Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
* * - - - 3 votes

Anet on why there is vertical progression


  • Please log in to reply
288 replies to this topic

#151 DuskWolf

DuskWolf

    Seraph Guardian

  • Banned
  • 1876 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:07 AM

So, visual aids. One of the problems I have with vertical progression is that the more dominant stats become, it's so much more that Guild Wars 2 likens itself to this.

That's a nice joke. But it depresses me when MMORPGs are getting so close to actually becoming that.

#152 Cronos988

Cronos988

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:50 AM

View PostRunkleford, on 04 December 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

I AM addressing YOUR argument. Is there a time limit of less than a day of when someone can respond to a post now? And yet again, you're making up your own definitions here. You're pushing your opinions as though they are fact. The fact is that RPG is ROLE PLAYING GAME. It doesn't matter if you put the words PC in front of it. It's still role playing. It's STILL playing a character in a PC game.

You're making the logical fallacy of saying all PC RPGs are only about vertical progression when it's just that most of them are, NOT all of them. So just because a game is a PC RPG does not mean it MUST have vertical progression. The term RPG is not defined by vertical progression.

Ok, so first of all me proposing a definition is not "pushing through my opinions as though they [were] fact[s]". Defining what I mean when I use a certain term serves to enable a discussion without everyone just talking past each other. I am not sure if you want to attack my definitions of vertical and horizontal progression too, but if you do, please state your critique and propose alternate definitions that we can all agree on.

Furthermore, you are distorting my definition: Nowhere did I say that RPGs are "only about vertical progression", merely that it can be considered an integral part. Nevertheless, even if I said that, it wouldn't be a logical fallacy of any kind. I think we are mixing two different discussion into one: What the term RPG should rever to (a purely semantic argument) and what constitutes "roleplaying" in an PC game.

The semantic argument isn't really relevant, it would just be good if we had some kind of agreement of what games exactly you refer to when you say "RPG". I refer to games like Ultima Online, Diablo 2, WoW, Morrowind, etc. etc.
Your definition of an RPG is playing a character in a PC game. What does "Character" mean then and what games does this encompass?
Do you character as in an identifiable Persona? Then Half Life 1 & 2 are RPG games, heck Tekken is an RPG then.
Or do you mean a Persona you imagine onto a "blank" character? That would seem more usefull, as it incorporates the element of choice. But then Bioschok and Minecraft are RPGs the same as Skyrim and Ultima Online are. Yet those games are different.

As to the actual discussion of what constitutes "roleplaying" in a PC game: Vertical progression is a fundamental experience that everyone knows from their daily life. Practicing a certain task makes you better at it. That is why, in my opinion, it is a fundamental element of "roleplaying". Vertical progression serves to tell the classical story of going from humble beginnings to a great hero.

#153 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:51 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 03 December 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Assuming that I would eat 100g meals (after correcting for homeostasis) and that F1 cars would go more than 50ms faster by being 100g lighter, yes, that is accurate (assuming that not eating the day before didn't impair my driving skills). This is because me eating or not eating the day before would in no way affect the performance of the pit crew, or of the wind, temperature, precipitation, number of birds randomly flying into my car during the race, or any other external factor of meaning to the race whatsoever. It's not as if I tell the track crew that "hey guys, I didn't eat yesterday" and they go "oh right then we'll rebuild entire sections of the track". No. External reasons are unaffected by eating or not eating.

Picking a different element could have done a huge difference, so could picking a different trait. Sure. Let's imagine that I made such a choice. If I had made such a choice (or if he had), the reason would have been another one than that I was wearing ascended gear. For example I could have used an axe instead of a sword. Fire instead of water. I could have been sitting on a low-bandwidth connection. Birds could have flown into my attacks, blocking me. But assuming that all those circumstances would have been the same (as they would, since my choice of gear could not possibly have affected them - there is no bird-attracting gear), me carrying ascended gear was actually the thing that made the difference in that battle.

so you're saying that simply because you didnt eat the day before, one member of the pit crew sneezing while changing your tire would not have affected your race? Of course it would! you didnt win the race simply because you didnt eat, you won the race because everything that happened during the race and before! Every single thing! You are essentially cherry picking a single item you like and giving it a central importance that it just doesnt really have! It is no more or less important then anything else! And the list of everything else is so large that saying any single factor is vital is hmm wrong!

#154 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:04 PM

View PostCronos988, on 03 December 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Or, to put that in different terms:
If we assume A wins a Battle when A > B
Where A = percentage of B's health removed per second by A
and B = percentage of A's health removed per second by B

And we further state that
A = fa1 + fa2 + fa3 + ... + fan
B = fb1 + fb2 + fb3 + ... +fbn
where fa1-fan and fb1-fbn are each factors that influence the battle
and fa1 specifically is the quality of A's gear, fb1 specifically is the quality of B's gear

Then there are an infinite number of scenarios where A' = fa2 + ... +fan and B' = fb2 + ... + fbn are equal and consequently A>B is true exactly when fa1 > fb1. There are quite a few other possible scenarios where fa1 and fb1 are decisive, but one case supports the basic argument just fine.

