, how to find the best solution, and I'd appreciate it greatly if you can respect that boundary going forward...very specifically, I don't consent to being chastised and talked down to. If you have a specific problem with something someone says, please take it to a responsible and impartial moderator so that they can do the moderating. That was not me being sassy, snarky, or biting, that was me at an academic level of writing. If you don't consent to being chastised and talked down to, then it is good that I did not do that. I took a professional tone, used professional level of writing. If I have a specific problem with what you said, I would point it out on a suggestion forum, where publishing it is an open invite to get help on your suggestion. That's why I'm addressing it. There is nothing to work with except for the fact that this mechanic will exist in some form, we do not yet know what form this will take except for the fact that it will reward players who have been here longer. I think you are failing to understand a few basics here. And I think you missed the fact that such comments are not professional, which was the tone I was trying to take for the entirety of both my replies. While that feels nice to get a special buff as an older player, it's kinda like getting an exclusive skin. How? How is getting an exclusive skin like getting more powerful? It feels good for a limited time, but eventually that thrill wears off. That is why there is other new content. Generally speaking the best way to go about rewarding veteran loyalty is through cosmetics, which is likely to happen here . Why would you reward the people with long term experience with cosmetics? Especially when the stated marketing model is to sell the cosmetics and the quality of life stuff that is not critical. Consider a small event where you get a special sword skin if you complete the activity that is then retired. How is a small event similar to a multi-month time of playing this game? New players can't gripe about that so much because they didn't do the activity, and further, they aren't missing out on power, just having that specific skin which may or may not return in a resurrections of that event in the future. New players would still gripe about it since the skin is not available, what was that about people always finding something to gripe about? And why would something that you say is exclusive to older players who did the event get brought back? Do you want them to go back on their word about rewards for the players who have stuck by them for an age? When you create artificial power disparity between older and new players you inherently shut off new players coming into the game because they can never, and will never, be able to compete at the level older players can. This is to say nothing of play time and experience, it's simply an obstacle they inherently cannot overcome. And where was it said that it would not be a bridgeable gap? And why is it not a thing that people could compensate on experience and play time? Who says that? The way you put it, you make it sound like the older players will be god-like beings. Why would you think that? A small buff would be enough to satisfy older players. When you put that in and shut out new players, the game fizzles and dies a slow death because veterans will find life happens and takes them in different directions, they get bored and move on, or any other of a myriad of factors can occur. No, if that is put in, the veterans will be clearly identified and can help the new players will be able to find help. Some veterans will move on, some new players will turn into veterans in the new age, a lot of different factors mean that the older people leaving will not hemorhage the game of its player base. Making it hard not just for new people to come in, but also telling them up front "you will never attain maximum status because you will always be weaker" is a great way to tell them they should find another game to play. The maximum status in most games is to be immortalized in the game's lore. Guess what this game's age changes do? They immortalize players in the lore and give them some sort of buff? Just because someone joined later, does not mean that they won't have an impact. I feel like all of this should be pretty well understood as a standard by any veteran gamers, but perhaps where I place the bar is different from others. I feel that making exclusive skills or godlike characters for early age characters would be understandably frowned upon, but I think that a minor buff that you would get the next age change would not be frowned upon. Not accurate. Undead receive their power supposedly from age, not learning. That can and often is part of it and augments it, but we know explicitly that undead get power just from getting older, not necessarily wiser, maybe not in DH specifically, but definitely in many depictions of Undead. Actually, I was just correcting you on the definition of the word you would want to use, as not having either sentience or a mind would necessarily mean that they would not be able to learn. Now that you brought in how undead work though, Liches are not a thing apparently? Liches explicitly must learn how to become undead, they are the only self-made undead. They learn more as they get older, that is where their power comes from. It is tangentially tied to age, but mostly to academics. maybe not in DH specifically, but definitely in many depictions of Undead. Then why bring it up at all? If it is not related to DHS, why bring it up then? DHS is explicitly stated to be a game that will tell its own stories with its own lore, its own undead. You know what's more fun than reading a book or watching someone else play a game for a lot of people? Playing the game yourself and earning the rewards. Please don't bring up reading not being fun to the English Major, I am going to leave it at that, because this is a very subjective thing that depends on many different factors. It seems like you want to create a situation