Best Of

Ludullu wrote: »

ordotemplarii wrote: »

My definition of hardcore is something that taxes your individual mechanical skill. The intent behind what I saw was that the game is just not all that playable solo. I then say that grouping up with people is one of the easiest things to do and is therefore noob friendly. It looks like one of those life is feudal situations where the solo game play is uninstalling.

Which exact skill expression are you talking about? Mouse movement? Reaction speed? Skill usage planning? Proper movement within the surroundings?

You gave the example of mordhau, but that's a first person game. In third person mmos (especially the ones with zoom distance that Ashes will have), the skill is usually represented through proper skill usage, party coordination in that action and general battlefield awareness. You won't be swinging around your mouse like a crazy person, in attempts of properly aiming a strike. Though depending on how well Intrepid polish their targeting, and whether we get detargeting abilities, we could see a requirement in mouse aiming skill as well (though this is usually the job of 1-2 people in a party).

I've seen people (and did myself) die to goblin shamans, because the player didn't react in time to the green goo the mob throws at you. I've seen people die to wolves and grems, because they didn't use their abilities correctly. I've seen people die to mob abilities, because they didn't dodge in time.

All of those things (and many more) are also representative of player skill and of the game's requirement for it. If you really are so high skill in other games, of course a more basic combat design won't seem as hard to you, but it doesn't mean that the game is not hard for other people.

Yeah, I play FPS, and combat sims, and appreciate your swinging your mouse around like crazy comment because yes that is one thing thats important to me. However I played a lot of wow (classic) and understand the tab targeting ability type combat. I do consider that game to be fairly skill based, particularly for using the right abilities at the right time, and even mouse movement (keeping your front facing the enemy) although I know its not going to be at the same level as those other types of games.

Ashes on the other hand seems like, it doesn't matter what abilities you use and in what order because the content is designed to be zerged down, therefore the only mechanical skill is zerging. That said I don't have hours upon hours in ashes to be certain, but thats the impression I got.

To sum up, the actual levelling process is extremely noobie, zerging up and grinding mobs. Now does that necessarily mean the end game combat is noobie too, no not necessarily, but its hard to imagine the developer not continuing in that direction for all future mechanics.

Ludullu wrote: »

All these current big "mmos" are just single player games

Nah, I don’t agree. Games like GW2 and ESO prove you can be solo-friendly and still be a real MMO. GW2 is one of the most active MMOs in 2025, super chill for solo play but still full of group content and community.

Solo players didn’t kill MMOs. They kept them alive by making them more accessible. Not everyone wants to grind with a guild 24/7 just to have fun.

Hm, looks like this thread is turning into one of those highly philosophical ones. I'm already losing track of everyone's ideas, not sure I can add much to this melting pot

I'll just say any player is a good addition to any server, being a solo or community oriented person

Yeah, audience retention makes multiplayer one of the hardest genres in that regard. Marketing budgets and effective cm are basically a must for those games and that requires a significant amount of capital. I think there is a middle road though. There is a difference between 'investors or larger firms agreeing to set amount of growth' and a public company request unlimited maximal growth. You can have a midsized company and almost never require they type of 'unlimited growth on investment' style funding and have the marketing budget required to get that type of exposure and retention.

I definitely think there is a lot of nuance and mileage when it comes to deciding what type of monetization is acceptable and to what extent. At the end of the day though you are kind of right to bring up that example. It's a good example of 'the niche' having too high of a demand for resources compared to it's natural population. There is definitely such a thing as too niche. But I don't think you have to go as broad as many hyper solo players tend to push things either.

In other words, solo players didn't save mmos. They made them into single player games. The mmo genre is "dead" (mostly means a few dozen thousand players in several different proper mmos). All these current big "mmos" are just single player games with interactible (barely btw) npcs running around and spamming some bs in chat.

Ludullu wrote: »

And in this day and age of shareholders and money - the majority's opinion is the only valid one. That's the true devhell for current mmo devs.

One thing I take particular to heart in these dark times is just how often I've seen the 'disillusionment of shareholder based game dev and game media' lead to leaner teams with a feasible economic model that is dependent on the fans that feel their efforts are more genuine and worth paying attention to .

I think the 2010's was largely big companies buying up smaller ones because 1. getting rich or in many cases staying solvent was desirable 2. there was some level of belief that big companies valued the smaller ones culture that led to a dedicated fanbase and quality games.

Some of the earlier types of these smaller companies have lasted multiple years now and so far it mostly looks like it'll continue to be a healthy sustainable trend. Capitalism works, but not every business needs shareholder funding to work out economically.

That's why I personally am looking forward to smaller mmos like Eternal Tombs at the moment. Same vibe for the same reasons. The majority can get bent, niche content is were it's at. There will always be a game for 'the wider audience' but that doesn't need to be every game. I'm not 100% sure if a smaller mmo can work out with this model, but I sure hope the explosion I've been seeing the past few years for solo and even multiplayer games helps soak up some of the wayward people who don't REALLY want an mmo and can find fun in this new old frontier.

Sorta, but they can and do just go 'screw it, we still want to build a proper MMO'. Intrepid has done it, Throne and Liberty has done it, Elite Dangerous and EVE (sorta) never stopped doing it.

And therefore obviously, all those games have less players, but there are still so many things they can bring back, do better, etc.

