About guilds...

[AdmiralStryker]

Why should you provide those who are in an army the opportunity to get bonuses when you can just provide said opportunity to everybody? What difference does it make? There's no reason not to save for making armies more exclusive and giving them more tangible benefits, which are unnecessary.

You seem to think I'm advocating for people who play 100% solo. I'm not. I'm saying that not everybody wants to dedicate themselves to a guild or army. I am fine with having to participate in events. I'm fine with having to craft stuff. I am not fine with there being benefits in game that require you to dedicate yourself to a group. That's not giving the player choices, that's saying that they are going to be held back unless they play the game in one way.

Most people. Okay. Or, you know, you could just please everyone. By letting everyone, regardless of whether or not they're in an army, receive bonuses that they earn.

If the bonuses you're talking about are straight to resources earned, or reduced crafting time, while they inherently won't inhibit people without them from getting to the same point of progression, they'll make anyone without those bonuses be slowed down, relatively speaking. I'm slightly more okay with those. But if you want to give out HP bonuses, or damage buffs, to those in an army, those need to not exist, for reasons mentioned above-they can't be obtained by someone playing solo and they're not fair.

It's already going to take longer for solo players to research and craft anything because they're not running with a dedicated group. It's an intangible bonus but the fact of the matter is that an army in an open world game will do more and do it better than a group of randoms. I recognize this and I am not trying to take it away, I merely want you to recognize that this alone is a huge buff to gameplay and progression. There is no need in a game such as Em8-er to give additional bonuses to an army when they're already going to be doing miles better than a solo player in regards to encounter success rates, etc.

Nobody should be hindered by choosing to not play with an army. Their gameplay should not be relatively slower and they should not be locked off from gameplay-affecting achievements simply because they don't want to associate with an army. That's what I'm trying to say here.

People left Firefall because it became WoW with guns. I didn't play 1.6/7 much, and can't comment on them as accurately as I'd like. I want content to require teamwork. That's the nature of the game. I want to have to work together to defeat Kaiju and take over Em8-er. I am completely and totally 100% fine with this game requiring teamwork. But I don't want bonuses for playing with armies. The game is already going to require teamwork, I see no reason to grant bonuses for running in an army. Any bonuses of those sort should be conferred on an individual basis or be something that is a base/zone/world upgrade that players have to work for.

 

[Anrothan]

wow, you guys have such great ideas. Very valid opinions and some strong ones as well. Let us keep it civil however, and respect our thoughts. Also... FOUNDER HYPE!!!!!!

 

[Torgue_Joey]

HERE'S AN SKETCHY EXAMPLE OF AN IDEA OF HOW A GUILD CAN FIT IN EMBER.
AFTER ALL, THIS GAME HAS MILITARY SCHNICK-SCHNACK.



PERHAPS @Ronyn AND @Grummz CAN GET SOME IDEA FROM THIS PIECE OF TOILET PAPER.

 

[Terib.Shadow]

HERE'S AN SKETCHY EXAMPLE OF AN IDEA OF HOW A GUILD CAN FIT IN EMBER.
AFTER ALL, THIS GAME HAS MILITARY SCHNICK-SCHNACK.

View attachment 804

PERHAPS @Ronyn AND @Grummz CAN GET SOME IDEA FROM THIS PIECE OF TOILET PAPER.

You have WAAAYYYYY too much time on your hands.
Oh and nice work, but I didn't get the brigade part.

 

[Torgue_Joey]

You have WAAAYYYYY too much time on your hands.
Oh and nice work, but I didn't get the brigade part.

NOR DO I. HAD A HARD TIME THINKING ABOUT THE BRIGADE AND COMPANY PART. YES. I WASTED SH*T LOADS OF TIME WITH THESE TWO HANDS.

I JUST SLAPPED WHAT EVER RETARDED TEXT THAT STAMPEDED THROUGH MY MIND.
THE GUILD ALLIANCE CAME LAST. PROBABLY FOR BETTER AND ORGANIZED PLANETARY CONTROL.

