I'm noticing a few loud people of the "Skills, Muh skills, if not skill pro your bad" (exaggeration) demographic lately. Like their afraid of a shooter based game not requiring skill of some kind... Did they mention something about auto tracking aim assists or something? Chill out people. They don't even have a playable mock up yet.
I'm mean don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shoot anybody down here, but guys, I remember firefall just being fun. There was that small core of intense pvpers but, overall the game and the people in it were just fun. I'm just looking for that again.
I'm mean don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shoot anybody down here, but guys, I remember firefall just being fun. There was that small core of intense pvpers but, overall the game and the people in it were just fun. I'm just looking for that again.
Last edited:
Yes and no. It really depends which is why i do believe people are discussing all the realms of possibility and not certainty.
I personally don't want Em-8er being turned to a typical loltard shooter where a single person can take on everything without breaking a sweat while the rest of the 199 people are trying to figure out their left from their right.. (By loltard shooter i mean generic fps games that reward people from basicly everything (OH! LOOK AT YOU STOOD AROUND! Here's a parrot badge! Congrats! Here's a pretty box with your name on it!) giving the false feeling of success as a way to pander ill-minded fools. I don't think anyone wants that.. At least i hope so. But i do believe you can strike a balance between the extreme and EZ-Moaders. )
Are some of the suggestions on the extreme side? Yes.. To a variable degree. But to me it just tells how spirited they are they don't shy away from a challange exclaiming:"This is bullshit i quit!" (Like the vast majority of people i have seen) but they double down on it exclaiming:"I wish we had more of this shit! *Teeth grinding*"
Also i do believe some are just sick and tired of games just pander the lowest common denominator/dominator (I forget which word was the right one.. Meh)
I'd argue that their just trying to forge the spirit of the game being centered around skill low or high with the premise of:"If your stubborn enough and keep trying you get better." While giving detorrents to flybois who just wanna sit around twiddling their thumps asking:"Are we done yet?".
I personally don't want Em-8er being turned to a typical loltard shooter where a single person can take on everything without breaking a sweat while the rest of the 199 people are trying to figure out their left from their right.. (By loltard shooter i mean generic fps games that reward people from basicly everything (OH! LOOK AT YOU STOOD AROUND! Here's a parrot badge! Congrats! Here's a pretty box with your name on it!) giving the false feeling of success as a way to pander ill-minded fools. I don't think anyone wants that.. At least i hope so. But i do believe you can strike a balance between the extreme and EZ-Moaders. )
Are some of the suggestions on the extreme side? Yes.. To a variable degree. But to me it just tells how spirited they are they don't shy away from a challange exclaiming:"This is bullshit i quit!" (Like the vast majority of people i have seen) but they double down on it exclaiming:"I wish we had more of this shit! *Teeth grinding*"
Also i do believe some are just sick and tired of games just pander the lowest common denominator/dominator (I forget which word was the right one.. Meh)
I'd argue that their just trying to forge the spirit of the game being centered around skill low or high with the premise of:"If your stubborn enough and keep trying you get better." While giving detorrents to flybois who just wanna sit around twiddling their thumps asking:"Are we done yet?".
Yes I quite remember the advent of speed runs for instances, I was burned out fairly quickly.
And difficulty is subjective, many people I know don't consider it "Hard" unless they will die several times in the attempt. Of course gear and just learning a fight eventually render you capable of breezing through it.
In an large open world type fight there will be the people who know the enemies, have the builds, have built up the skills necessary to power through encounters and there will people who don't have or know all these things.
In Firefall I once saw some what looked like fairly new players or they we're just messing around. Didn't really matter to me. They were thumping and suddenly a Chosen Death Squad comes out of nowhere and the executioner guns down 2 out of 3 of them before they know what hits them. Last guy is trying to get to his buddies up but can't. Enter me, I roll in with my mammoth frame and promptly gun down everything in fairly short order. They thank me from the bottom of their heart for saving them and their thumper. We then go on to spend a few hours just thumping, (some fairly difficult ones too) doing ares missions and tornadoes just having fun. All the reward I ever need.
