Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Best Of
Melodies dropping from CC is too punishing
Currently, any incap, stun, trip, or knockback will cause a bard's melody to drop .In a game where CC is plentiful and a lot of pivotal spells are .5 seconds or less, being locked out of your class mechanic for 2 seconds constantly feels clunky.
I think recasting melodies should be about changing your buff and resonance- currently it feels overly punishing to have to recast your melody every time, especially with knockbacks and CC that lasts less than a second.
I have two suggestions that might help
1- Instead of the melody dropping, negate the effect of the aura while the bard is CC'd- groups wouldn't benefit from it when the bard is CC'd.
2- Melody only drops when the bard is stunned, tripped, or incapaciated for at least a few seconds, reducing frustration from "micro CC" and knockbacks.
I think recasting melodies should be about changing your buff and resonance- currently it feels overly punishing to have to recast your melody every time, especially with knockbacks and CC that lasts less than a second.
I have two suggestions that might help
1- Instead of the melody dropping, negate the effect of the aura while the bard is CC'd- groups wouldn't benefit from it when the bard is CC'd.
2- Melody only drops when the bard is stunned, tripped, or incapaciated for at least a few seconds, reducing frustration from "micro CC" and knockbacks.
When Rogue and Summoner Showcase ?
Words almost fail to describe just how much i miss the monthly Showcases before the Alpha started.
Because since the Alpha started, we didn't get the same "Showcases" anymore -> but simply Footage from out of the Alpha.
So now since January i heard from the Rogue. Apparently he was supposed to come(??) into the Alpha at the End of January or to the End of February.
Now i more or less know (?) that the Rogue will be delayed still, because it is apparently harder for the Developer Team to program this Class so that it neatly blend into the Alpha like all the other Classes until now.
I assume it will be the same for the Summoner-Class, which i hope to play sometime in the Future and probably as my Main Class.
In Case it is already announced when we might see a Showcase of the Rogue and the Summoner -> then i gloriously managed to miss that.
When Please can we expect a Showcase to these last two, nice Classes - which are supposed to be Part of Ashes of Creation in the Future ?
I miss these Showcases so much. One of the last i can remember, was the Bard. * sigh * ... ... ^_^
Because since the Alpha started, we didn't get the same "Showcases" anymore -> but simply Footage from out of the Alpha.
So now since January i heard from the Rogue. Apparently he was supposed to come(??) into the Alpha at the End of January or to the End of February.
Now i more or less know (?) that the Rogue will be delayed still, because it is apparently harder for the Developer Team to program this Class so that it neatly blend into the Alpha like all the other Classes until now.
I assume it will be the same for the Summoner-Class, which i hope to play sometime in the Future and probably as my Main Class.
In Case it is already announced when we might see a Showcase of the Rogue and the Summoner -> then i gloriously managed to miss that.
When Please can we expect a Showcase to these last two, nice Classes - which are supposed to be Part of Ashes of Creation in the Future ?
I miss these Showcases so much. One of the last i can remember, was the Bard. * sigh * ... ... ^_^
Aszkalon
1
Re: I think we have tested the grind - LFG blues
Yeah, with another probable wipe, I'd say they could add some placeholder things that would be easy wins for intrepid and help the player base not feel like they are doing the same thing all over again:
1. Rested exp (its planned for taverns but they could add a early version of it)
2. Upgraded reward tables for quests/events/commissions so players feel incentivized to do those during leveling and test them out
3. Early version of LFG boards
This is the kind of things that would go a long way to all players but really win back the casuals.
Re: PLEASE Don't make AoC subscription mandatory
Yep, ESO+ is totally p2w. 10% more XP gained, 10% more gold gained, 10% more crafting XP, 10% more PvP Points, double the Bank Storage, a craft bag for storing infinite amounts of all resources, premium currency that can buy hard-to-get items, and those are just the perks I've picked out. There are more.They may not be p2w in those games (they still are btw, otherwise they wouldn't be selling them), but they definitely would be in Ashes.Actually the ideas (from another game) I posted is not P2W at all. You're not paying for power, bonus XP or anything like that. You're simply paying for things like extra stash space, access to DLC instead of full priced DLC, craft bag for resources... How is that P2W?
It's absolutely Pay To Win. And none of us want that in Ashes.
Re: PLEASE Don't make AoC subscription mandatory
You don’t find it fair to pay for a service that you play for entertainment?
So, if I summarize: do you work for free, since charging for goods and services is unfair?
Or do you think that Steven and Intrepid Studios don’t have business expenses, salaries to pay, and infrastructure costs every month?
A subscription remains a reasonable thing, be realistic... Today, in an Asian game and even some Western games, the first question asked before adding features is: how do we monetize our content to make customers pay as much as possible?