 

[Mahdi]

I like the concept, Torgue. Back in my Jedi Knight 2 Outcast days the clan I was part of did something similar. We had our high emperor, then four emperors beneath him. Each one of them recruited their platoon based on preference of game play. Of you like the fps gun play, saber primary play, force power primary play, or just general chaos. That then became your "mission" with protecting our home turf or cross server competition.

I lead the specialist whose soul role was to guard the emperors and with coordination from other clans we also assassinated targets on other servers. Lots of clan oriented role play that made a great shooter that much better. Ahh man I miss those Force Council days.

 

[Destination]

Guilds have the advantage of making it much easier to find like-minded players. That's their purpose and their benefit. Guild-exclusive cosmetics are a nice addition (including halls for those guilds which 'put the effort' and 'didn't start yesterday').

Guild-only 'material' benefits... that's the delicate part. In my opinion they aren't needed. Skilled 'loners' will eventually fall behind because of their inability to consistently find like-minded players to tackle progressive difficulties. 'PUG4life' only gets you 'that' far and no further IF encounter design is good and the 'difficulty range' is wide.
Guild-less guys should not 'beat everything there is to beat' simply by playing with bypassing randoms. That should provide enough incentive to look for a guild at some time in your Ember life. I agree with a previous poster, there should be content/progress/achievement that requires not only personal skill but also good company and that's what guilds are for.

Encouraging elitism? Maybe. But how else do you prevent a PvE game from becoming too shallow, challenge-free and ultimately unrewarding?

 

[BunnyHunny]

Encouraging elitism? Maybe.

It is strange, how people seem to generally see elitism as something negative.
It is not.

EVERYTHING is based on elitism, in some way or another

Maybe most of those who use the word, do not really know what it means.

1. leadership or rule by an elite
>>Countries, companies, ..., everything is ruled by the (supposed) elite in that field
2. selectivity of the elite (i.e. in choosing new members)
>>Nobody gives a job to anyone, without looking at their skill. The job goes to the best.
>>Nobody likes to hang out with people that they are not socially compatible with. Friendship goes to those who have the best compatibility.
3. consciousness of being (or belonging to) an elite
>>Being self aware does not make anyone a bad person.

Life is full of elitism.
And life is full of "forced teamplay", as you guys like to call it.

In the end, nobody is forced to do anything.
People can do what they want, as long as they stick to the rules.

BUT
If you want to achieve something, you have to be better than most.
If you are not good enough, you have to improve.
If you want to achieve more than you can do alone, work closely together with others, who share your goal.

Not everyone will ever be able to achieve the same success as some others do, and not everyone should.
Why do you guys try to make games, supporting lazy people?
Why do you try to make games, teaching people the wrong thing?

But how else do you prevent a PvE game from becoming too shallow, challenge-free and ultimately unrewarding?

There is probably no way to prevent that, without making teamplay a requirement.
I am talking about actual teamplay, not some people randomly running around an area in an uncoordinated manner.

 

[AdmiralStryker]

It is strange, how people seem to generally see elitism as something negative.
It is not.

EVERYTHING is based on elitism, in some way or another

Maybe most of those who use the word, do not really know what it means.

1. leadership or rule by an elite
>>Countries, companies, ..., everything is ruled by the (supposed) elite in that field
2. selectivity of the elite (i.e. in choosing new members)
>>Nobody gives a job to anyone, without looking at their skill. The job goes to the best.
>>Nobody likes to hang out with people that they are not socially compatible with. Friendship goes to those who have the best compatibility.
3. consciousness of being (or belonging to) an elite
>>Being self aware does not make anyone a bad person.

Life is full of elitism.
And life is full of "forced teamplay", as you guys like to call it.

In the end, nobody is forced to do anything.
People can do what they want, as long as they stick to the rules.

BUT
If you want to achieve something, you have to be better than most.
If you are not good enough, you have to improve.
If you want to achieve more than you can do alone, work closely together with others, who share your goal.

Not everyone will ever be able to achieve the same success as some others do, and not everyone should.
Why do you guys try to make games, supporting lazy people?
Why do you try to make games, teaching people the wrong thing?


There is probably no way to prevent that, without making teamplay a requirement.
I am talking about actual teamplay, not some people randomly running around an area in an uncoordinated manner.

I'm not against this. I fully recognize that guilds give you immaterial advantages that you simply cannot get by playing alone.