I don't know how they intend to reward players with gear and materials, but it was this kind of stuff that kept me in Firefall and what I really enjoyed about it, not speed running instances endlessly. During encounters/ events it didn't matter if you were the best player ever or a baddie, people would take the risks to pick you up. And when you beat the encounter you all got rewarded. When you see that sniper up in his comfy spot sniping away and you go down and that sniper leaves his perfect camping spot to rush to your aid in the middle of it all, you know the people in this game are different. I never encountered this level of camaraderie in a game with people you never met before.
And difficulty is subjective, many people I know don't consider it "Hard" unless they will die several times in the attempt. Of course gear and just learning a fight eventually render you capable of breezing through it.
In an large open world type fight there will be the people who know the enemies, have the builds, have built up the skills necessary to power through encounters and there will people who don't have or know all these things.
In Firefall I once saw some what looked like fairly new players or they we're just messing around. Didn't really matter to me. They were thumping and suddenly a Chosen Death Squad comes out of nowhere and the executioner guns down 2 out of 3 of them before they know what hits them. Last guy is trying to get to his buddies up but can't. Enter me, I roll in with my mammoth frame and promptly gun down everything in fairly short order. They thank me from the bottom of their heart for saving them and their thumper. We then go on to spend a few hours just thumping, (some fairly difficult ones too) doing ares missions and tornadoes just having fun. All the reward I ever need.
I don't know how they intend to reward players with gear and materials, but it was this kind of stuff that kept me in Firefall and what I really enjoyed about it, not speed running instances endlessly. During encounters/ events it didn't matter if you were the best player ever or a baddie, people would take the risks to pick you up. And when you beat the encounter you all got rewarded. When you see that sniper up in his comfy spot sniping away and you go down and that sniper leaves his perfect camping spot to rush to your aid in the middle of it all, you know the people in this game are different. I never encountered this level of camaraderie in a game with people you never met before.
Just like the developers can influence, if the player base becomes active and wants to improve, or if the players are mainly boring zombies who want to get rewarded for everything they do (and also attract more players of a certain type).
They can also influence the social behavior of players.
It can cause them to be nicer than normally, but it can also cause them to be more of an asshole than normally.
Most gamers (as far as i can tell) are leaning more towards the bad side, so if the game does not positively influence them, the average player can be incredibly selfish and antisocial.
I hope MK gets this "atmosphere" right with ember, like he did with FF.
They can also influence the social behavior of players.
It can cause them to be nicer than normally, but it can also cause them to be more of an asshole than normally.
Most gamers (as far as i can tell) are leaning more towards the bad side, so if the game does not positively influence them, the average player can be incredibly selfish and antisocial.
I hope MK gets this "atmosphere" right with ember, like he did with FF.
Last edited:
Likes:
Pandagnome and Torgue_Joey
Important things to remember on death punishment.
People need to progress. If death is too hard a wall, people will quit the game. Yes EVE has you lose an entire ship, but ship costs relative to income should be considered more akin to consumable powerups for the most part. (Exception for super caps). You don't grind for weeks to get that one part of your super ship, you do an hour or two gathering isk and you have your new ship generally speaking.
So you need to make sure death doesn't become unaffordable to recover from.
You also need to keep people playing. Respawn timers that get longer & longer mean people simply can't play, and they will log off and go play another game instead. People need to be doing something in the game to be kept around.
And if death makes the enemies stronger you won't get an inclusive community. You will get an exclusive community where people are told to get lost unless they have 100% perfect gear and skill, because people most of the time will just want to farm stuff for 'lewts'. Sure people want a challenge now and then, but most of the time people won't want to have to play to their limits, so they'll tell weaker players to get away from them so they don't die and make the enemies stronger.
Now, don't take this to mean that I don't want death to have meaning, but you have to take game design and player behaviour into account here. Not just what it will personally mean or what your ideal scenario of how you will behave in your imagination is, but the reality of what players actually do when given situations.
People need to progress. If death is too hard a wall, people will quit the game. Yes EVE has you lose an entire ship, but ship costs relative to income should be considered more akin to consumable powerups for the most part. (Exception for super caps). You don't grind for weeks to get that one part of your super ship, you do an hour or two gathering isk and you have your new ship generally speaking.
So you need to make sure death doesn't become unaffordable to recover from.
You also need to keep people playing. Respawn timers that get longer & longer mean people simply can't play, and they will log off and go play another game instead. People need to be doing something in the game to be kept around.