So you can logically prove that Ascended gear, if it is better than any other gear, will be decisive in a certain percentage of all battles, and hence you are more likely to win fights with ascended gear than without it.

are you kinding me?

do you realise how big n is in your equation? do you realise how many factors come into play in a single combat?

you got 12 gears that each have 3 stats that are further augement with runes that each have 3 stats thats right there 108 different factors effecting your defence and offence! then you have traits (21)  that further more can augment those same stats, give you passive abilities and even active abilities and top of that you have between 10 - 40 attack skills depending on class. Each of those skills does 2+ things from augmenting your offensive / defensive abilities to doing direct damage, damage over time or infict conditions which will in turn affect the stats of your enemy (which are also effected by up to 108 different factors based on armor alone) But thats not all, there is food that can further more improve a single aspect or more + the utility skills that call also boost offence, defense or do direct damage! but thats not all the amount each one of these variable does is variable itself! damage is a random number between two values. If you augement your defense by something like reflect projectile that can mean boosting your defence by inifinity (no projectile attack does any damage) or by 0 (attack recieved is not projectile based)  and you're saying then 1 single element out all this jungle of variables is decisive? Please!

If armor is so desisive how do you explain me who am not even a PvP player have a kill to death ratio in WvW of something close to 10 kills to 1 death when I wear only 3 pieces which are exotic and everything else is rare?

Is it because no body bothered to get exotic armor but right now Ascended armor seems to be all the rage or because Armor not only is not decisive at all but barely has any effect?

#155 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4844 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:05 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 04 December 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

so you're saying that simply because you didnt eat the day before, one member of the pit crew sneezing while changing your tire would not have affected your race? Of course it would! you didnt win the race simply because you didnt eat, you won the race because everything that happened during the race and before! Every single thing! You are essentially cherry picking a single item you like and giving it a central importance that it just doesnt really have! It is no more or less important then anything else! And the list of everything else is so large that saying any single factor is vital is hmm wrong!
I'm saying that me eating or not eating would have no import on the pit crew member sneezing or not sneezing. You can also say it in this way: my intake of food has no correlation with the amount or timing of pulmonary convulsions (sneezes or coughs) among the pit crew.

Assuming a parallel world where I did eat but everything else happened as it does in the real imagined world, and I lost in the parallel world and won in the real imagined one, one can only conclude that eating made the difference. Similarly, if everything had gone down the way it did in the actual battle that actually took place, except for me wearing exotics, I would have lost. Therefore, one can only conclude that gear made the difference in that specific case.

#156 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4844 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:11 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 04 December 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

are you kinding me?

do you realise how big n is in your equation? do you realise how many factors come into play in a single combat?
He is actually right. It's not about the size of n (it is actually infinite, as Cronos988 states in his post, or near infinite), it's about all the cases where all the factors are identical except those affected by the changed variable (gear in this case). What you can argue is that gear plays a small role, not that it plays a role that can be substituted, because the cases in which it can be substituted were already taken care of in the sequence.

#157 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:15 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 04 December 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

I'm saying that me eating or not eating would have no import on the pit crew member sneezing or not sneezing. You can also say it in this way: my intake of food has no correlation with the amount or timing of pulmonary convulsions (sneezes or coughs) among the pit crew.

Assuming a parallel world where I did eat but everything else happened as it does in the real imagined world, and I lost in the parallel world and won in the real imagined one, one can only conclude that eating made the difference. Similarly, if everything had gone down the way it did in the actual battle that actually took place, except for me wearing exotics, I would have lost. Therefore, one can only conclude that gear made the difference in that specific case.

You're clever I give you that!  but you're trying to cheat! What you said above is true, except the gear did not make THE difference but made A difference!

And no if you wore exotic instead of ascended you still would not have lost provided you didnt make a mistake! no attack is weaker then 40 hp as far as I know thus what would have happened is both of you going into a down state on the same attack but you would have still had his attack power - 40 advantage!  it would then have boiled down to how each of you did in their down state! but your last attack would have still done more damage then his attack did ! he would have chipped just 40 health out of your downed state bar while you would have chipped your weapon full damage!

Like I said you're oversimplifying things there is much more to combat in gw2 then your armor rating!

#158 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4844 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:25 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 04 December 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

You're clever I give you that!  but you're trying to cheat! What you said above is true, except the gear did not make THE difference but made A difference!

And no if you wore exotic instead of ascended you still would not have lost provided you didnt make a mistake! no attack is weaker then 40 hp as far as I know thus what would have happened is both of you going into a down state on the same attack but you would have still had his attack power - 40 advantage!  it would then have boiled down to how each of you did in their down state! but your last attack would have still done more damage then his attack did ! he would have chipped just 40 health out of your downed state bar while you would have chipped your weapon full damage!

Like I said you're oversimplifying things there is much more to combat in gw2 then your armor rating!
No, wearing gear has no correlation on the other factors that can affect the outcome of the battle. Therefore, one can only conclude that gear made the difference in that specific case.

I made plenty of mistakes during the fight, and so did my opponent, I'd think - just like in any fight. Those mistakes, the potential other things that either of us could have done wrong, or random birds and sneezes that could have played a part, have nothing to do with what gear I was wearing. Therefore, the things that actually happened would have happened anyway, and the things that didn't happen wouldn't have happened even if I was wearing fully exotic gear, even down to which attacks were or were not made.

The gear made the difference. I'm surprised that you so ardently disagree - I thought you would be overjoyed that the new items actually were meaningful in some way.

#159 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:32 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 04 December 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

No, wearing gear has no correlation on the other factors that can affect the outcome of the battle. Therefore, one can only conclude that gear made the difference in that specific case.