But please, for the love of god or Cthulhu or whatever else you hold dear, don't make them give material bonuses. That's doubling down and as I have stated before I'm adamantly against that.

 

[Mahdi]

The only material reward I think anyone should have (yes a big advantage to clans) is whoever's refinery a thmpr returns to should get a % of the resources or the % as bonus resources so as not to take a direct cut out of the team that completed the thmpr encounter. Solo player bases could still reap this reward. But aesthetics are always a nice reward with achievements that could be clan based. But I would like to see those same aesthetics awarded through group play as an alternative too. Cosmetics were a huge red bean incentive in firefall.

 

[zdoofop]

HERE'S AN SKETCHY EXAMPLE OF AN IDEA OF HOW A GUILD CAN FIT IN EMBER.
AFTER ALL, THIS GAME HAS MILITARY SCHNICK-SCHNACK.

View attachment 804

PERHAPS @Ronyn AND @Grummz CAN GET SOME IDEA FROM THIS PIECE OF TOILET PAPER.

you forgot cavalry brigade. also, i can't make heads or tails of your post.

 

[Destination]

Something worth mentioning: guild carrying/leeching. NOBODY should be rewarded because they simply passed a 'social check'.

For example (I'm going to mention 'instance' in a typical MMO fashion but only to clarify what I'm talking about):
There's this end of the line hardest content available, it's a 10 man activity but what they do is play it 7-8-9 experienced + 3-2-1 'dead weight' and so 'dead weight' can get the prize w.o really being at its level, just because he chit-chats everyday with his guildies and they like him. NO. That must not happen.

Devs must not be shy about the challenge the hardest content is supposed to be. At the same time, difficulty along the game must be smoothly progressive and not 'wildly jumpy' in order to give the dedicated guys a playground to improve over time and get ready to START tackling the 'last fight' with adequate company.
The 10 man team should be able to succeed if they take a few 'green for that fight' players along the veteran's core. However, if they take LEECHERS they should be doomed from the start (or at least make it an incredibly tedious task). 'Full green' team could also be an option, naturally more time consuming and perseverance testing. For this to be possible there must be a CLEAR difference between both type of players (*read below*), made possible by adequate content and progress design (I don't discard 'hard locks' as an option) and difficulty scaling to grant a continuous improvement process.

*
'Green' = player who cleared and learned 'level' 1, 2, 3, ... 'Z' without skipping (again, progressive difficulty, smoothly increasing and 'redundancy free' as much as possible).
'Leech' = 'level' 1 ----> 'level' Z because my mates carry my lazy butt.
*

I get the people in charge of design want to have a broad audience. I know player dedication/passion/perseverance/innate ability/experience in similar games can vary a lot. Balance is possible but NOT if you want to have some universal level of difficulty which is 'mostly adequate' for 'most players' (seen too many dev teams commit and die for that sin, 'averaging'). Balance is possible by making the game 'easy to learn, hard to master' and giving both the 'casual' and 'hardcore' camps their playground and respecting their pace.

Usually, they take the easy road and point the hardcores towards PvP and that's it. I'd like Ember to have PvP but still be a COMPLETE PvE experience. That can only happen if, in the eyes of a starter, end-game looks daunting at first. Those who play enough and 'do it right' will get there, it's up to them (including taking the task of finding good company along the road). Those players who are meant to stay in your game for long will not be intimidated, they'll feel motivated. By 'averaging' you alienate your potentially most loyal players. If you make it too hard from the start you cut-off everyone except for the fanatics and that's not good either.

Guild participation and game difficulty are interlinked concepts.

 

[BunnyHunny]

Something worth mentioning: guild carrying/leeching. NOBODY should be rewarded because they simply passed a 'social check'.

There is this thing called "job interview".
You are being checked for some attributes and if you pass, you are rewarded with a job.

I would assume, that you are familiar with this practice and i would also assume, that you are not against it.

However, according to you, the same should not be applied to people who want to join an army, for some reason.
If an army only cares to check for social compatibility, it is their right to do so.
For what kind of attributes people are being checked, is only the leadership's business.