And if death makes the enemies stronger you won't get an inclusive community. You will get an exclusive community where people are told to get lost unless they have 100% perfect gear and skill, because people most of the time will just want to farm stuff for 'lewts'. Sure people want a challenge now and then, but most of the time people won't want to have to play to their limits, so they'll tell weaker players to get away from them so they don't die and make the enemies stronger.
Now, don't take this to mean that I don't want death to have meaning, but you have to take game design and player behaviour into account here. Not just what it will personally mean or what your ideal scenario of how you will behave in your imagination is, but the reality of what players actually do when given situations.
I just figure your gear needing to be repaired for being damaged or destroyed would be punishment enough for death in game where crafting is going to be just as important as fighting. That should be meaningful enough.
That could make dodging interesting in that players could try to get certain parts of themselves damaged over other parts so that their repair costs are lower. Of course trying to dodge completely to get no repair costs. I used to do this in Mechwarrior. Purposely set up my mechs so that certain parts of them would get hurt over other parts.
Just have different levels of cost relative to the damage received on a given part.
Have death be the worst cost and let players be able to revive or repair each other on the field.
That could make dodging interesting in that players could try to get certain parts of themselves damaged over other parts so that their repair costs are lower. Of course trying to dodge completely to get no repair costs. I used to do this in Mechwarrior. Purposely set up my mechs so that certain parts of them would get hurt over other parts.
Just have different levels of cost relative to the damage received on a given part.
Have death be the worst cost and let players be able to revive or repair each other on the field.
Last edited:
Yes. On a personal level.
But how does death influence the outcome of an encounter for a group of players? Open World and unlimited participation have this problem: 'corpse crawling' to win. You need to cap participation ('1 Life' for the encounter) or divide tasks, or a mix of both. Sometimes, for a change.
But how does death influence the outcome of an encounter for a group of players? Open World and unlimited participation have this problem: 'corpse crawling' to win. You need to cap participation ('1 Life' for the encounter) or divide tasks, or a mix of both. Sometimes, for a change.
Likes:
Pandagnome and Degiance
You got a multi-stage fight on your hands in this game.
You got to fight to get to a mining spot.
Fight waves of increasing stronger enemies as you risk a THMPR for better rewards per subsequent wave.
Then you got to fight as you escort your THMPR back to base.
And while all that's going, your base defenders got to manage with base defense.
If one of your team-mates die during this process or you don't help out a team mates and let them consistently die while you try to reap all the rewards yourself, it just means less people will be willing to play with you. And the less people willing to play with ya, the less rewards you will get since you won't be able to handle all parts of the fight yourself for stronger waves.
if there is no restrictions on who can make a base other than needing game money, crafting stuff and a minimum number of team mates, then it falls on the team not treating people badly so they can actually see progress.
You got to fight to get to a mining spot.
Fight waves of increasing stronger enemies as you risk a THMPR for better rewards per subsequent wave.
Then you got to fight as you escort your THMPR back to base.
And while all that's going, your base defenders got to manage with base defense.
If one of your team-mates die during this process or you don't help out a team mates and let them consistently die while you try to reap all the rewards yourself, it just means less people will be willing to play with you. And the less people willing to play with ya, the less rewards you will get since you won't be able to handle all parts of the fight yourself for stronger waves.
if there is no restrictions on who can make a base other than needing game money, crafting stuff and a minimum number of team mates, then it falls on the team not treating people badly so they can actually see progress.
Last edited:
I personally dislike that problem aswell, i don't mind it when it just effects one player but big fight mechanic being reduced to:"Look how many bodies i can throw in the blender till it breaks!" kinda thing. Ruins immersion and feel for the game (If i can say it like that)
Or worse yet arbituary thing like item level that doesn't really tell anything about the players skill other than their a good loot hoarder but it becomes a "must have" as the item level somehow supposedly prevents people from "dying too quick". But in the end it's just so the few elitistjerks can have cannonfodder for their groups so they can falsely claim to be skillfull.
I might have not pressed it enough that to me skill isn't just doing the most kills, dmg, headshots, healing done what ever. It's about getting together with friends and strangers alike and going trough something that might seem impossible at the time but manage to get trough it anyway. As a way to forget worries of the real life... Pain, hauntfull memories of the past.. Something to distract the forever overthinking over worrying mind in form of entertaiment.