I made plenty of mistakes during the fight, and so did my opponent, I'd think - just like in any fight. Those mistakes, the potential other things that either of us could have done wrong, or random birds and sneezes that could have played a part, have nothing to do with what gear I was wearing. Therefore, the things that actually happened would have happened anyway, and the things that didn't happen wouldn't have happened even if I was wearing fully exotic gear, even down to which attacks were or were not made.

The gear made the difference. I'm surprised that you so ardently disagree - I thought you would be overjoyed that the new items actually were meaningful in some way.

now this is perlexing wearing gear has no correlation to anything else? A fight is all about doing damage while taking damage Everything including gear increases one while decreasing the other! Its all about correlation actually! the Gear you were wearing was no more or less important than say what food you eat! which most probably was none and that alone would have made a much bigger difference in stats than what gear did !

Yes I am so overjoined of having more meaningful gear that I never bothered finishing up my exotic set! only wear 3 pieces a chest and legs cause they looked nice and mad king boots which well they dropped you know why? cause gear isnt important like i've been trying to tell you all along! and curiously enough I dont die all the time in WvW actually quite the opposite! As a pure PvE player I would have expected to have a high death to kill ratio when in fact when I do WvW to finish the monthly achievement I dont even die 10 times before I get my 50 kills!

Ps. I think you got the impression I am some vertical progression lover.. .Quite the opposite I am horizontal fan all the way!

I just dont mind the vertical progression they introduced cause AN where nice enough to make it so it has no effect on my game play! why should I mind others get content they like if I am largey uneffected?

Edited by XPhiler, 04 December 2012 - 03:34 PM.


#160 Cronos988

Cronos988

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:44 PM

I think we are talking past each other here:

- Can better gear theoretically make the difference in a fight? Yes.
- Does it make a difference in the majority of fights? Probably not.

But as the number of fights you do approaches an infinite number, even the slightest difference in gear will eventually be decisive in at least one battle.

But there is also the random chance your desk might spontaneously turn into a duck, so whether or not this actually affects gameplay will probably only be apparent in a few months.

#161 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4844 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:28 PM

View PostXPhiler, on 04 December 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

now this is perlexing wearing gear has no correlation to anything else? A fight is all about doing damage while taking damage Everything including gear increases one while decreasing the other! Its all about correlation actually! the Gear you were wearing was no more or less important than say what food you eat! which most probably was none and that alone would have made a much bigger difference in stats than what gear did !

Yes I am so overjoined of having more meaningful gear that I never bothered finishing up my exotic set! only wear 3 pieces a chest and legs cause they looked nice and mad king boots which well they dropped you know why? cause gear isnt important like i've been trying to tell you all along! and curiously enough I dont die all the time in WvW actually quite the opposite! As a pure PvE player I would have expected to have a high death to kill ratio when in fact when I do WvW to finish the monthly achievement I dont even die 10 times before I get my 50 kills!

Ps. I think you got the impression I am some vertical progression lover.. .Quite the opposite I am horizontal fan all the way!

I just dont mind the vertical progression they introduced cause AN where nice enough to make it so it has no effect on my game play! why should I mind others get content they like if I am largey uneffected?
Seriously... This is critique, not criticism: there are other forms of punctuation than exclamation and question marks.

And, I must say, you are entirely correct, at least about one thing: I was not eating any food at the time. I tend not to eat things while I play; the exception is games which can be played with one hand, when I usually eat crackers or peanuts or similar. I do usually have a water bottle handy though.

Perhaps I should explain what I mean when I say "correlation". I mean that if I do a certain thing, it can have an effect on something else that might affect the outcome of the measurement... I will use an example which you might think is ridiculously self-apparent, but this is not meant to offend you. I merely mention this example because you seem unable to understand what I mean otherwise.

A person is standing in a room. The room has a big box containing fifty thousand small metal balls, each weighing 0.1 kg. There is a plastic bag on the floor. At this moment, let's name two balls: Ball A and ball B. In the plastic bag the person arbitrarily puts 17 kilograms of small metal balls (this is 170 balls, and the amount as well as the selection of balls is completely arbitrary; he just happen to put exactly that many balls in the bag). The person happens to place ball A in the bag, but happens to let ball B remain in the box. This particular bag, when lifted, can take exactly 17.05 kg, then it instantly breaks. This is of course a simplification of how real bags work, but it's for the example.
In this situation let's name one more ball: ball C, which the person now holds in his hand.
Now imagine two different situations.

Situation 1: The person puts ball C in the bag, and then lifts it. The bag bursts open and all the little balls, including balls A and C, roll out all over the floor.

Situation 2: The person puts ball C in the box, then lifts the bag. The bag does not break. Ball A remains in the bag, balls B and C are in the box.

In these cases, the decision to put ball C in the bag or in the box made the difference between breaking the bag and keeping it intact. This is the same thing as me wearing ascended items or only exotics. What you are arguing is that balls A and B, representing external cases that did or did not happen, had as much of an effect as ball C (A has the same weight as C, so it has the same impact on the bag breaking, while ball B, if put in the bag, would break it even if C was placed in the box).

While you are right in that A and B both affect the integrity of the bag, if we limit us to the above situations, where A is definitely in the bag and B is definitely not in the bag, we see that the only ball of importance is C. It makes all the difference between the bag that broke and the bag that didn't break.

The choice of which balls to take was completely arbitrary, and (as long as he would not put all fifty thousand balls in the bag), unrelated to ball C in any way whatsoever (since ball C is always the ball that he holds in his hand and puts in the bag or the box in our example). This is the meaning of "uncorrelated" in this context: the location of balls A and B does not depend on the choice of putting ball C in the bag or not. There is no causal connection between them in any way whatsoever.

