The Grind

What is a "good fighter" except one who is more accomplished than his peers? Let's say that I want to roleplay as a fighter that is better than Baron Drocis Fondorlatos. So on day one my stats are all better than yours, and I'm able to accomplish more in game than you because I decided I wanted to do that. And then everyone else decides that they want to be better than you too. Now instead of being a "good fighter" you are actually a below average fighter because everyone decided to roleplay a better fighter than you. In a game with thousands of players, not everyone can be the greatest wizard in the land at the same time, let alone the first day they create their character.

 

I'm not debating that. What I'm debating is why it makes sense to design the game so that powergamers are twice as powerful as normal people. We have players in R24 that are level 80+ after 7 weeks of play. That's way more than enough to squash anyone that's level 40, 50, or 60. So what's the point of the curve? To allow players to catch up to the powergamers but only after months (some powergamers have estimated 4 months to a year) of work (grinding). I don't think that's a good system.

 

I'm not looking for players to be the best day one, I'm looking for them to be meaningful. I'm looking for players to have an impact in pvp where currently they have none.

I would like to PVP on day one. I would like to compete, make good decisions, and impact the game in a meaningful and valuable way. I can't do that if I'm grinding all the time for months and months so that I can get to the curve that allows me to compete.

 

I am thinking more now toward hard caps more than anything. At least it lets people have way to compete at the top tier without constantly chasing levels.

 

Unfortunately, due to how combat works even a 10% power advantage is enough to almost guarantee victory with similar builds, and you can't recon an opponent and respec to attempt to take advantage of a flaw in their build any more.

I know there are those that frown at others' attempts to pull back the curtain a bit, but in general I recommend that folks try the Bartle test and consider where they fall relative to others in this thread. The grind is a way for Achievers to protect themselves from Killers and ensure that Explorers need their help. It's natural for Achievers to push for more grind, but it drives away Killers and Explorers, and it creates an ever expanding barrier to entry for new Achievers

 

Its also a way to ensure we have a game with long term progression, which is not that much to hope for in a game that boasts an oldschool rpg experience.

 

Should they switch to EGA wireframes and turn-based combat as well?

 

In the end, we all want a top tier playing field. Thats why I suggest that we have WoW like instanced battlefields. If we really want player retention, and more people playing, then we need to possibly thinking in level completion. WoW battlegrounds did a great job of this, and you had to wait to play because it was so popular. It was team vs team in a raid format. I think the shardfalls and the control points could hold value this way. If we truly want a great game then we need to consider more options.

 

It's possible to have long term progression without making the entire game about long term progression though.

@Burzmali is trying point people to look beyond their own playing style and see how other people are impacted by a world where everything hinges on the players ability to grind. It's great for the achievers, it's horrible for nearly everyone else. We should be looking for balance between the playing styles, that's what's going to make this a great game for everyone and not just one playing style.



This is me, btw. 93% Killer, 47% Explorer, 40% Achiever, 20% Socializer

 

I don't know, should we convert the entire game to a coin operated arcade duel?

 

Think about that for just one minute, then look at some of the things you request.

 

My playstyle is not being represented at all. It's almost extinct here.

It's like achievers have 75% of the playstyle marketplace, explorers have 15%, socializers about 9%, and killers have <1%. This entire game (and especially the combat system) is a giant shrine to the achievement play style.

I'm just trying to level the playing field to 25% across the board.

 

I am not sure what your definition of killer is, but im pretty sure it should involve killing people. I think the phrase you are after is "extreme casual" with a main interest in pvp. Why the heck would development sway to focus on <1% of the playstyle marketplace?

 

Let me rephrase that. I mean that 75% of this game is made for achievement. I wasn't saying that <1% of the marketplace was killers. I think the FPS genre would be doing a little less business if that were the case.

My definition of killer is exactly what Bartle's definition of killer is.

http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

 

I'm happy with an old school RPG feel as well, I just disagree that a mandatory grind is part of it. SOTA is about on par with Morrowind as far as "old school" goes as far as I am concerned and it lacks any significant grind.

 

I will stand up and protest against hard caps from now until forever. NO HARD CAPS! RAWER!

Okay, now that that's done... Can we get a dev to respond to some of these points here? I feel the need to offer countering feedback on the situation because I feel like not offering that gives an opening for a dev to accept his points as community accepted. However, doing that also seems like it goes against forum rules and makes me look a bit like a ... well I can't say because it's against forum rules too.

@Chris or @DarkStarr
Can you please respond directly to a few of these points from a today standpoint to reassure us that we're still understanding things correctly?

1. There won't be hard caps
   • this one is for me
2. There will be progression
   • this one is for the whole thread... seems like that's what this is really about... this is trying to make sota into LoL type progression instead of typical RPG type progression.
3. The game will be playable single player (even if it requires NPC companions)
   • This one is for the whole thread... it seems like the biggest fear I see from people is that it requires a group to level... in actuality most of us who know where to go level faster alone in single player from what I've gathered... it's just more enjoyable and, with the right group, potentially easier to be in a party
4. The game is still in the process of being made so some of this will be resolved as we continue (or if not are you guys completely done with combat and progression?)
   • Things like combat balance, progression, full loops, quests that give you boatloads of experience and some coin, and new ways of earning/learning skills are all missing...
5. The game will be playable by the lesser race (ie: we who are not powergamers and have a child/children and a wife... or wives to be totally inclusive... hell I forgot the ladies out there... sorry... or a husband... or husbands... okay now we're done) that can't "power level" ourselves
   • Yeah, this one is nearly impossible to answer. The question is very liberal and what I'm going for is the target audience. Are you guys trying to make the hardest game that has ever been made or are you still shooting for the spiritual successor to Ultima 4/7 and UO where the average Joe can succeed with a couple hours a few nights a week?

