Dev Discussion #40 - Enemy Indicators

You can say 'this is about preference' but in reality it will actually impact what activities I can or cannot do, as it obfuscates necessary information to push limits. So the real question is actually 'is this worth limiting gameplay and pushing people towards using 3rd party sites more often than they otherwise would in the name of 'flavor and immersion''? So far no one has made a compelling argument to me on the hardcore no indicators side to convince me it's worth giving up hunting mobs that are at the very edge of what I can fight as an activity I describe in a previous post. To resummarize some of those key points, if there are no indicators its a random guess that isn't really worth my time just for the thrill of the hunt. I'll probably just stick to mobs that I need mats from and if the challenge is 'random' to me I'll probably be less engaged with the experience as a result. I know some people like randomized experience to this level, but to me the randomization already happened at mob spawn. Obfuscating it more just makes it tedious and takes away my agency in the situation for little to no benefit.

As a new point of discussion: This issue also effects PvP as it determines how much I can calculate risk relative to fighting a player while surrounded by mobs. If I know the mobs are weaker than me in a given area I can fight them and chase them more confidently. Obviously I don't really need indicators in this situation. However, if I know the mobs are equal level with some much higher level I know I can possibly run away/chase them but I have to be careful. In this case there is a skill in weaving through enemy mobs and making tactical decisions based on the at a glance information. Indicators in this instance can literally make or break an encounter since as of Alpha 1 the level range was big enough in mobs (which I fully support) that meant some mobs could literally kill you while others could sort of kill you if you weren't paying attention. Without indicators you have no real way of knowing and will just try to avoid all mobs whether chasing or attacking, limiting the level of strategy and skill that will be used in the game.

Given the fact that mobs killing you absolves an attacker of corruption this is a really big deal in the over all psychology of the game and I think, therefore, people should be given enough information that it's not a blind gamble and that there is some INFORMED risk vs reward here. I think it's best there is some form of difficulty indicators therefore to prevent the game from feeling frustrating and random when you are trying to run away or pursue a player.

I don't agree with having no nameplates and relying on indicators on the mobs physical design because the design work required to show difficulty in the mobs actual design requires a lot more work on the devs part for the mild benefit of a pure immersion bonus.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

This only is true when there isn't extensive wiki's that let me just ignore this 'exploration'. I'll read an area wiki, and farm mobs that will 'randomly' be stronger and have less fun as a result. Not because I read the wiki, but because I'm simply limited in what counts as meaningful exploration. The only thing you 'learn' are things that could learn on a wiki. Actual combat learning is a completely separate thing and isn't added or subtracted by information levels OTHER than 'sometimes you might just randomly die because the mob is stronger than expected.' There isn't much to learn from that type of failure in my opinion since you have no real agency over the engagement of the mobs at that point. You can't prepare your buffs or store your cooldown moves since it's random. Your therefore encouraged to play cautiously and/or be in places you can stomp on surprise enemies. Is this more immersive? Yes. Is it more fun? No, because it limits my engagement ability considerably.

Also let's not be binary about this. You don't avoid learning about the enemy just because you know it's relative strength level and best stat. This doesn't tell you: Attack patterns, Movement weaknesses, What other mobs will aggro on you for fighting it, Augmented attacks, what the best skill use and engagement range is, and what kind of cc you need to deal with. There is plenty of learning to do if we are given the level of information I am arguing for.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

1. It depends on how good the game is at systems design and how punishing failure is. If punishment for failure is high, then I do consider it. If the systems design for itemization, bosses, or crafting is confusing and does a poor job giving you hints or things to get better answers in game, then I do consider it. Ashes is a game with a decent punishment for failure so I know myself and many others will consider it. You are arguing for a lack of hints or things to better answers in game, so I will definitely consider it if IS took your suggested approach.

Death makes failure cost something to me. Looking up something in a wiki is free. I tend to think of it more so as 'asking the adventurers guild what THEY know'. I'd rather just ask the npc's in game or the game have a way for my character to figure it out themselves other than just trial and error by death, but eh. If IS wants to make the game 'dangerous by design with little room for error or ability to specifically seek certain difficulty levels of a target' I'll adapt. It would reduce the quality of the games over all experience in my eyes though. I'd rather save myself the trouble and save the game dev from my whining about every small error or missing piece of information in game at that point and ''just read the wiki."

However, I have played games where I specifically do not do this including mmos, or at least minimize it to only looking at certain things while in town. To me that is what games with good design will cause me to do, since it means their systems in game are good enough and convenient enough to not cost myself and others the limited time I might have to enjoy something.

I like exploration and immersion. That's actually why I am actually arguing for more in game information available, preferably with gradations you can progress in if you feel stumped. I like minimizing my exposure to wikis where I can since they generally just give you all information at once by design and that's not usually what I need to know. But I'm not going to avoid doing so at expense of my own fun if I'm particularly frustrated or just want to get through a certain area/set of mobs so I can get to my actual desired activity.

2. Hmm, bare minimum..... Let's limit the scope to the topic of this question since it can vary depending what part of systems design we are talking about. When it comes to mobs in combat.

If a target is intended for a group or not I absolutely think that convey this to the player is an absolute requirement.

Intensity of difficulty vs myself on the name plate I think is my 'bare minimum' for basic mobs. Putting it in level format makes it easier to pin point things (and makes it easier on the colorblind) but isn't strictly necessary. I just think it lends to more strategic thought and planning. I can see arguments for not having it by level if you were able to detect their strongest stat relative to yourself, as it would favor the person who's been in the area long enough to check in PvP situations.

But yes in short, if the ability to see what the difficulty gap is between myself and the enemy mob exists in a way that let's me distinguish between 'decent challenge', 'even match', 'tough', 'incredibly tough', 'overwhelming' and 'impossible to gauge' (for party level and unique, mobs), then I can do a number of things relative to the gameplay loop of 'hunt mobs at the highest level gap for additional challenge'.

I don't 'need' the 'strongest stat detection' although I'd argue it's mostly saving a larger amount of people from going to the wiki if they are having trouble, and offers another level of 'hint' that people who want to keep a certain level of exploration can avoid (and therefore is a system that would act as yet another small buffer against someone just giving up and going to a wiki.)

However that gradient of 'exploration difficulty' is exactly why I think you need a way to tell on name plate in some form in addition to a check style version that gives you slightly more information. People like you on the other hand can just turn off the nameplates for the full experience you seem to want and just not check a monster unless you feel you have enough experience with them such that you think your character 'earned the ability'. I feel like an opt in system to hardcore is the best compromise and I would hope they made design decisions to make us both happy in that regard.

You are free to not join the discussion I was having with others Dygz. We were talking about the benefits and trade offs of picking one system over another (and I was hoping to move the conversation to 'possible compromises that would fit more than just one side of the issue.)

The purpose of the thread is to share our opinions. The reason I am being vocal is because the devs might be having the same conversations we were having in this exact thread and therefore I felt it best to give them my own nuanced perspective relative to interacting with other peoples. At the very least it saves them some time having these types of articulated discussions themselves. They are free to tell me to stop themselves if they feel it isn't meeting their intended goal.