where anyone that wasn't around for mass effect one and two is forced to start at 3, and I have a strong suspicion this is because you view having mechanical advantage over others is worth sacrificing other player's enjoyment and engagement. Actually, no, I want the game to have an advantage for the ages you have passed, but not at the detriment of the enjoyment of others. Rather, it is a reward for those who have put in the time, it would not cut off the new content for new players. There are other ways to reward veterans as I have pointed out that don't create disparity. Such as a small percent increase in gold gathered, it would not create a disparity. I inherently and strongly disagree with this at a core for all the reasons I have already presented. Your argument doesn't sway me, and I suppose mine doesn't sway you, so I will agree to disagree and continue to believe I am right on this matter and advocate against your stance the best I can on this unless you or others can provide an better argument. Please kindly note the use of the word "better" not "the same argument restated" or "rhetoric" as I'm not interested in either of those. As far as I'm concerned on this, I feel like the motivations here underlying are more selfish and don't regard long term thinking. I've seen many games go in this direction many times, and that is usually right before they collapse from bleeding players. Players that participated got to influence the game's direction if nothing else, where new players are more or less locked into a narrative, which as we all know from playing LoK isn't necessarily a bad thing. What you're advocating for is pretty blatantly anti consumer and very much in-game, borderline non-consensual, coerced classism and I'm strictly against it. I'm especially against it not only in real life, but also in what should be a recreational environment, even though I'll be an early adopter as well and benefit from the privilege regardless of how it pans out. As you pointed earlier, you were not here to be chastised or babied, yet you seem quite intent on doing that very thing to me. You accuse me of being selfish? Me, who put in the time to put together an academic critique of your post? And for in the game, of course it would be useful to have an item that ages with you, it would be an item that levels with you, instead of a weapon that you pick up, use for a level, and then discard for a new weapon. It is not blatantly anti-customer, it is rewarding staying customers. It is not coerced classism, it is something that rewards the ones staying with the game and that's it. These are possible explanations, difficult is irrelevant. So is time travel and falling from outer space. I'm not trying to get you to LIKE said possible options as I'm fairly convinced you won't like anything that doesn't support your position, I'm just saying there are reasons it can happen, even if not likely. I am not opposed to different explanations, I am however, against explanations that go against the established lore. I don't think you understand the impact it has on a game to throw out old content. I think I quite clearly understand how much impact it has on the game, however, it really does affect affect the game when the developers do not keep their promises either. It reduces the overall content for newer players, which reduces their time in game, which in turn reduces their overall investment. No, it keeps the amount of content in the game to an equal level for each age, with the new age replacing most of the old age and the old age only accessible in the lore of the game. It also means that everyone will have the same amount of things to do, whether they are older or newer players. Not everyone will be lucky enough to have heard of the game before 1.0 If they game survives a decent while like some titles (which is hopefully the goal), some people will just be toddlers when the game comes out and not even be eligible to play, so they should be mechanically penalized in game and told to go play elsewhere? No, which is not the point of the game. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the game would somehow penalize people by rewarding those who have been here for longer? Instead of it being a reward that newer players can look to and go, "I can reach that level someday", you think that they will want to just buy their way to the top? When it has been explicitly stated that such mechanics won't be in the game? You have to remember why people play games like this to begin with, for many it's about living out their fantasy Specifically, as stated in this game, the fantasy of living out being a monster, being on the other side of the divide from a horror perspective for once. This means that you will always be able to tear to enemies, not that there won't be a bigger monster for you to face as the underdog and win. I also reject that I am responsible for you choosing to spend 2.5 hours responding. Please own that for yourself. You are equally allowed to ignore the post, and also, create a shorter one of your own that makes your point more effectively with less words. As they say, brevity is the soul of wit, so maybe that can be a strength you can use. I, on the other hand, am not trying to be witty, I'm trying to convey ideas effectively. I also understand that my communication style is not for everyone, nor is anyone's, but that we should all make efforts not to attack and criticize a person, but rather, their argument if we wish to effectively disagree. Yes, I am aware that it was my own choice, however, what I was saying was more the amount of time I spent was indicative of the amount you had written. Most people won't be willing to spend that long to reply to someone, or even read a post that long (unless it is reading something for pleasure, like a book). This leads to your argument being dismissed due to the overbearing length. That was why this was set apart from me taking on the rest of your post, it was general advice, thank you for at least trying to follow it.