If being a member of an army brings direct benefits (to a certain degree), that is a good thing.
Here is why:
Direct benefits make the army more useful and make more people more interested in joining.
It makes armies not only interesting for those who want to actively play with comrades, but also for those who only want some occasional chit chat.
More people are interested in joining armies, making armies in general more relevant.


If general member activity increases the benefits, members are more active.
This works in an army, but not in the open world, because leechers can be kicked from the army.

It is like working for a company.
You work for the company, increasing the revenue (which is good for the company) and you get paid for it (which is good for you). When the company makes more money, you can be paid more (which is good for you).
When you are not useful for the company, you can fuck off and are replaced with somebody who is.

If you do not make them money, they do not give you money.
It is basically altruism, enforced and caused by egoism.

For example (I'm going to mention 'instance' in a typical MMO fashion but only to clarify what I'm talking about):
There's this end of the line hardest content available, it's a 10 man activity but what they do is play it 7-8-9 experienced + 3-2-1 'dead weight' and so 'dead weight' can get the prize w.o really being at its level,

This is not a bad thing and not really avoidable anyway.

Instancing content and limiting it to a max number of players, is the best way to balance something.
No doubt about that.

When content and reward are balanced for a static number of players, that allows skilled players to increase the difficulty and the reward by going in with fewer people.
When balance is static, difficulty (and reward, depending on system) is not static.
That is good.

When content is balanced around "current" number of players, that does not work.
Balance is not static, but difficulty (and reward, depending on system) is.
That is bad.

When some players are so good that they manage to beat the content with fewer people than max allowance (which always happens), they should be rewarded for that.
If they can profit from going in with fewer people, they will do that in order to get a higher reward each.
If they can not increase their profit, they will carry some others, in order to get something from them, or to be nice.
Some people always complain, no matter how it is done.
Either, it is
"the elitist assholes are greedy and do not want to help the others"
or it is
"the elitist assholes carry their friends and that is unfair, because i am not one of them".

just because he chit-chats everyday with his guildies and they like him. NO. That must not happen.

Think about what you just wrote down.
You said that inviting friends and helping them achieve something they could not do otherwise, MUST NOT HAPPEN.

It is called being "a social person".

The 10 man team should be able to succeed if they take a few 'green for that fight' players along the veteran's core.
However, if they take LEECHERS they should be doomed from the start (or at least make it an incredibly tedious task).

This only works, when the effective difference between a skilled player and a noob is insignificant, which would be pretty bad.

Also, an experience from FireFall (FF had a HUGE difference between skilled and noob) and quite a few other games: many -probably even most- players are as useless as leechers, even if that might not be their intention.

'Full green' team could also be an option, naturally more time consuming and perseverance testing. For this to be possible there must be a CLEAR difference between both type of players (*read below*), made possible by adequate content and progress design (I don't discard 'hard locks' as an option) and difficulty scaling to grant a continuous improvement process.

It HAS to be an option.
At some point every single player is "green" or "new to the current content".

I get the people in charge of design want to have a broad audience. I know player dedication/passion/perseverance/innate ability/experience in similar games can vary a lot. Balance is possible but NOT if you want to have some universal level of difficulty which is 'mostly adequate' for 'most players' (seen too many dev teams commit and die for that sin, 'averaging').

Exactly. If that is done, the game becomes boring and people stop playing.
Most people must "currently" unable to beat the hardest content.
If that is not the case, there is nothing for people to work towards.
Having no need to learn new things or to play better, causes a game to be boring for everyone who does not love monotonous grinding all day.

Balance is possible by making the game 'easy to learn, hard to master' and giving both the 'casual' and 'hardcore' camps their playground and respecting their pace.

This is 100% true and a very good way.
Make some content for noobs, where they can scuttle around and get better, but let the skilled payers have their hard content, where they can push it to the limit.
The community SHOULD be divided. If it is not, people get bored, unhappy and leave.

FireFall had that "easy to learn, hard to master" part, but sadly no content for the skilled players.