Yes, the game is free-to-play, but with so many barriers that premium becomes mandatory. And in most cases, you still need to pull out your credit card to stay competitive.
In case you missed it, World of Warcraft was a massive success. So massive that it was able to last for an incredibly long time, thanks to a box + subscription system that allowed them to have a financially strong company capable of offering more and more content.
So no, a subscription of around $10-15 for unlimited access to a game is definitely not excessive. Especially since they don’t charge for the base game, which economically isn’t great for a game planning for years ahead. With a well-stocked cosmetic shop—which I hope will be the case—they will have the means to develop Ashes of Creation beyond the first year.
Especially considering that for a console or single-player game, you have to spend around $60 for something short-lived.
Otherwise, there are plenty of free-to-play games, so have fun with those.
So, if I summarize: do you work for free, since charging for goods and services is unfair?
Or do you think that Steven and Intrepid Studios don’t have business expenses, salaries to pay, and infrastructure costs every month?
A subscription remains a reasonable thing, be realistic... Today, in an Asian game and even some Western games, the first question asked before adding features is: how do we monetize our content to make customers pay as much as possible?
Yes, the game is free-to-play, but with so many barriers that premium becomes mandatory. And in most cases, you still need to pull out your credit card to stay competitive.
In case you missed it, World of Warcraft was a massive success. So massive that it was able to last for an incredibly long time, thanks to a box + subscription system that allowed them to have a financially strong company capable of offering more and more content.
So no, a subscription of around $10-15 for unlimited access to a game is definitely not excessive. Especially since they don’t charge for the base game, which economically isn’t great for a game planning for years ahead. With a well-stocked cosmetic shop—which I hope will be the case—they will have the means to develop Ashes of Creation beyond the first year.
Especially considering that for a console or single-player game, you have to spend around $60 for something short-lived.
Otherwise, there are plenty of free-to-play games, so have fun with those.
Imanek
2
Re: PLEASE Don't make AoC subscription mandatory
It makes them want to pay because it's literally p2w. And it'd be an even bigger p2w in Ashes, due to how it's designed.Things like these will make players WANT to be subscribed to the game for the premium features.
Constant sub allows Intrepid to avoid p2w bullshit like that, which is better than any f2p+"optional" payment monetization.
Ludullu
4
Re: Turkish language support in Ashes of Creation
maybe get 15,000 Turkish players to buy an Alpha key now and then you will get somewhere with your request
Caww
2
Re: Disgusted by the team already and I haven´t played the game yet.
Riiiight, which is exactly why they completely stopped selling cosmetics, made the cheapest access to the game (outside of initial kickstarter) and then made it even cheaper by bundling both betas and a month of gameplay to that new cheap pricethey think they will make more money from selling the stuff around the game than the game itself, definitely getting the feeling of DOA.
Ohh, such a great successful scam. It's even more successful when you see that they're spending way too much money on keeping servers up for 4-5days every week and, for some unknown reason, keep paying devs to develop the game.
I'd call this the most successful scam in the world! Ponzi? Pfft, amateur! Bitconeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeect? Child's play! Trump Coin? He wishes he was as smart as Steven's decision to dump his own money into a pithole that is making an mmo!
Ludullu
2
Re: PLEASE Don't make AoC subscription mandatory
You've completely missed the point where I stated I'd be happy to pay for a subscription as long as it wasn't mandatory to continue playing.
No I didn't. I addressed it here, in the post you quoted.
If you are going to start a discussion and then reply to people in said discussion, please read those posts you are replying to.Now, you say that you would be happy to pay the same monthly fee if it were optional. If this is the case (I doubt it), then what difference is it to you? In both cases, you would be paying the same amount per month, and would be getting the same thing for that money (full access to the game).
You say you will happily pay for the base game - but Intrepid isn't asking youto do that. Once it goes live, the subscription is the only thing they are asking for. They aren't asking for you to buy the game, and they aren't asking you to pay for additional content. They are only asking for that subscription fee, and giving you the option of paying for some cosmetics if you feel inclined.
I'm unsure what your issue is. For any given month, if you want to play Ashes, you pay for access to the servers in order to be able to do so. If you do not want to play Ashes for any given month, you simply have the option to not pay that month. There are no other costs.
Again, since Ashes is a product with actual ongoing costs per player to Intrepid (unlike, for example, a cars heated seats or top speed that are already built in to the car when you buy it), there is no real reason to be against Intrepid only asking you for a subscription, as their costs are recurring for each month you opt to play.
WIth a game that has the server requirements Ashes would have, no subscription fee would mean the game can only possibly last a few months.
Recurring costs to Intrepid mean they need to have recurring revenue in order to keep the game up.
Noaani
1
Re: High price to test
The subscription doesn't start until the game is live.
There is no subscription to test - just the initial purchase.
There is no subscription to test - just the initial purchase.
Noaani
4