Even if we change the experiment so that C is the first ball to be put in the bag, even if we switch around so that ball C is the same ball as A or B (depending on the choice), there is still no correlation, because it's still dependent on the choice.

That is not only why the appearance (or nonappearance) of an attack-blocking bird or whatever other arbitrary event was not the decisive factor in the fight I'm talking about, but also why the decision to wear the ascended gear pieces was the mentioned decisive factor.

You of course understand all this now when I explained it.

#162 Zippor

Zippor

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 136 posts
  • Server:Desolation

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:03 PM

I thought the food that was discussed about was the in-game food that gives stat bonuses?

#163 Zero_Soulreaver

Zero_Soulreaver

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 393 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Server:Jade Quarry

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:22 PM

I don't even know what just happened, I just know when people start whipping out equations it's time to relax lol.

#164 Runkleford

Runkleford

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 953 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:27 PM

View PostCronos988, on 04 December 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Ok, so first of all me proposing a definition is not "pushing through my opinions as though they [were] fact[s]". Defining what I mean when I use a certain term serves to enable a discussion without everyone just talking past each other. I am not sure if you want to attack my definitions of vertical and horizontal progression too, but if you do, please state your critique and propose alternate definitions that we can all agree on.

Furthermore, you are distorting my definition: Nowhere did I say that RPGs are "only about vertical progression", merely that it can be considered an integral part. Nevertheless, even if I said that, it wouldn't be a logical fallacy of any kind. I think we are mixing two different discussion into one: What the term RPG should rever to (a purely semantic argument) and what constitutes "roleplaying" in an PC game.

The semantic argument isn't really relevant, it would just be good if we had some kind of agreement of what games exactly you refer to when you say "RPG". I refer to games like Ultima Online, Diablo 2, WoW, Morrowind, etc. etc.
Your definition of an RPG is playing a character in a PC game. What does "Character" mean then and what games does this encompass?
Do you character as in an identifiable Persona? Then Half Life 1 & 2 are RPG games, heck Tekken is an RPG then.
Or do you mean a Persona you imagine onto a "blank" character? That would seem more usefull, as it incorporates the element of choice. But then Bioschok and Minecraft are RPGs the same as Skyrim and Ultima Online are. Yet those games are different.

As to the actual discussion of what constitutes "roleplaying" in a PC game: Vertical progression is a fundamental experience that everyone knows from their daily life. Practicing a certain task makes you better at it. That is why, in my opinion, it is a fundamental element of "roleplaying". Vertical progression serves to tell the classical story of going from humble beginnings to a great hero.


I didn't distort your argument. I went back to look at the previous posts where you were arguing that one can't have an RPG without vertical progression. Do I need to quote you? I think I will:

View PostCronos988, on 03 December 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Can you even have an RPG without Vertical Progression?
I mean the whole Idea of an RPG is vertical progression, it's what the genre is build on.

And then another claim from you that RPGs are about building and not about playing the character:

View PostCronos988, on 03 December 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

But then what is the definition of an RPG? RPGs are about building a character (not playing one, you play a "character" of some sort in many games), and building pretty much implies Vertical progression.

So yes, you are arguing that RPGs are all about vertical progression while completely ignoring the true definition. Now we can agree that MOST RPGs have vertical progression but then why are you even arguing when others are just saying that an RPG doesn't HAVE to have vertical progression if YOU are not actually saying that all RPGs need VP? Why can't you argue the merits of VP without trying to push your view of what an RPG is by changing definitions here?

Oh and by the way, real life isn't just about improving your skill at doing tasks. There's also emotional development, spiritual development, relationships with others, etc etc. So to imply that role playing must have vertical progression while citing real life is silly. Gear and stat progression in an RPG is the cheapest, laziest, and most unimaginative way to progress a character, which is why a lot of folks like old school tabletop RPGs because they can develop their characters without necessarily just having vertical progression. You also find a lot of old school PC games where there was very little to no vertical progression.

Edited by Runkleford, 04 December 2012 - 06:29 PM.


#165 Cronos988

Cronos988

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:48 PM

View PostRunkleford, on 04 December 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

I didn't distort your argument. I went back to look at the previous posts where you were arguing that one can't have an RPG without vertical progression. Do I need to quote you? I think I will:

I said that the genre (as in the genre of PC games) that are commonly referred to as "RPGs" are built on vertical progression. If you want to contest that statement, feel free to give examples of what you consider the PC-Games that defined the RPG genre.

View PostRunkleford, on 04 December 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

And then another claim from you that RPGs are about building and not about playing the character:

I stand by that claim, and you have done nothing to contest that definition. Just saying they are about "playing the character" without defining what either "playing" or "character" mean does not cut it. Again, your definition extends to Tekken. Is Tekken an RPG in your opinion?

View PostRunkleford, on 04 December 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

So yes, you are arguing that RPGs are all about vertical progression while completely ignoring the true definition. Now we can agree that MOST RPGs have vertical progression but then why are you even arguing when others are just saying that an RPG doesn't HAVE to have vertical progression if YOU are not actually saying that all RPGs need VP? Why can't you argue the merits of VP without trying to push your view of what an RPG is by changing definitions here?

What is the "true" definition? And specificall what is it that makes my definition false and yours true? All you are saying here is "i am right and you are wrong". I have asked for examples, I have asked you to elaborate the terms you use. You have ignored me. What I conclude from that is that you have no intention to discuss your position and are merely repeating it.