Usually, they take the easy road and point the hardcores towards PvP and that's it. I'd like Ember to have PvP but still be a COMPLETE PvE experience. That can only happen if, in the eyes of a starter, end-game looks daunting at first.
Those who play enough and 'do it right' will get there, it's up to them (including taking the task of finding good company along the road). Those players who are meant to stay in your game for long will not be intimidated, they'll feel motivated. By 'averaging' you alienate your potentially most loyal players. If you make it too hard from the start you cut-off everyone except for the fanatics and that's not good either.

100% true.
Sadly, most people who give "advice" about how it should be, do not even know what they really want.

People come and say
"i want to be able and play everything right away"
"there must be no division within the community"
"all content must not be too hard for some players"
but they are wrong and they do not even really want what they ask for.

Being able to do everything right away might make a game exciting for the first few days, but makes it boring as trash, for all the time after that.
Being lazy should not be rewarded. Being average should not be enough to beat all content.
There must be a challenge for everyone and there must be content that many people will never be good enough for, because people need something to look forward to.

 

[AdmiralStryker]

What he's saying is that if you're going to get rewards for content, you should help, rather than get carried. I agree.

"Direct benefits make the army more useful and make more people more interested in joining.
It makes armies not only interesting for those who want to actively play with comrades, but also for those who only want some occasional chit chat.
More people are interested in joining armies, making armies in general more relevant."

So can cosmetics. So can activities only accomplishable by those in armies(or groups of equal coordination). So can literally anything else that doesn't put solo players at twice the disadvantage they're at for not being in an army. (IE if you want army benefits, that's great, but don't have them affect gameplay.)


Difficulty and skill levels are fine. I'm completely for that. As for instancing, it's been said that that will not be happening in Em8-er. What keeps getting ignored is other ways to balance around a number of people, because it can still be done-look at Baneclaw. You all need to craft an item to participate, with a max number of those items being used in an area. It's far less immersion breaking if, for the Kanaloa fight, you use a consumable Thermal Shield to fly through some lava flows to reach Kanaloa, instead of pressing a few buttons, getting on a dropship, and appearing inside a volcano.


I'm not asking for the game to not require skill, I'm all for it. But there's no need for arbitrary resources(or whatever) bonuses you get simply because you joined an army. You shouldn't get 5% increased resource gains simply because you got a group of people to like you enough to let you join their group. That's a social check, not a skill check. If you want to go rip the control matrixes out of 50 kaiju to get that bonus? Cool! I like that.

 

[Destination]

This is not a bad thing and not really avoidable anyway.

I believe it is.

For example: at one point in the 'instance' the 10 players team is momentarily divided in pairs to cover 5 simultaneous tasks w.o the possibility to overlap. For each of those, the 2 players involved can help each other but having only ONE who knows what to do and the other one clearly lacking in performance SHOULD lead to failure more often than not, no matter how good the 'veteran' is. After all, hard content must mean 'a task for 2 players can't be done only by one', otherwise it's not hard content at all... the fact that the majority 'can't solo it' doesn't make it hard (it's a necessary but NOT sufficient condition).

Following the example, imagine there are 2 'power nodes' for those 2 players to defend. The other player is nearby but enemies come unpredictably in multiple directions and if you want to 'cover' the other guy you can but you should do so with good timing and opportunity because YOUR task is not trivial as to be left unattended and there is a positioning issue (a single fixed position and gunfire overlapping to create a 'death zone' is not an option). In other words, occasional help is acceptable and maybe expected (after all, nobody starts being an expert in day 1) but you have to differentiate it from BABYSITTING.

Personally, I like to have teams divided and phases for 2-3 man co-op while inside a bigger team for a change of pace and dimension (I could also accept 'solo phases' for challenge's sake, if it's not too frequent), to be put to the test w.o the possibility to coward behind somebody else (I know what you're thinking and no, I'm not interested in single player). That's the only way to make personal contribution matter and be required. Carrying lazies through the hardest content is bad both for the good player (because he's never put to the true personal limit while still being inside a co-op environment, he only lives an illusion OR co-op is not really required, both bad things IMO) and for the bad player and for the game as a whole.

This is my opinion about social interaction and game difficulty summarized in a (long) phrase: 'you're a cool guy and it's fun talking to you and having you on-board but if you want to come with us for the ultimate challenge then you better go all the way and be up to the task because we're not gonna make it otherwise'. Encounter design GIVES the possibility to make that a reality if you use your imagination and know what you want your game to be.