Or worse yet arbituary thing like item level that doesn't really tell anything about the players skill other than their a good loot hoarder but it becomes a "must have" as the item level somehow supposedly prevents people from "dying too quick". But in the end it's just so the few elitistjerks can have cannonfodder for their groups so they can falsely claim to be skillfull.
I might have not pressed it enough that to me skill isn't just doing the most kills, dmg, headshots, healing done what ever. It's about getting together with friends and strangers alike and going trough something that might seem impossible at the time but manage to get trough it anyway. As a way to forget worries of the real life... Pain, hauntfull memories of the past.. Something to distract the forever overthinking over worrying mind in form of entertaiment.
Has this actually ever happened in any game ever?
Of course, if failing players make the enemy stronger, certain things will happen.
>>>the exclusive community you are talking about seems unrealistic, since something like ≈90% of the community are bad-decent and therefore no top players and definitely not in the "perfect player" category
>>>the people causing the enemies to get stronger (by dying) are likely to be suffering the most from it (if they return to the fight)
>>>if enemies get too strong, players will leave the battle, but the best players are likely to be the last ones to leave.
Why would gear score be a bad thing?
Aside from the "reasonable" explanations you already brought up.
In any game i have ever played, where gear score was a thing, it never was the skilled players who cared the most, or who judged people by it.
It never was a must have.
It always were bad and mediocre players, who measured their e-penis by comparing their gear score to others' and then got pissed, when a skilled player had a higher score or performed better than them.
That should not have an impact on your gameplay.
Take elite ranks in FireFall as an example.
The exact same thing that you said, was called to be happening in FireFall, but it never happened.
In FireFall (even though elite ranks actually had a huge impact), none (or barely any) of the actually good players really cared about the ER of anyone.
A high ER never was a must have.
What do you mean by this?
Of course, if failing players make the enemy stronger, certain things will happen.
>>>the exclusive community you are talking about seems unrealistic, since something like ≈90% of the community are bad-decent and therefore no top players and definitely not in the "perfect player" category
>>>the people causing the enemies to get stronger (by dying) are likely to be suffering the most from it (if they return to the fight)
>>>if enemies get too strong, players will leave the battle, but the best players are likely to be the last ones to leave.
Why would gear score be a bad thing?
Aside from the "reasonable" explanations you already brought up.
In any game i have ever played, where gear score was a thing, it never was the skilled players who cared the most, or who judged people by it.
It never was a must have.
It always were bad and mediocre players, who measured their e-penis by comparing their gear score to others' and then got pissed, when a skilled player had a higher score or performed better than them.
That should not have an impact on your gameplay.
Take elite ranks in FireFall as an example.
The exact same thing that you said, was called to be happening in FireFall, but it never happened.
In FireFall (even though elite ranks actually had a huge impact), none (or barely any) of the actually good players really cared about the ER of anyone.
A high ER never was a must have.
What do you mean by this?
Last edited:
While maybe I've played different games, I've seen-multiple times-games where players have said "Gear score xx+ req", whether it be for a raid, guild, group, whatever, it's happened. I think the goal is to try to avoid this. I don't think we need gear scores. Equipment tiers are going to go from 1-6(or some lower numbers than gear scores from 1-1000 like FF), and crafted items will have to be of different qualities to ensure that you keep your loadout within specifications(ie a T6 build of all 900 quality stuff should be impossible and that is a good thing because tradeoffs are necessary in this game).
I mean... yeah, stuff like that can happen.
Now that you say it, i do remember requirements like this from the old days in WoW, but (in my experience) these requirements were never irrational and were not even held up, when it came to skilled players.
As long as it is kept reasonable, i do not see a problem with it.
I understand why some people do not like this, but there is a good reason for implementing scores as well.
If there is a significant power difference, depending on equipment, that is.
In games, where there is group/raid content, the group has to be set up in a way that allows the collective to succeed.
The leader has to think about who should get an invite.
Looking at equipment (in games, such as WoW) is pretty much the only way to get some estimation about the player's effectiveness, without knowing about their personal skill.
If a damage dealer is required to deal 6k dps, which is usually achieved with 4k gs, then a person with 2,5k gs will probably not reach that number.