I did give several arguments on the merits of vertical progression:
- Structuring a story
- Giving a sense of character growth
- Relating to everyday experiences, thereby feeling "realistic
- Giving a sense of achievement and appealing to fundamental psychological mechanisms

View PostRunkleford, on 04 December 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Oh and by the way, real life isn't just about improving your skill at doing tasks. There's also emotional development, spiritual development, relationships with others, etc etc. So to imply that role playing must have vertical progression while citing real life is silly. Gear and stat progression in an RPG is the cheapest, laziest, and most unimaginative way to progress a character, which is why a lot of folks like old school tabletop RPGs because they can develop their characters without necessarily just having vertical progression. You also find a lot of old school PC games where there was very little to no vertical progression.

Again, I have said it is a "fundamental experience". That does not mean real life is "all about it". But it's something everyone knows and can relate to, hence it is realistic.
Of course you are right when you say that just adding vertival progression without any story or horizontal progression to balance it is bad game design and turns games into pure timesinks. But what is important in my opinion is to point out that a certain amount of vertical progression is good for a game. It improves the experience. Too much is bad, but then too much of everything is bad, isn't it?

And on the topic of "old school RPGs": How is finding a "Sword +1" not vertical gear progression?

#166 Runkleford

Runkleford

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 953 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:06 PM

View PostCronos988, on 04 December 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

I said that the genre (as in the genre of PC games) that are commonly referred to as "RPGs" are built on vertical progression. If you want to contest that statement, feel free to give examples of what you consider the PC-Games that defined the RPG genre.



I stand by that claim, and you have done nothing to contest that definition. Just saying they are about "playing the character" without defining what either "playing" or "character" mean does not cut it. Again, your definition extends to Tekken. Is Tekken an RPG in your opinion?



What is the "true" definition? And specificall what is it that makes my definition false and yours true? All you are saying here is "i am right and you are wrong". I have asked for examples, I have asked you to elaborate the terms you use. You have ignored me. What I conclude from that is that you have no intention to discuss your position and are merely repeating it.

I did give several arguments on the merits of vertical progression:
- Structuring a story
- Giving a sense of character growth
- Relating to everyday experiences, thereby feeling "realistic
- Giving a sense of achievement and appealing to fundamental psychological mechanisms



Again, I have said it is a "fundamental experience". That does not mean real life is "all about it". But it's something everyone knows and can relate to, hence it is realistic.
Of course you are right when you say that just adding vertival progression without any story or horizontal progression to balance it is bad game design and turns games into pure timesinks. But what is important in my opinion is to point out that a certain amount of vertical progression is good for a game. It improves the experience. Too much is bad, but then too much of everything is bad, isn't it?

And on the topic of "old school RPGs": How is finding a "Sword +1" not vertical gear progression?


Yes RPG is playing the character. It's in the freaking definition and in the name itself. So I have the facts to back up my claim while your claim that RPG is solely about building does not and you're just trying to assert your views and opinions as fact. RPG can be about building your character but it's ALWAYS about playing your character. You're wrong so get over it.

Oh and not all old school RPGs have +1 sword mechanics to them. Zork was an adventure RPG that went quite a while without the sort of progression that you're harping on about. Anyway I'm done with your ridiculousness. Keep on making logical fallacies about liquids being soda but not being wet.

http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game

ROLE. PLAYING. GAME. Emphasis on the role playing aspect of the term. RPGs used to involve mostly story and the character's interactions within that story and setting but the narrow minded muppets can't seem to understand that and are stuck on the idea that RPG = gear/stat progression.

Edited by Runkleford, 04 December 2012 - 07:13 PM.


#167 Cronos988

Cronos988

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:06 PM

View PostRunkleford, on 04 December 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Yes RPG is playing the character. It's in the freaking definition and in the name itself. So I have the facts to back up my claim while your claim that RPG is solely about building does not and you're just trying to assert your views and opinions as fact. RPG can be about building your character but it's ALWAYS about playing your character. You're wrong so get over it.

Hmm, let's quote the Wikipedia Article you so conveniently posted:

"Several varieties of RPG also exist in electronic media, such as multi-player text-based MUDs and their graphics-based successors, massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). Role-playing games also include single-player offline role-playing video games in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and may include capabilities that advance using statistical mechanics. These games often share settings and rules with tabletop RPGs, but emphasize character advancement more than collaborative storytelling."

(emphasis mine)

Nevertheless, you are focusing yourself solely on the fact that the term "Role Playing Game" includes "role playing", ignoring all the different ways "role playing" can, and is, understood by people. But you know what, that is entirely irrelevant.

Whats releveant is that vertical progression has it's place in role playing games. It is not to be overused. But simply stating that a purely horizontal progression makes an RPG, or even an MMORPG, automatically better, is wrong. That is my opinion, and I have given the arguments. Now if we could leave this discussion and go back to an actual discussion about game design, I would be grateful.

View PostRunkleford, on 04 December 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Oh and not all old school RPGs have +1 sword mechanics to them. Zork was an adventure RPG that went quite a while without the sort of progression that you're harping on about. Anyway I'm done with your ridiculousness. Keep on making logical fallacies about liquids being soda but not being wet.

I have never heard of Zork, but I am sure there are RPGs without any vertical progression. There are even RPGs without any progression at all, purely story driven. But that kind of game is not even remotely similar to Guild Wars 2, and if you want to have progression, vertical progression and horizontal progression should go hand in hand.