Not saying whole game should be like this, I also enjoy the chaotic mass encounters. They are relaxing and fun, just not fitting for 'true difficulty' because others can easily carry your butt. I'm not a loner, I know the difference between playing WITH others (you must invariably do your part) and playing ALONG others (your contribution is optional). Hardest content, by definition, should never allow the latter.

All opinion, not saying this is the best and all should like it, it's what I like and I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority.
It's OK if players want to play solo/always en-masse, it's OK if players want to carry newbs and it's OK if players like to be carried themselves via social-checks.

It's OK if players like to think they're good because they can carry while the truth is if you can carry then encounter wasn't that hard in the 1st place (no matter if the avg. player can't, again, that alone does not define difficulty, it's a relative measure while difficulty itself is an absolute concept)... and you ain't as good as you think you are because you aren't really being put to the true test since the game doesn't demand it at any time (that's when you go PvP, precisely because you are looking for that and PvE didn't deliver). Everyone can enjoy the game as they see fit, just sharing how I'd like it and not pointing at anyone in particular and not believing I'm better than anybody else (just in case I sounded like a complete xenophobic pretentious jerk with some serious issues... oh, the internet

There's something I miss from my old Unreal Tournament III days, maybe I'm a fool for trying to find it in a mostly PvE co-op game. Doesn't matter, that is not what will define my stay in Ember.

 

[AdmiralStryker]

I believe it is.

For example: at one point in the 'instance' the 10 players team is momentarily divided in pairs to cover 5 simultaneous tasks w.o the possibility to overlap. For each of those, the 2 players involved can help each other but having only ONE who knows what to do and the other one clearly lacking in performance SHOULD lead to failure more often than not, no matter how good the 'veteran' is. After all, hard content must mean 'a task for 2 players can't be done only by one', otherwise it's not hard content at all... the fact that the majority 'can't solo it' doesn't make it hard (it's a necessary but NOT sufficient condition).

Following the example, imagine there are 2 'power nodes' for those 2 players to defend. The other player is nearby but enemies come unpredictably in multiple directions and if you want to 'cover' the other guy you can but you should do so with good timing and opportunity because YOUR task is not trivial as to be left unattended and there is a positioning issue (a single fixed position and gunfire overlapping to create a 'death zone' is not an option). In other words, occasional help is acceptable and maybe expected (after all, nobody starts being an expert in day 1) but you have to differentiate it from BABYSITTING.

Personally, I like to have teams divided and phases for 2-3 man co-op while inside a bigger team for a change of pace and dimension (I could also accept 'solo phases' for challenge's sake, if it's not too frequent), to be put to the test w.o the possibility to coward behind somebody else (I know what you're thinking and no, I'm not interested in single player). That's the only way to make personal contribution matter and be required. Carrying lazies through the hardest content is bad both for the good player (because he's never put to the true personal limit while still being inside a co-op environment, he only lives an illusion OR co-op is not really required, both bad things IMO) and for the bad player and for the game as a whole.

This is my opinion about social interaction and game difficulty summarized in a (long) phrase: 'you're a cool guy and it's fun talking to you and having you on-board but if you want to come with us for the ultimate challenge then you better go all the way and be up to the task because we're not gonna make it otherwise'. Encounter design GIVES the possibility to make that a reality if you use your imagination and know what you want your game to be.

Not saying whole game should be like this, I also enjoy the chaotic mass encounters. They are relaxing and fun, just not fitting for 'true difficulty' because others can easily carry your butt. I'm not a loner, I know the difference between playing WITH others (you must invariably do your part) and playing ALONG others (your contribution is optional). Hardest content, by definition, should never allow the latter.

All opinion, not saying this is the best and all should like it, it's what I like and I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority.
It's OK if players want to play solo/always en-masse, it's OK if players want to carry newbs and it's OK if players like to be carried themselves via social-checks.

