Best Of
Re: Amazing world, painfully dull grind
everything seems to have a generic mmo feeling to it and nothing really stands out and screams "this is why AoC is unique and fresh"
I think this will be the 64 class system and the dynamic world. The world truly needs to feel alive by things changing depending on what the players are engaged with. If they fail to create unique class combinations that actually function and play differently from each other I will probably not enjoy this game. That is the single thing that draws me to the future of this game. In every mmo I play I want to feel different from everyone else. If I don’t feel that it’s not exciting.
Re: Steven, Please Rethink “Not for Everyone”
And no one else will, exactly because Intrepid's approach has fully proven that you SHOULD NEVER tell players about the development process.Saabynator wrote: »I mean, open development/no NDA... How many does that?
Your response to Noaani about "hype around release..." would've worked if people didn't know what the game was about. See Chrono Odyssey for example. People were really hyped for it until they realized that it's just a NW clone. And they only realized that because CO released a beta test.
Ashes is holding a near-permanent ALPHA test, where nothing is done and everything that's being done is moving at a snail's pace. And that is game development for a newer team under an unexperienced leader. But the fact that everyone who's interested in the game can just come and see that the game is barely moving, the design is all over the place and the direction can often contradict itself - none of that will support the release hype of the game.
Every damn scam game that overpromised the world and underdelivered a piece of shit had more hype than what Ashes will have by the time release comes along.
And I would love to be wrong, because I myself believed that we're barely even 1% of the people that will be there on release, so the majority will get hyped for the game, as you say. But the more time passes, the more I feel like my initial assumption was the wrong one.We already gave examples of the games where these systems were present. And Ashes doesn't even compare to the space games, cause its supposed depth doesn't even reach "you can build your own stuff and other players can interact with it".Saabynator wrote: »You might say, that they are easy to implement in other games, but they havent does it though.
I tested an Alpha for a new EVE game and that shit had space buildings that could function as trading posts, as turrets, as stores and had the potential to be coded by the players themselves to be near-anything players wanted. Ashes is nowhere near that kind of freedom.
So yes, it is that easy to add this stuff into a game. Other studios don't do it because it's too much work for too little payoff, when you only care about that payoff. And yes, it's cool that Steven can kinda disregard the amount of work his ideas require, but it's a double-edged sword, which, in the context of "open development", hits the studio more than it benefits it.
I think you are being a bit bitter. So you dont like the pace of the game, so leave it alone and come back. Is is slow? For a game this size, I dont think so.
I def think there is a lot more hype surrounding the game bexcause of open development. The monthly videos is also something I know ton of people are looking forward to. Hell, I think a ton of people are talking about the game, because streamers can stream with no NDA.
The point about a lot of features is, AoC has taken a ton of features into their game. Some of those features, whole games are made around. They took it as part of their features. If they deliever, which personally I think they do, this will be the biggest MMO that ever launched.
Sound like a lot of you alpha testers are wanting this to move along way quicker than it is. To me, it looks like an unrealistic look at what speed a game of this size is developing at. Step away, take a break for some months and come back. Your annoyance and bitterness will only grow from here.
Steven is unexperienced as a game developer. But he has an age where wisdom comes into play. He has been around, he played a ton of games, he knows what he thinks is fun. He didnt hire all new guys here either, he hired some good devs.
Re: A bit disappointed / Overall too tedious (sort of)
That design has been literally the explicit direction for the game. Intrepid are trying to "remake" an old mmo with new tech. That's it.Not another "fresh new MMO" with the same vibes as the least 20 years", 'cause for a 2024/2025 game I genuinely felt it a bit outdated.
A few things will be added and fleshed out, but the core gameplay loop won't go too far from what we have rn.
Ludullu
2
Re: Melee Classes Survivability in Group PvP Needs Addressing
I agree with the stated problem that PvP in AoC is more {stand-off & ranged & skirmishy} when compared to the more melee mix of PvP found in games like GW2 WvWvW. The problem is significant enough that 2 guilds I know of do not want Fighters and have very limited space for Rogues.
As the OP says "the line of contact between opposing groups is really limited" meaning, IMO, that melee is not viable so PvP is less interesting than it could be.