Btw. Saying that liquids are not wet is not a logical fallacy, it is just factually wrong (also called a synthetic fallacy). But I get what you mean anyways, I just don't agree that RPG does not have different meanings in different contexts.

View PostRunkleford, on 04 December 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

ROLE. PLAYING. GAME. Emphasis on the role playing aspect of the term. RPGs used to involve mostly story and the character's interactions within that story and setting but the narrow minded muppets can't seem to understand that and are stuck on the idea that RPG = gear/stat progression.

Insulting me is bad style, even if you are doing it indirectly.

Now that Runkleford is "done with me", is someone willing to actually discuss how progression in an MMORPG should be handled? How much horizontal, how much vertical progression is optimal?

Edited by Cronos988, 04 December 2012 - 08:12 PM.


#168 Runkleford

Runkleford

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 953 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:23 PM

Double post.

Edited by Runkleford, 04 December 2012 - 09:55 PM.


#169 Runkleford

Runkleford

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 953 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:53 PM

View PostCronos988, on 04 December 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

Hmm, let's quote the Wikipedia Article you so conveniently posted:

"Several varieties of RPG also exist in electronic media, such as multi-player text-based MUDs and their graphics-based successors, massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). Role-playing games also include single-player offline role-playing video games in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and may include capabilities that advance using statistical mechanics. These games often share settings and rules with tabletop RPGs, but emphasize character advancement more than collaborative storytelling."

(emphasis mine)

Nevertheless, you are focusing yourself solely on the fact that the term "Role Playing Game" includes "role playing", ignoring all the different ways "role playing" can, and is, understood by people. But you know what, that is entirely irrelevant.



Ok I said I was done but I underestimated the power of dishonest posts and overestimated my willpower in calling out such posts but there's nothing to discuss when dishonest folks try to change definitions of words and then tell you that you should accept it. And then cry about supposed insults. And yes you are narrow minded because you're arguing that stat/gear progression is the only way to go in an MMORPG just because most others in the genre do the same. And of course you tried to make up your own definition to try to backup that narrow minded argument.

As for the wiki entry,  I ALREADY said that RPGs do include progression and that most RPGs do in fact emphasize it. My issue is with your previous posts and claims where you throw out THE  defining features of the term RPG (the definition is stated outright for crying out loud!) and instead you made the claim that RPGs are exclusively about vertical progression and not about playing a role.

Funny how you claim that I'm ignoring "all the ways players can play a role" when only a few posts back you made the claim that RPGs are not about playing but building. More dishonesty from you. But hey, at least I'm getting you on the right track when you shifted the discussion to how progression in an MMORPG should be handled.

Edited by Runkleford, 04 December 2012 - 10:00 PM.


#170 Cronos988

Cronos988

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:17 PM

View PostRunkleford, on 04 December 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

- snip-

You are merely twisting my words to suit you interpretation of what I said, when I never said anything as outrageous as "an RPG is exclusively defined by vertical progression". But since you are continuously insulting me and are apparently unwilling to debate about anything else but semantics and the interpretation of my posts, I am now done with you. It is not actually relevant whether or not you understand what I say, the topic is about vertical progression, and from now on I will stay on that topic.

#171 MazingerZ

MazingerZ

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2278 posts
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[CYRL]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:28 PM

View PostCronos988, on 03 December 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Can you even have an RPG without Vertical Progression?
I mean the whole Idea of an RPG is vertical progression, it's what the genre is build on.

Grind has nothing to do with vertical progression, grind is playing for the sake of vertical progression. That is the problem here. You can have as much vertical progression as you like in PVE, so long as it is naturally tied into playing the game.

It only becomes a problem when vertical progression is a.) a grind or b.) affects PVP gameplay.

I am not qualified to give an opinion about either, but just saying "vertical progression is bad" is missing the point. After all, the leveling systems is pure vertical progression, yet few players would like to start out at lvl 80 with every character.

View PostCronos988, on 04 December 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

You are merely twisting my words to suit you interpretation of what I said, when I never said anything as outrageous as "an RPG is exclusively defined by vertical progression". But since you are continuously insulting me and are apparently unwilling to debate about anything else but semantics and the interpretation of my posts, I am now done with you. It is not actually relevant whether or not you understand what I say, the topic is about vertical progression, and from now on I will stay on that topic.

Dude...
It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.
Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

#172 Wintermute

Wintermute

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:33 PM

It bothers me that they changed their mind about progression at some point, but it bothers me even more that they didn't bother to tell us that until long after I'd already purchased the game.  And it bothers me even more that they want to keep pretending that they never said what they said or committed to what they committed to.

#173 Wintermute

Wintermute

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:41 PM

View PostCronos988, on 04 December 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

Now that Runkleford is "done with me", is someone willing to actually discuss how progression in an MMORPG should be handled? How much horizontal, how much vertical progression is optimal?

Zero, or close to zero vertical progression.  I don't mind some power creep, but it should be really noteworthy when some new item or whatever is a must have upgrade from the old one, and it shouldn't happen very often.

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason to even have "levels" as a discrete mechanism is to introduce new players to game concepts and abilities of their character.  In GW2 terms,  30 or 40 should be max level, because after that all you're doing is grinding (and really, they could condense your entire "unlocking" progression into 20 levels and be fine).

That doesn't mean that new options shouldn't open up, or even that every thing you do has to be just aesthetic.  In GW1, when a new expansion came out there were new things to get, not just different looking armor and minis, but in some cases new stats or abilities on equipment, new henchmen/followers, and of course the big one:  new skills.  Unlocking new mechanics as you go along is fine, IMO.