It's OK if players like to think they're good because they can carry while the truth is if you can carry then encounter wasn't that hard in the 1st place (no matter if the avg. player can't, again, that alone does not define difficulty, it's a relative measure while difficulty itself is an absolute concept)... and you ain't as good as you think you are because you aren't really being put to the true test since the game doesn't demand it at any time (that's when you go PvP, precisely because you are looking for that and PvE didn't deliver). Everyone can enjoy the game as they see fit, just sharing how I'd like it and not pointing at anyone in particular and not believing I'm better than anybody else (just in case I sounded like a complete xenophobic pretentious jerk with some serious issues... oh, the internet

There's something I miss from my old Unreal Tournament III days, maybe I'm a fool for trying to find it in a mostly PvE co-op game. Doesn't matter, that is not what will define my stay in Ember.

Good points here. I like a lot of these ideas. I completely agree-an 'instance' should be require the number of players it says it requires. If people are capable of going in and killing a boss with 7 players when they're supposed to have 10, it should be on the devs to ensure 10 are needed.

EDIT: And when I mean 10 are needed, I don't mean that the devs should just increase the health or whatnot-they should change a mechanic such that it makes the fight harder when you're using a strategy to cheese the encounter.

 

[Destination]

Think about what you just wrote down.
You said that inviting friends and helping them achieve something they could not do otherwise, MUST NOT HAPPEN.

That's correct. I believe 'the battlefield' must dictate who earns the reward and who must keep trying, not just some sympathy/pity from anybody.

You must understand HELPING =/= CARRYING. You purposely interchange both terms. That's fine, if that's what you believe.

Keep in mind, as a side consequence, every achievement lacks meaning under your paradigm.
(Nobody will know if the 'elite' paintjob you are using was a 'gift' or if it's really a proof of worth, destroying it's purpose).

 

[BunnyHunny]

Nobody will know if the 'elite' paintjob you are using was a 'gift' or if it's really a proof of worth, destroying it's purpose

At some point, people will know.

Actual "elite achievements" should not allow to be carried through them, if possible.

For example: at one point in the 'instance' the 10 players team is momentarily divided in pairs to cover 5 simultaneous tasks w.o the possibility to overlap. For each of those, the 2 players involved can help each other but having only ONE who knows what to do and the other one clearly lacking in performance SHOULD lead to failure more often than not, no matter how good the 'veteran' is. After all, hard content must mean 'a task for 2 players can't be done only by one', otherwise it's not hard content at all... the fact that the majority 'can't solo it' doesn't make it hard (it's a necessary but NOT sufficient condition).

I remember something similar from WoW (before the cataclysm).
Something else was: multiple separated boss enemies, which have to be killed within a few seconds of another, so the team has to split (groups of equal power, including tank and healer).
It is a possibility, but it is pretty specific and i guess it is lots of work to create such content.

However, there is a big problem with content like that (and most options for actual teamplay and skill requirements).
It does not really work in the open world.

Personally, I like to have teams divided and phases for 2-3 man co-op while inside a bigger team for a change of pace and dimension (I could also accept 'solo phases' for challenge's sake, if it's not too frequent), to be put to the test w.o the possibility to coward behind somebody else (I know what you're thinking and no, I'm not interested in single player). That's the only way to make personal contribution matter and be required.

An other way would be to make specific classes/setups a requirement to be able to beat the content (i.e. tanks, healers)
Content like that is, what i would love to see, but that is not what we will get.
It requires instancing and "forces" specific setups, which is both not supposed to be a thing, in ember.

Carrying lazies through the hardest content is bad both for the good player (because he's never put to the true personal limit while still being inside a co-op environment, he only lives an illusion OR co-op is not really required, both bad things IMO) and for the bad player and for the game as a whole.

Carrying the trash can definitely put a player to the personal limit, when the content (and the way that skill effects gameplay) allows it.
In FireFall, we got that challenge by playing DoD (10 man) with 4 people (+6 alt accounts for more loot), so that we had 1 gunner, 2 buffers and only 1 fighter, instead of 7. Theoretically we could have reduced it to 3 players, but having only 1 buffer would have slowed down the process.
Had DoD been actually hard, it would have been decent content, because there were multiple tasks in there, forcing people to split up, play coordinated and play specific frames.

In earlier iterations, we did the 20 man instances with 5 players (+13 alt accounts to get more loot).