I'm chilin' with the former 'King' of my TL server (yes, they did lose the castle because of that idiot 'Chancellor') in the village I consider 'home' now. Maybe my minimal RP is 'cringe' (he's neither responded nor walked away yet) but that's what you get when you play an MMO. People who acknowledge your effect on their world, and affect yours, and you can decide if to engage with that or not.

But I get something out of this, watching him in summer vacation style running around. And that's a thing that right now, both that player and I are 'each experiencing solo'.

In Ashes, I'd be able to encounter and complain to the equivalent person (Mayor of node probably) about the criminal lack of cooking facilities around the village, and in Ashes, there's a chance he would do something about it.

How cool is that?

I don't believe there has been much balancing done for any of the archetypes and I guess that is to be expected so early in development

I play primarily Mage and if we were to compare this to a Rock, Paper, Scissors game Mage would be Pencil which loses to all three. Almost all other Archetypes have some form of Sustainability except for Mage, it's either Run away or get Killed, or show up with other people and hope you don't get targeted, and that Mage Barrier thing doesn't seem to do much for actual protection

From my perspective it seems like development follows a sort of Gatcha game process where whenever a new class is released it immediately is the strongest class until all the stats are dumbed down to make it into a limp noodle class like all the others and that is to be expected with the release of Summoner, it will be released being overpowered and then downscaled to 40% of its strength.

I'm not the expert so I cant say what should be done, but I wander if maybe upscaling all the classes is the answer rather then dumbing everyone down. Maybe when we see that Bard is overpowered but Fun, maybe the answer isn't make Bard not Fun but instead make all the other classes Fun

Even that still isn't quite useful to any dev tho, in the end.

An MMORPG is basically a world where other players affect something about the experience you have when you log in on any given day, and maybe you can extend it to 'you can talk to or negotiate with them about it'.

The 'Massively' part is related to things like persistence of game states in the world and the capacity for others to change the composition of areas, otherwise Monster Hunter World would count as an MMORPG and so would nearly any other game that has a multiplayer component, yes, but...

Even in the older days those games weren't really built for having too many players in one place affecting the same thing. Sure, some of them were, i.e. the ones Ashes 'draws its DNA from' but those ones hit the only probably 'real' issue in this thread, i.e. that a lot of players don't want other people to affect the world they are in and many of them are 'solo players' so conflation happens.

If you want that 'other people's actions influence my world' to happen, you're an MMORPG player even if you play the game itself completely alone. There's almost no separation here.

If you hate grouping with others but like the idea that someone else defeating a boss/miniboss in the open world changes your goals and gameplay, you choose to play an MMORPG because that's the genre that experience-type comes from.

The only thing Devs 'lost' over years was the ability to make players care about this possibility through something other than 'frustration that someone else got the thing they wanted before they did', and therefore the only thing that makes Ashes 'not the same as any other good MMORPG' is Freeholds (and likely the lack of good RP that will genuinely affect player motivations but nearly no Dev can do anything about that).

We're at the point where this is all about 'optics' for those outside the main space of communities, honestly this is why I'm so glad Throne and Liberty didn't delay any longer and just started as soon as the base was ready, because now it gets a multi-year head start on a lot of similar games.

Halfassed content creators can still just throw out underthought takes about any game, but MMOs are particularly susceptible because they take time to get into no matter what you do, but positive coverage of most of them is just a 'yeah this game is good and a lot of people play it'.

What else could Ashes even add to make solo players more comfortable?

Farming? Solo gathering? Solo instanced boss challenges? Fishing? Sailing? Minigames? Group events? Player made music? Solo player economy niches? Faster leveling? More storyline than the entire Legacy of Kain series with all the spinoffs, combined? Beautiful vistas from the tops of mountains where you can look out over the landscape and see a rainbow? A world full of tiny cool things to find in nearly every spot you explore? Multiple Dungeons/PoIs with progressions that allow low-time players to move at their own pace?

A Dynamic content system that locks certain content behind a weekly serverwide progression point so that there's less incentive for the player who can't play as often to feel like they're in a race with the top players? Content capped to prevent the advantage of those players so that everyone can participate more evenly? Housing and decoration? More cosmetics? The ability to somehow earn cosmetics through ingame activity? A robust system that allows more invested players to support casual players within guilds?

A large variety of playstyles with a focus on slow, measured progression that is just at the point where you can feel advancement but also don't constantly feel the need to chase down every last stat point? A sense of community within a location in the game world and ties to in-universe organizations/characters to offer roleplay opportunities and bring players of similar minds/interests together?

Which of these things, in its intended design, does Ashes not already have?

And which of them is so 'solo player' friendly that we are at the point of bringing up 'solo players' as if these aren't things that are enjoyable to most MMO players, guild or solo?

The video (and to some extent the post) just goes 'I hope games are full of cool stuff that should be in an MMO' and then somehow implies that 'the people who like this cool stuff are mostly soloers'.

I'd say this is the opposite of what Ludullu said actually. The MMO genre didn't die because it was never very strong. Why? Because tons of people just want to imagine the concepts of this type of game but then either play it occasionally but don't say much (leading to what automatically looks like low numbers) or just watch/read fantasy content that can deliver things 'faster and with minimal friction'.

I guess 'How MMO players saved MMOs from going extinct' isn't a sensible grab, right?