What's not acceptable to me, really ever, is the idea that your game becomes about getting a +1 version of whatever you already have.  THAT is boring.  That's a pretense of progression, when in reality you're just going to throw your +1 stats against mobs or other players with +1 stats and nothing really changed.  It's also a great way to fragment the community and make people angry and resentful when you nerf things that they *worked* for as opposed to things that simply came about as a result of play that they wanted to have anyway.

Edited by Wintermute, 04 December 2012 - 11:52 PM.


#174 Cronos988

Cronos988

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:53 AM

View PostWintermute, on 04 December 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

Zero, or close to zero vertical progression.  I don't mind some power creep, but it should be really noteworthy when some new item or whatever is a must have upgrade from the old one, and it shouldn't happen very often.

I kind of agree with that. The way current MMORPGs handle Itemization is getting silly. Gear Progression is purely vertical and often long and grindy.

What I think would be a cool idea would be weapons that only scaled slightly vertical (maybe being twice as powerful at max level) and also scaled horizontally: Different types of swords, spears, whatever would give you different ranges, attack mechanisms etc.

I do not mean the system GW 2 uses. What GW 2 has done is create a set of skills that are weapon-type dependant. What I mean is that the "skill" would actually be on the individual item. There would be different weapons dealing roughly the same damage (with masterwork weapons being better than old, rusty ones, of course) but with random affixes that grant combat maneuvers.

View PostWintermute, on 04 December 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason to even have "levels" as a discrete mechanism is to introduce new players to game concepts and abilities of their character.  In GW2 terms,  30 or 40 should be max level, because after that all you're doing is grinding (and really, they could condense your entire "unlocking" progression into 20 levels and be fine).

That doesn't mean that new options shouldn't open up, or even that every thing you do has to be just aesthetic.  In GW1, when a new expansion came out there were new things to get, not just different looking armor and minis, but in some cases new stats or abilities on equipment, new henchmen/followers, and of course the big one:  new skills.  Unlocking new mechanics as you go along is fine, IMO.

I can see where you are coming from. However, the problem I see with that understanding is that it treats the PVE levelling part of an RPG as a tutorial and shifts the games main focus to, well, I don't know, really. You could make a PVP game with that mindset, but I feel like PVE would get old quickly due to a lack of options.

I like to take Magicka as an example: A geat game, innovative gameplay, and, most of all, purely horizontal progression. It was a blast, but it was also short. Realistically, you cannot have a large number of different skills for several different class/race combination that all are equally balanced. People will find out the combos that work best, and stick with them. And the more people play, the faster that happens. In Magicka that was a combination of rain, freezing and electrical attacks. Sure I still used other things occasionally, but that was for fun, not for progressing the game. The other skills became gimmicks.

In PVP the Situation is different, because players are much less predictable and unconventional skills might at least make for a surprise effect. But there is only so much you can do in PVE, and once you have unlocked all there is, fights will get boring.

A vertical progression can help here simply because it keeps the progression a little longer and more structured. You would gain new options, but also the ability to improve some of the options you already have an liked. That way, you can have different "levels" of encounters and vertical and horizontzal progression at the same time give you more "space" on which to place any individual encounter. A boss with the same attacks but significantly more health might require a completely different strategy than it's "weaker" counterpart, making e.g. burst tactics unviable. Unless, of course, you progressed you character in such a way that it's burst attacks get stronger. Consequently, I think employing both kinds of progression or "scaling" give more options than limiting yourself to one.

Another Problem I see is that you loose the feeling of being on a "journey". Progression would just be a tutorial, and afterwards you are just one of many players doing something. It feels less like you have made your way towards a goal when progression is too short. I think that would put many "traditional" players off.

View PostWintermute, on 04 December 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

What's not acceptable to me, really ever, is the idea that your game becomes about getting a +1 version of whatever you already have.  THAT is boring.  That's a pretense of progression, when in reality you're just going to throw your +1 stats against mobs or other players with +1 stats and nothing really changed.  It's also a great way to fragment the community and make people angry and resentful when you nerf things that they *worked* for as opposed to things that simply came about as a result of play that they wanted to have anyway.

I think you are onto something important with that last sentence: If players decided their playstile more according to whats fun, and not what works best, there would be less anger on "nerfs" that "destroyed X in PVP" or something. Question is, what makes everyone feel that they must choose the most powerful combination instead of the most "fun" one?

Edited by Cronos988, 05 December 2012 - 06:56 AM.


#175 Glider

Glider

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 07:31 AM

View PostCronos988, on 05 December 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

I think you are onto something important with that last sentence: If players decided their playstile more according to whats fun, and not what works best, there would be less anger on "nerfs" that "destroyed X in PVP" or something. Question is, what makes everyone feel that they must choose the most powerful combination instead of the most "fun" one?
Don't you think that people are mostly annoyed that they have this "most powerful" option out of their reach? It's kinda more fun to have a choice... And btw this "most powerful" option may actually be the most fun for some.

Edited by Glider, 05 December 2012 - 08:27 AM.