Drastically reducing the number of participants did lead to the wanted challenge and forced to actually play in a coordinated manner.
This option allowed for content to stay interesting for longer.
It allowed to get the challenge that content should deliver when being played "as intended".


Even in 1.3, before they went completely crazy (1.6+) with the gap between skilled and not skilled players, a single person could do 70% of the overall damage in a 20man platoon (even without using arsenal).
I am not against such crazy power differences, based on skill and knowledge.
I am all for them, but there must be content for that kind of player.

When skill has a huge impact, there will always be a way to be a garbage man and carry some trash.

I know the difference between playing WITH others (you must invariably do your part) and playing ALONG others (your contribution is optional). Hardest content, by definition, should never allow the latter.

Many people don't.
They are lazy and expect others to fix their mistakes. "team" means "the others do my job for me".

Half of the players are worse than average and the average is usually pretty bad.
If people do not have to improve, they won't, because they are lazy.

People play bad games and get used to everything being handed to them for no effort, or for cash.
People want everything, but do not actually want to work for anything at all.
If these people are catered to, more bad games will be created and these people will get even worse.
They get what they think they want, which is what they ask for, but in the end, everyone gets a shitty game that does not satisfy anyone.

Everyone can enjoy the game as they see fit, just sharing how I'd like it and not pointing at anyone in particular and not believing I'm better than anybody else (just in case I sounded like a complete xenophobic pretentious jerk with some serious issues... oh, the internet

Don't worry. I got your back.
Quite often, as soon as i start posting in a threat, everyone else is pretty safe from being called any of that...

 

[AdmiralStryker]

Skill should have an impact, but encounters should be designed in a way that there isn't carrying. Obviously yes it's harder in the open world, but 'instance'(as I described earlier) missions and skill-based gameplay can be implemented. If a mission is designed for ten people and one day 90% of runs are done with 4, the cap should be dropped to 4 or 5.

 

[Destination]

However, there is a big problem with content like that (and most options for actual teamplay and skill requirements).
It does not really work in the open world.

True. I wonder how Ember will approach difficulty, being open world. FF's OW was too easy (I didn't play when it wasn't, if that ever happened). FF's OW was fun (during my time, I missed 'invasions') ONLY when Amazon bugged (?) and dozens of Elite (only) Chosen stormed a base. Wasn't 'hard' because players could amass and stop it by brute force but at least you died if you screwed up and sometimes Chosen got me fair and square, sometimes several players around were down and asking for revives and the enemy managed to sweep the area at least momentarily
That should be revisited, and amplified. It was pointing in the right direction.

I am not against such crazy power differences, based on skill and knowledge.
I am all for them, but there must be content for that kind of player.

When skill has a huge impact, there will always be a way to be a garbage man and carry some trash.

There must be some small corner of content/activity for which you say 'Ok, no more screwing around'. The kind of content you don't attempt when you feel tired and uninspired because you'd be eaten alive. I've never played a game (other than PvP) able to provide that to a good extent.

In FF it was like you described (at least the FF of my time), you artificially made it harder by reducing teams. I'd like a bit of late content for which that isn't necessary/possible in order to feel the challenge. How could this compatible with pure open world PvE? I don't know. Scaling based on players around is too 'unreliable' as to make it work. Couldn't come with a complete answer other than instanced content or PvP... for now (well, just a little at the end of the post ).

Everything below the hardest of the hardest stuff will naturally allow to 'play the garbage man' and that's perfectly fine.

Don't worry. I got your back.
Quite often, as soon as i start posting in a threat, everyone else is pretty safe from being called any of that...

Thanks!

Skill should have an impact, but encounters should be designed in a way that there isn't carrying.

Dividing players in the open world in order to grant adequate challenge for those who desire it and doing it in a non-draconian way for the rest of the players (or as little as possible) in a 'not overly complex' fashion isn't easy, but it's not impossible. I had some conversation back in FF forums about that with some folks, quite long. The counter argument ended up being 'FF engine will not support it' but no counters were given regarding the basic design ideas (I'm sure there were flaws in my basic concepts, would like to have heard them so I could have refined my thoughts). Don't want to overextend now (more than I did already) so original poster doesn't have his topic overrun.