A player who can deal 6k dps will still get invited, even if the gs is lower than expected.
Gear score was not the reason for people not to get invited, but their (estimated) capability of doing their job.
People might not get invited, because they are less effective than others.
They get pissed, because the success of the group is valued higher than their happiness about being allowed to join.
In the end, there will always be a way for people to rate players, based on objective things (subjective influence not included).
Having something like gear score just makes it easier.
Since Ember is not supposed to have instances, i guess, even if there was gear score, there would not really be any circumstances, where anyone could be "penalized" for having a score that is "too low".
Now that you say it, i do remember requirements like this from the old days in WoW, but (in my experience) these requirements were never irrational and were not even held up, when it came to skilled players.
As long as it is kept reasonable, i do not see a problem with it.
I understand why some people do not like this, but there is a good reason for implementing scores as well.
If there is a significant power difference, depending on equipment, that is.
In games, where there is group/raid content, the group has to be set up in a way that allows the collective to succeed.
The leader has to think about who should get an invite.
Looking at equipment (in games, such as WoW) is pretty much the only way to get some estimation about the player's effectiveness, without knowing about their personal skill.
If a damage dealer is required to deal 6k dps, which is usually achieved with 4k gs, then a person with 2,5k gs will probably not reach that number.
A player who can deal 6k dps will still get invited, even if the gs is lower than expected.
Gear score was not the reason for people not to get invited, but their (estimated) capability of doing their job.
People might not get invited, because they are less effective than others.
They get pissed, because the success of the group is valued higher than their happiness about being allowed to join.
In the end, there will always be a way for people to rate players, based on objective things (subjective influence not included).
Having something like gear score just makes it easier.
Since Ember is not supposed to have instances, i guess, even if there was gear score, there would not really be any circumstances, where anyone could be "penalized" for having a score that is "too low".
Last edited:
Let's not forget that the bulk of your DPS is going to come from your build. You are, by nature, going to have a few items that are crafted to be really strong(ie your gun and a few abilities) and, by nature, going to have a few slotted things that are garbage to conserve your resource constraints. I'm not sure how to implement a system to measure that-a quality average wouldn't work very well since everyone will be using a mix of good and bad items.
A viable list for each player of what abilities/weapons they run(and maybe their color qualities, ie white/green/blue/purple) can be okay, but I think that's all that is necessary. That should give you an idea of whether or not the guy with a HMG and turret mode is specializing in being a heavy-hitting but immobile tank, or an immobile wet noodle.
A viable list for each player of what abilities/weapons they run(and maybe their color qualities, ie white/green/blue/purple) can be okay, but I think that's all that is necessary. That should give you an idea of whether or not the guy with a HMG and turret mode is specializing in being a heavy-hitting but immobile tank, or an immobile wet noodle.
Likes:
Degiance
With a system like this, it might indeed be a bit problematic to come up with a "useful" gear score.
Of course.
Being able to inspect the setup of players directly would be the best case.
In WoW (like in FireFall, up to a certain patch), you can simply inspect other players, allowing you to see their character window and all their gear, so you can take a look at items, prefixes, modules/gems etc.
Sadly, some games allow players to hide their setup, or do not have this feature in the first place.
In WoW, setups were not really a secret. Same thing for FireFall.
People who thought about it for a bit, could figure out what would probably the best.
Inspecting others would not really have allowed for "stealing" other people's good ideas.
In a game like Ember, where there should (at least theoretically) not be any obviously "best" setups, it might actually be a good thing to have limited inspection options, or even none.
There are arguments for and against it, many of which depending on how exactly the creation of setups will work.
I do not think that we can really make a proper conclusion about the usefulness of gear score or inspection.
Anyway. I guess we are digressing.
Of course.
Being able to inspect the setup of players directly would be the best case.
In WoW (like in FireFall, up to a certain patch), you can simply inspect other players, allowing you to see their character window and all their gear, so you can take a look at items, prefixes, modules/gems etc.
Sadly, some games allow players to hide their setup, or do not have this feature in the first place.
In WoW, setups were not really a secret. Same thing for FireFall.
People who thought about it for a bit, could figure out what would probably the best.
Inspecting others would not really have allowed for "stealing" other people's good ideas.