I think I already know all these answers but I also think we have 14 pages of stuff here and @Baron Drocis Fondorlatos is obviously on a path for change. For the sake of all the readers it'd be nice to get this specific thread to have some dev answers... more dev answers. I know there have been some comments prior already (note 1 / note 2) here are my guesses to those answers because I like to guess.

1. correct, no hard caps but there is skill decay that punishes higher end people more than lower end people so it will balance things... also skills progress slower at the higher end and they are less valuable to level at higher end.
2. correct, the core progression should take the average player about 40-80 hours to complete to be at a competitive level... average not "power" gamer.
3. correct, some places the game will even require single player
4. correct, we are still pre-alpha so some things feel worse because of it... some things, like leveling, are actually easier for active people who have done it over and over because of this as well.
5. correct, this game is being made to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible without betraying the promises made during kickstarter.

Now that I got my guesses out of the way lets see if we get a dev response ^.^ lol

edit:
p.s. for pre-alpha I think leveling should be 2x easier but for the end game I think it should be 4-8 times harder than it is now... just my two cents ^.^ #plugingSelfishDesires

 

Can I get a reason against hard caps? especially for pvp? I personally am against hard caps in pve but I would like to hear your feelings on the hard caps, knowing that we will have 4 more episodes coming.

 

I read long and overly explained responses version:
I think game mechanics are extremely frustrating and progression is what competes against them. When I try to do the same thing over and over I get better at it... but in a video game that's not really possible. I don't think someone who comes in and does something once should do it as well as I do after I have done it 50 times a day for 15 years. That said, I also think balance is hugely important. New people need to be competitive. It's a hard dance to learn but these devs have been doing this dance for years so I'm confident they'll do it right ... maybe not in Episode 1 but before Episode 2 I'm sure we'll have a viable progression system that's fair to new users and also good for old users to reward them for their play time investments. This might sound silly but I think the avatars vs avatar skill system math can be completely revamped to take and narrow the RNG of features by 70% (so they're 30% as random as they are now) and then giving a 0.25% crit increase for each level of a skill and new skill glyphs handed out how they are now ... I think it'd be nearly perfect for pvp. no extra damage and no extra stats. I've been against stats in skill/level progression since day 1 and I'm still against it. I think at this point it's too late and it won't get removed even though I'm fairly strongly against it. Ask @Themo Lock I just spent like 20 minutes ranting in his ear about how much I hate it and want it gone and he said he used to be where I was and just basically gave up thinking it's too far into the system to revamp that. Anyway, so that feeling of progression keeps me playing when otherwise I would log out and do something else. Keeping me playing increases the current player numbers and makes the world feel more alive and social which will appeal to more players than it will send away. Also, more players means more money so a better end result for everyone here... progression = playtime and no skill cap on it is more play time... that is why I'm voting for it.

That said... I usually take the stance against progression in PVP environments because I'm afraid of it getting out of hand. I also usually take the stance that pve and pvp shouldn't be segregated because I see things like resilience in WOW (that killed world pvp for those who don't know about it... basically made progression in PVP and PVE separate which made PVE players never attend PVP events which means only hardcore pvp happened which means the random growth of combat in story line environments didn't happen... bad bad bad). In the end I want RPers and PVEers to be able to PVP with PVPers... they won't be as good because builds and rotations and responses are always different.... PvPers are known to min-max WAY more than RPers and usually differently than PVEers (top end spike dmg instead of top end sustained dmg). But that's okay. It's okay for them to be different. In the end the people who play pvp better will be better no matter what system is put in front of them... everyone has the same system so ... unless the system is really bad and completely random (dear god please no) then good people will be better than bad people at the system. And all the average people (me) will be fodder for the good people and think they're good because they beat the bad people (thanks to all you who I've ever beaten for throwing the fight so I felt like I wasn't bad ^.^).

So... the end of this is about trust. I trust that @Chris knows what I just said. I trust that @DarkStarr is overseeing the feedback from the forums and feeding our fears and desires at a steady stream to the team. I trust that Richard is promising everything to everyone that sounds good (lol sorry but it's so true!) with the intent of making it happen and then talks it out with the team and sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't happen. I think that this balance of constantly feeding information into a pool from every source they can and making choices between the devs on what to listen to and what not to listen to works... well. It's not perfect but so far it's given us a pretty cool framework on a pretty exciting looking game.

TL;DR: I trust the devs to make a good system. I think a no-cap progression system is the best way to keep long term interest.

 

I will read and decypher whatyou wrote and give you feedback

 

Make a game out of it, every time you read the word "trust" - take a shot of rum