CyanStargazer Posted November 11, 2020 Posted November 11, 2020 One thing to add onto the whole power disparity thing, and in regards to the powerful mechanics veteran players get, somewhere around a 1% increase in gold gained, or even a .5% is almost negligible, and new players can easily meet that amount. But in regards to your response to me, it still sounds like your thinking about things being a stat stick. The thing is, in any game, higher numbers doesn't exactly mean you'll win. Even new players can trounce an experienced player, it just depends on what each are willing to learn about the game. An experienced player can still get their face bashed in if they don't pay attention to mechanics or if they aren't aware of what another class is capable of. A new player can still overtake an experienced player if they're more aware of game mechanics and how the game works. As for your idea of giving veterans cosmetics, your other idea of later selling those cosmetics is almost an insult to those veterans. Giving slowly building buffs is fair, as any who join after can then get those building buffs, but might never get to the same extent as those veterans. Even though say after a few years, a new player joins if they meet a veteran who has say a 10% increase in gold drops, probably at that point even a big increase like that would be useless as that veteran will probably be swimming in resources. Saying that the new player should be on the EXACT same level of ability, is 1) almost impossible and a really bad way to let the new player learn. In fact it would hurt that new players growth more than help balance things out. And if you were to say that new players should have enough resources to equal experience players, that's going to damage the over all time that new player plays the game. If they can instantly get everything, there's nothing stopping the player from getting invested. 1
antonismar2 Posted November 11, 2020 Posted November 11, 2020 I've seen several people discuss that it has been discussed that between game seasons (ages) characters will age and gain a bonus for being from a previous age. This presents a few problems to me that I believe I've found a solution to that also solves another traditional MMO problem. The first problem I am looking at is this presents an unfair advantage from a new player's perspective to an older player my guy, older players always have an unfair advantage. They played longer. Even in games with no upgrades and progression, older players just have an advantage. Thats how it goes 1
klokwerkaos Posted November 11, 2020 Author Posted November 11, 2020 One thing to add onto the whole power disparity thing, and in regards to the powerful mechanics veteran players get, somewhere around a 1% increase in gold gained, or even a .5% is almost negligible, and new players can easily meet that amount. But in regards to your response to me, it still sounds like your thinking about things being a stat stick. The thing is, in any game, higher numbers doesn't exactly mean you'll win. Even new players can trounce an experienced player, it just depends on what each are willing to learn about the game. An experienced player can still get their face bashed in if they don't pay attention to mechanics or if they aren't aware of what another class is capable of. A new player can still overtake an experienced player if they're more aware of game mechanics and how the game works. As for your idea of giving veterans cosmetics, your other idea of later selling those cosmetics is almost an insult to those veterans. Giving slowly building buffs is fair, as any who join after can then get those building buffs, but might never get to the same extent as those veterans. Even though say after a few years, a new player joins if they meet a veteran who has say a 10% increase in gold drops, probably at that point even a big increase like that would be useless as that veteran will probably be swimming in resources. Saying that the new player should be on the EXACT same level of ability, is 1) almost impossible and a really bad way to let the new player learn. In fact it would hurt that new players growth more than help balance things out. And if you were to say that new players should have enough resources to equal experience players, that's going to damage the over all time that new player plays the game. If they can instantly get everything, there's nothing stopping the player from getting invested. 1% increase to gold gain makes a massive amount of difference actually, and will also encourage market gouging, especially when you add up over time, and then compare that to player that also is brand new. They don't have the gear to even be able to afford better gear, let alone try and keep up with people that have an unfair advantage that has accumulated for years. Will this matter much for some players that play casually four hours a week? No. But if you want to know what the end result of a market out of control looks like from a situation where people can literally never catch up, go look at PoE Standard market and try to make a build that is viable for farming in your first 3 months starting from nothing. That's not to win, just to have the opportunity to farm for the things you need. it's not good. I don't know a single defensible argument for PoE's standard league trade mechanics other than "unfettered capitalism is actually a good thing" which is about exactly untrue in every possible respect because humans are humans and will do awful things. The way to combat that isn't to incentivise it, it's to work around it as much as possible and box it in as best you can to contain the things that can't explicitly be controlled. It's about as bankrupt an argument as "botting is good", like, yeah, you can stay that is your opinion, but that doesn't make it true or wise. And no, higher numbers doesn't necessitate a win. It does however, skew things in that direction, and when you make access to the higher numbers limited, that means skill is less valued than whatever the video game equivalent of nepotism and inheritance is. Plus on a long enough time line, yes, bigger numbers really end up necessitating a win short of someone AFK making a sandwhich. Saying that the new player should be on the EXACT same level of ability That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying they have to have the exact same level of opportunity. That's VERY different. That is instead giving them the exact opportunity they need to learn to be able to compete properly. I feel like you're taking the wrong lesson from what I'm saying. I try to avoid analogy, but it may be appropriate here... If you and I start a race, and we chain you to an 80 lb rock because I have that advantage because I was here first, whether it's possible that you win or not is irrelevant, what is important to understand about the situation is that the whole thing was unethical and wrong from the get go. Additionally, while you can make the argument that "well you know, most people don't think it's fun to race with an 80 lb weight, but for me it was all about the journey of overcoming the odds and felt that much better" but that's so out of touch with the vast majority of people's situation that it's irrelevant. Simply put if people are able to discover that they have an unfair disadvantage right away that they can never overcome no matter how hard they try, because the system is explicitly rigged in the other person's favor, that's not a reason to be excited to start a new account. If they can't ever get access to straight up mechanical advantages others have against them, it's literally no different from knowing the casino sent their "special dealer" to "take care of you" and deciding to put money on the table anyway. It's one thing to say "this is harder to get now" and it's another to say "this is impossible to get now". And if you were to say that new players should have enough resources to equal experience players, that's going to damage the over all time that new player plays the game. If they can instantly get everything, there's nothing stopping the player from getting invested. I'm not sure if this is a strawman or if you really just misinterpreted everything I said to the point where you missed the point entirely and went off in a completely direction. Needless to say, this is completely unrelated to anything I am suggesting.
Recommended Posts