I do not mind how many classes are melee or how many people play those classes, but I do know that I have not seen a guild or group use melee often or effectively. Is it at all possible? I suspect not.
PEW PEW for the yawn.
As the OP says "the line of contact between opposing groups is really limited" meaning, IMO, that melee is not viable so PvP is less interesting than it could be.
I do not mind how many classes are melee or how many people play those classes, but I do know that I have not seen a guild or group use melee often or effectively. Is it at all possible? I suspect not.
PEW PEW for the yawn.
Uboon
2
Re: Risk, Reward, Difficulty & FUN: What Intrepid is Missing
This one makes me think of something. I think that maybe there's a sort-of equivalent of this feeling for Econ-focused players, it's just so long/complex that I never want to try explaining it, but honestly this is probably the thread for a short-form.
"Not being able to even guess why someone/a small group is in an area."
I think that line doesn't make sense on its own, but in this case, if the only reason a player has, to be in an area, is to look for someone else (not someone specific, just 'another person') to kill for the sake of killing them, I don't think one can call it 'meaningful conflict'.
The next step normally is 'well maybe they are defending the territory and have a good reason to keep everyone out'. Ok, sure, that implies a reason why they do that, though. I don't have a problem with being fought or hunted while walking through a Py'Rai forest if I think they're protecting their trees or something.
I think this is actually somewhat a designer's responsibility. If your MMORPG is supposed to attract a bunch of players who just want to fight other players on the road, it's your job as a Dev to put a reason behind that in the world a decent portion of the time.
Most games I've played 'ignore' this or make it a loose enough connection, resulting in a higher population of players who are not there to play an MMORPG, they're there to play a combat sim where they can snowball or ego-check people who did, and the only win-condition for those is 'when the other player acknowledges defeat/the hierarchy'.
My quote, above, is from 2021. In the midst of Alpha One and before Jeffrey Bard left as Lead Game Designer.Hmmn. So this kinda reminds of EQNext's concept of PvP Conflict - we have a whole bunch of former SOE devs on the Intrepid team, several of whom worked on the EQ franchise, so I'm expecting something like this will fall under what the Ashes devs have referred to as Meaningful Conflict.
The EQNext scenario the devs shared with us is:
Kithicor Forest is filled with Dryads who have Life Energy which can be siphoned as a resource. The Dark Elves kill the Dryads to siphon the Life Energy and convert it to Shadow Energy, which powers Shadow Magic and Stealth.
I typically have my characters max Stealth and I am usually a carebear, but... if I have to kill Dryads to siphon their Life Energy to power the Stealth abilities for my Rogue... any player character Druids who try to stop me from killing Dryads will just have to die!!
Draining Life Energy from Kithicor Forest will, over time, negatively impact all life in Kithicor Forest, so there is incentive for players to prevent the Dryads from being killed. Unbeknownst to the players, a tipping point of Life Energy depletion will allow Shadow Demons to break their shackles, roam across zones and destroy all life in their wake...Dark Elves included. Which will push the Dark Elves to ally with their former rivals to re-imprison the Shadow Demons.
I don't think a relic, as described, would entice me to participate in PvP combat.
I'm not going to try to kill a player character because of something they hold in their possession.
In the EQNext scenario, I'm truly focused on the PvE. And it's not really anything material I'm seeking - what I'm seeking is to improve my non-combat skills. If other players are gonna try to impede that, it could provoke me to initiate PvP, even though I would consider that a last resort option.
Kinda the flip side of that scenario is playing a Druid who knows that depleting too much Life Energy from Kithicor Forest will trigger the Shadow Demons to escape and wreak havoc around the region. As a Druid, I would try to parlay with players who are killing too many Dryads. I might have to initiate PvP if they continue to slaughter Dryads - but the motivation isn't because I love PvP or I want to steal loot from other players. Rather it is a last resort to protect the region from rampaging Shadow Demons.
Again... Meaningful Conflict rather than Risk v Reward.
I have abysmally low interest in Risk v Reward.
But, Meaningful Conflict is highly enticing, to me.
Dygz
2
Melee Classes Survivability in Group PvP Needs Addressing
...and I seem to be unable to find any acknowledgement this issue is being looked at. Based on our experience so far with class and pvp balance, stat stacking, past TTK issues, I'm frankly a bit concerned about the general problems we keep running into at this stage.