#176 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:30 AM

View Postraspberry jam, on 04 December 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Seriously... This is critique, not criticism: there are other forms of punctuation than exclamation and question marks.


let me change this around for you a little bit!

let still take you little balls that each weigh 0.1g
and take your bag that can hold 17kg

we start place one ball at a time. Lets assume all balls are numbered. We start putting ball after ball squentially so we get Ball 1, ball 2 ... ball 170, ball 171 ---> bag breaks
You're saying that all that matters for the bag breaking is ball 171... thats not true, all of the balls are responsable for bag breaking! saying that ball 171 is somehow special because the bag broke when you put it in is wrong! ball 171 is no different then ball 2 the only importance it gets is given to it by your perception because the bag broke the moment you put it in! you're giving it bias!

Do the same scenario but instead of putting in balls sequentially now put it in at random and you'll see, bag breaks when you put in bag 2, 10, 30, 102 whatever! every ball is equally important!

same thing here you didnt win because you were wearing ascended armor, you won because of all the factors that came into play in the battle!

#177 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:35 AM

View PostZippor, on 04 December 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

I thought the food that was discussed about was the in-game food that gives stat bonuses?

of course we were but you see ackowleding that he omitted something of greater statistical significance then ascended armor would have hurt his argument that ascended armor unbalanced the whole thing! so he tried to deflect it!

thats not to mention s/he is saying s/he won because he was wearing ascended armor while having no real clue of what his oponent was wearing or what level s/he was!  for all we know the enemy he killed with 40hp remaining might have been a level 1 character wearing common armor with a really bad build or a level 80 character wearing all the best ascended gear having a perfect build!

but why let a ton of unknowns / subjective factors come in the way of what you percieve a proof no matter how innaccurate

that being said s/he could have lied about it... so at least they get credit for honesty!

Edited by XPhiler, 05 December 2012 - 08:36 AM.


#178 Evans

Evans

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 424 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:46 AM

View PostXPhiler, on 05 December 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:


let me change this around for you a little bit!

let still take you little balls that each weigh 0.1g
and take your bag that can hold 17kg

we start place one ball at a time. Lets assume all balls are numbered. We start putting ball after ball squentially so we get Ball 1, ball 2 ... ball 170, ball 171 ---> bag breaks
You're saying that all that matters for the bag breaking is ball 171... thats not true, all of the balls are responsable for bag breaking! saying that ball 171 is somehow special because the bag broke when you put it in is wrong! ball 171 is no different then ball 2 the only importance it gets is given to it by your perception because the bag broke the moment you put it in! you're giving it bias!

Do the same scenario but instead of putting in balls sequentially now put it in at random and you'll see, bag breaks when you put in bag 2, 10, 30, 102 whatever! every ball is equally important!

same thing here you didnt win because you were wearing ascended armor, you won because of all the factors that came into play in the battle!

This is as far as I'm able to go myself. To be quite honest, the whole battle scenario is getting a bit absurd.

Can we just summarise that the gear in itself made a small and questionable impact on the outcome, yet simply the fact that it made an impact at all is enough to call the ascended gear an abomination?

*disclaimer: I am and remain indifferent to the ascended gear, slightly considering it inferior to exotics because of the lack of flexibility it offers*

Edited by Evans, 05 December 2012 - 08:48 AM.


#179 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:54 AM

View PostWintermute, on 04 December 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

It bothers me that they changed their mind about progression at some point, but it bothers me even more that they didn't bother to tell us that until long after I'd already purchased the game.  And it bothers me even more that they want to keep pretending that they never said what they said or committed to what they committed to.

They didnt change their mind, the game came out with significant more progression then gw1 from day one! they had already talked about tiers before releasing the game! gw1 armor had just 1 tier basically in gw2 you had 5
the only thing they did is increase that 5 to 6!  (excluding legendary as its not really a tier)

And its true they never said there will be no vertical progression, actually they always said they right increase level cap in the future since a lot before the game released

not ideal, not going to make you happy I am sure but its true this whole issue is more of what people wanted as opposed to what was promised! Thats not to say they simply dropped horizontal progression far from it! although there are many more tiers then in gw1 those tiers are largly optional! if you stick to rare armor for example thats extremely easy to get! 1-2 day playing and you can afford a set you can play anything in game and do good in WvW as well! Thats what I did for a long time! eventually I just upgraded my weapon, chest and legs because of their looks and halloween awarded me with the boots, everything else is still rare and I enjoy the game very much! no need to bother with ascended armor unless you want to !

#180 XPhiler

XPhiler

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1826 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 09:08 AM

View PostEvans, on 05 December 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

This is as far as I'm able to go myself. To be quite honest, the whole battle scenario is getting a bit absurd.

Can we just summarise that the gear in itself made a small and questionable impact on the outcome, yet simply the fact that it made an impact at all is enough to call the ascended gear an abomination?

*disclaimer: I am and remain indifferent to the ascended gear, slightly considering it inferior to exotics because of the lack of flexibility it offers*

why would making an impact be considered an abomination? Everything makes an impact, food makes an impact, potions make an impact, skill make an impact, etc... I get it that people dislike the idea of ascended gear, I dislike it too but like you said the impact it makes is not even worth considering! So many things make a far far greater impact really! this is WvW after all ! you have things like siege weapons that can do like the damage of 10 players doing direct damage in 1 hit as an AOE even! You have walls that have the armor of 100s of players! and thats not considering doing a wrong turn while running solo and coming face to face with a zerg so large! that you'll also have to battle lag while trying to run away!

I hope I dont need to quote a source because from day one Arenanet have said WvW is not meant to balanced! and how can it? there is no way to make that beast balanced! simply nooooooo way!  So arguing Ascended armor is an abomination because it unbalances something meant to be unbalanced is kinda inaccurate in my opinion!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users