In a game like Ember, where there should (at least theoretically) not be any obviously "best" setups, it might actually be a good thing to have limited inspection options, or even none.
There are arguments for and against it, many of which depending on how exactly the creation of setups will work.
I do not think that we can really make a proper conclusion about the usefulness of gear score or inspection.
Anyway. I guess we are digressing.
Last edited:
hell no I don't like none of this ideas. I would like em8er not to be a copy of firefall but I want it to be like it. a true successor of firefall. None of this drastic changes. Focus on fun. If I want to stress my self out I'll play something else. One of the reason I liked firefall so much was the fact that I can chill and thump for hours and worry about building my weapons for the next raid with my friends. I don't got time for stressing
Oh god please dont, like just dont. If you die, you respawn and have to go run back into action. If the fight is challenging enough this would still require the players to group up or try something different. Much better than all this like waiting to get back or just waiting period to go back into battle. It should be based on the player to be able to get back on his feet and try something different, but not have a cooldown to get back into fight, thats a bone killer.
I've skimmed through the previous posts, but I can't say that I paid a great deal of attention, so I might have missed details/copying someone else's idea.
Let's say that if you suffer critical damage you get incapacitated, so maybe your frame is barely holding together.
when that happens you either:
However, if you get incapacitated you get a high resists shield (think hunker mode in the supreme commander series) so you don't die immediately if someone plinks something at you. But on the flip side, if you take enough damage and the emergency shield breaks they can further damage your already incapacitated frame. if they destroy it then your frame is irreversibly destroyed (and may or may not explode).
this would make it (relatively) risk-free if you just trigger the timer immediately, since the shield should protect you long enough for the timer to run down completely, and more risky to keep it out there and wait for a support to help you (maybe even an upgrade so you can do it yourself, but it takes longer?). This would be a good mix between risk-reward that you can choose yourself.
why this? well, quite simply, it offers risk for those that want it, it offers safety for those that don't. Got a dedicated squad running? safe to stay and get picked back up again. Got a troll? start the timer and be done with it. It rewards teamplay because supports (healers, not sure how to call them yet, since mechs and stuff) can help their teammates with (heroic) saves or sacrifice themselves for someone else.
"can" is an important verb here. the game doesn't force it, it allows it.
come to think of it, you can kinda see it like playing hardcore compared to softcore in an (a)rpg. it's your choice, but the game stays the same.
as for Em-8er requiring skill, if the game is going the way I expect and hope the game is going to be no cakewalk. Skill will prove who can stand against greater amounts of enemies successfully. it will show who the more proficient support players are. I think this game will be unforgiving at times, and that's when skilled players will shine.
Let's say that if you suffer critical damage you get incapacitated, so maybe your frame is barely holding together.
when that happens you either:
- try to hold out for a healer/logistic support to help you get it working (somewhat decently, still heavily crippled),
- or you start a timer to get it picked up and sent back to the nearby garage/base.
However, if you get incapacitated you get a high resists shield (think hunker mode in the supreme commander series) so you don't die immediately if someone plinks something at you. But on the flip side, if you take enough damage and the emergency shield breaks they can further damage your already incapacitated frame. if they destroy it then your frame is irreversibly destroyed (and may or may not explode).
this would make it (relatively) risk-free if you just trigger the timer immediately, since the shield should protect you long enough for the timer to run down completely, and more risky to keep it out there and wait for a support to help you (maybe even an upgrade so you can do it yourself, but it takes longer?). This would be a good mix between risk-reward that you can choose yourself.
why this? well, quite simply, it offers risk for those that want it, it offers safety for those that don't. Got a dedicated squad running? safe to stay and get picked back up again. Got a troll? start the timer and be done with it. It rewards teamplay because supports (healers, not sure how to call them yet, since mechs and stuff) can help their teammates with (heroic) saves or sacrifice themselves for someone else.
"can" is an important verb here. the game doesn't force it, it allows it.
come to think of it, you can kinda see it like playing hardcore compared to softcore in an (a)rpg. it's your choice, but the game stays the same.
as for Em-8er requiring skill, if the game is going the way I expect and hope the game is going to be no cakewalk. Skill will prove who can stand against greater amounts of enemies successfully. it will show who the more proficient support players are. I think this game will be unforgiving at times, and that's when skilled players will shine.