The first issue I see in the group setting is that only 3 out of 8 base class archetypes are melee centred, and 1 of those 3 is built around stealth. That means melee users are almost always outnumbered and out kited.
If you ever played MMOs with a decent grasp atm melee - range balance and compare them to Ashes will notice straight away that group pvp plays out differently. The line of contact between opposing groups is really limited, and usually just consists of a tank or few tanks fishing for easy chain pulls. Everyone else is just waiting for someone to get out of position so they can be punished for it, before they rotate and wait for major cooldowns. Coming from something like Return of Reckoning or even GW2 WvW, this feels really weird and undercooked on the fundamental level.
From the competitive pvp perspective it got so bad that any guild interested in pvp is quite likely to refuse you if you want to run a fighter or rogue in large pvp setting.
This isn't healthy for the game, pvp balance or gameplay variety.
Melee class survivability in large group setting seems to be the core issue. For obvious reasons melee classes cannot just be granted flat damage mitigation buffs, as this would negatively affect balance in 1v1, and small group pvp settings.
Potential solutions have been discussed multiple times across different social media channel.
I personally like the most the idea of introduction of passive talents which conditionally increase melee class physical and magic mitigations. This would work as a multiplayer, so basically 1 enemy player would increase mitigations by 5%, but then 5 in certain range around the player would increase it by 5% * x, where x is the number of enemy players in the engagement range (lets say 30 meters). I'm sure a lot of us have seen these ideas in other games, not even necessarily just MMOs. Numbers here are obviously nothing else but placeholders. This stuff should be crunched and balanced by the actual game designers.
Other approach I have liked would be far more time intensive as it would require melee archetypes to get far more ranged based abilities.. So these classes can play more of melee/ranged skirmisher role, but with all this ranged damage pressure I doubt this would be enough by itself.
It's just sad looking at fighters and tanks basically auto-attacking in group fights and waiting for that one perfect opening.
The first issue I see in the group setting is that only 3 out of 8 base class archetypes are melee centred, and 1 of those 3 is built around stealth. That means melee users are almost always outnumbered and out kited.
If you ever played MMOs with a decent grasp atm melee - range balance and compare them to Ashes will notice straight away that group pvp plays out differently. The line of contact between opposing groups is really limited, and usually just consists of a tank or few tanks fishing for easy chain pulls. Everyone else is just waiting for someone to get out of position so they can be punished for it, before they rotate and wait for major cooldowns. Coming from something like Return of Reckoning or even GW2 WvW, this feels really weird and undercooked on the fundamental level.
From the competitive pvp perspective it got so bad that any guild interested in pvp is quite likely to refuse you if you want to run a fighter or rogue in large pvp setting.
This isn't healthy for the game, pvp balance or gameplay variety.
Melee class survivability in large group setting seems to be the core issue. For obvious reasons melee classes cannot just be granted flat damage mitigation buffs, as this would negatively affect balance in 1v1, and small group pvp settings.
Potential solutions have been discussed multiple times across different social media channel.
I personally like the most the idea of introduction of passive talents which conditionally increase melee class physical and magic mitigations. This would work as a multiplayer, so basically 1 enemy player would increase mitigations by 5%, but then 5 in certain range around the player would increase it by 5% * x, where x is the number of enemy players in the engagement range (lets say 30 meters). I'm sure a lot of us have seen these ideas in other games, not even necessarily just MMOs. Numbers here are obviously nothing else but placeholders. This stuff should be crunched and balanced by the actual game designers.
Other approach I have liked would be far more time intensive as it would require melee archetypes to get far more ranged based abilities.. So these classes can play more of melee/ranged skirmisher role, but with all this ranged damage pressure I doubt this would be enough by itself.
It's just sad looking at fighters and tanks basically auto-attacking in group fights and waiting for that one perfect opening.
Re: Amazing world, painfully dull grind
What I really don't get is how anyone could look at the leveling speed Intrepid have intended for this game, and can come to any conclusion other than a dull grind.
The way Intrepid can make it not a dull grind and keep the leveling speed is by reducing the importance of leveling, and increasing the importance of node development for example.
So for example all citizens of a node get large exp boost depending on the level of the node. This will force guild wars, commissions, crafting, caravans and ect. The leveling speed will be faster as a whole with the exp boost, but the time it takes to level as a whole wont be different, since you will spend a lot of time developing your node.
Githal
1
Re: Hard cap for Node citizens count
The first (let's say) 30 Citizens are in a low tax bracket. Their cost for being a citizen is low, the benefits are high.
The next 20 Citizens are in a higher tax bracket. The cost of being a citizen is medium, the benefits are high.
The next 20 Citizens are in an even higher tax bracket. The cost of being a citizen is high, the benefits are high.
Anyone after that is in a really high tax bracket. The cost of being a citizen is astronomical, the benefits are high.
At this point in my biased reasoning, the way I interpret the quote from the wiki, your words I quoted at the top of this post are the logical answer.
"For all citizens past 70 in my example, - why would anyone be citizen of metropolis? You will have all players living in small nodes to avoid taxes. And all metropolises will be empty."
Well tbh this has some potential. But again they will be forced to not make relics and other metropolis benefits good (just average). So they will tie the 2 systems together making it hard to balance. If the cost or the benefits of the metropolis out weight the other, then it will break the whole system.
Can you explain why exactly this is true?
I think that the 'first citizens' will be those who were there from the start. The people who invested in the node 'before anyone knew it would be a Metro'.
In the example I gave, if I go to a node and there are already 50 Citizens, even if I think it will become a Metro I also know that I'd still be paying more to get the Metro benefits. People 'after the first 70' know from the time the Citizenship fills, not from the time the Metro forms.
So a Node reaches Village, 70 people rush to sign up. 30 more sign up too at the really high tax bracket because they believe 'this will be the City/Metro node' (for later readers, we talk about Metropolis but those are maybe being removed at the time of this post).
I'd expect that everyone after that will think:
"Even if I sign up because this Node seems most likely to become the Metro, I won't get the benefits without paying a huge cost, I should maybe consider being an early citizen of a different Node, that way if that Node does well, I can get benefits cheap."
I don't think Intrepid is required to be 'fair' about the cost-benefit ratio for every citizen, it seems like the entire point of the quote is 'we're definitely not doing that'.
So I think some people would 'go to a different node and try to raise that one first so that they can maybe reach City first and get benefits cheap.
I think this will spread out more people, so I don't understand yet why you think it will be hard to balance (but I kinda agree? I just don't think they intend to, nor need to, lmk if to go into more detail on why I don't think they need to, as an Econ-focused player).
Azherae
1
Re: Hard cap for Node citizens count
And think for yourself: if the cost of being citizen in Metropolis is that high, and benefits are that bad - why would anyone be citizen of metropolis? You will have all players living in small nodes to avoid taxes. And all metropolises will be empty.
It's true that sometimes I read your stuff more to reply than to understand, because I admit I'm totally biased toward thinking that you're the one who doesn't understand.
The first (let's say) 30 Citizens are in a low tax bracket. Their cost for being a citizen is low, the benefits are high.
The next 20 Citizens are in a higher tax bracket. The cost of being a citizen is medium, the benefits are high.
The next 20 Citizens are in an even higher tax bracket. The cost of being a citizen is high, the benefits are high.
Anyone after that is in a really high tax bracket. The cost of being a citizen is astronomical, the benefits are high.
At this point in my biased reasoning, the way I interpret the quote from the wiki, your words I quoted at the top of this post are the logical answer.
"For all citizens past 70 in my example, - why would anyone be citizen of metropolis? You will have all players living in small nodes to avoid taxes. And all metropolises will be empty."
I assumed that you understood all the stuff I've just said above, but still somehow didn't see a solution. That's my error. It turns out you see a solution, just didn't have the same interpretation of the Intrepid quote as I do. Whether we agree or not, I genuinely thank you for actually replying even though it probably seemed like I was just being dismissive, since this sort of thing helps me train my conversational AI modules.
Azherae
1
Re: A bit disappointed / Overall too tedious (sort of)
Try it again after the P3 is live for testing (about the end of Aug.) and more of the actual systems are included, not the current placeholders you experienced, which most people did not like.
Caww
3