Best Of

Vaknar wrote: »

I hope to see more thoughts and examples of how PvP arenas could fit (specifically in Nodes), as well as *why* they should, in Ashes

L2 open world arenas. Steven knows them. They fit in Ashes just as well as they did in L2. They're simply a location right outside of town. With nodes this could even be right on the footprint, so that at later stages of a node the arena is INSIDE the massive node.

As for why - it's to prove that all the "pvpers" whining about lawless zones going away simply want to gank people, rather than wanting real pvp. Oh, and for those who DO want to just pvp - arenas would be there for them.

Would be magnificent. A great pastime whenever you're just waiting for friend to group up or maybe after max level. Similar to hanging out watching fight clubs at pontiff in dark souls 3.

Laetitian wrote: »

I can definitely agree with all of that.
I think what I'm holding on to is the hope that, even if it might seem very questionable whether Ashes can deliver on its ideals with the richness they require, it will still be better to stick to principles now in terms of direction/ideology, and see if we can shape up in terms of quality and depth as the game grows.
Because if there's one thing I think we all know has failed too many times, it's making compromises in order to appeal to the mainstream - no matter how well-intentioned it might be in the theoretical long-term perspective of turning things around once the money is there. And so while I see both the potential for things to end up failed or mediocre, the one mistake that I can just about guarantee needs to be avoided is giving up on the identity of the game.

I guess a final follow-up question to round things up might be: Is there something that Throne and Liberty isn't delivering for you that you could imagine Ashes could find its specific advantage in for you? (Specifically realistically, with the way things have developed so far, given realistic changes from here.)
Because at this points it sounds a bit like Ashes for you is practically just in a Throne and Liberty that hasn't delivered on as many of its promises, and whose economy isn't quite as well-organised.

And then to put it into context: How would those strengths be affected if Ashes went 60% harder on appealing to the mainstream and making things cozier for those who demand guaranteed success and "being able to keep up competitively" (which I think translates into higher and higher expectations as the months pass) in spite of mediocre performance?

Basing only on my data collected from my time in Throne and Liberty:
Ashes can still do better at their economy than TL, and TL is a game made by 'combat-first' designers, so by their own admission it takes them longer to design economy things. There are quite a few 'low hanging fruit' for them, but much like Ashes, they would need to have someone who could quickly verify that it was safe/ok to add those things.

Aside from that, Nodes and the resultant gameplay do sound like a winning-tier source of content, if delivered as proposed, and I explicitly mean 'for less invested players'. Seeing an area you helped build, unique in its combination of layout and architecture, with a population you might be able to assume was invested in it, would be a feeling that most MMORPG players on this side of the 'mainstream' have never had.

I don't like to try to be 'realistic' about Ashes development, because I bring in too many of my biases from my career, and those biases tend all the way towards 'this game will never release except as a sandbox for Steven to run RP-sessions in from his Dev Console'.

But as for 'appealing to the mainstream', both games suffer somewhat from not knowing how to do that, plus a problem of data collection, namely, the 'it's hard to get data from people whose interest you didn't manage to maintain'. As a simple TL example, they recently-ish held a Q&A style thing and got way more questions about Fishing than they were expecting. They 'don't think about the players out there waiting for them to improve Fishing or the connection between Fishing and the economy' because those players are just not receiving their engagement point so they play less.

I think Intrepid is facing a similar thing now, but that's speculation.

Ashes combines too many niches at once, perhaps, and I don't think it's possible to have a particularly productive conversation about it because I'm gonna say 'well they need to pull back somewhere but they keep pushing it further out of the stream', but afaik you want them to go in the direction they are going.

In the end though, neither game is even four steps on their path to potential greatness. TL is just staying on the 'riverbank' whereas Ashes looks like it's wandering off into the forest. TL gets the complaints of 'why can't you just come into the water' and Ashes gets either 'wait where are you even going?' or ignored entirely. The difference right now is that TL will keep functioning even if it's mostly PvP players and I think Ashes won't (underlying design structure).

Really thoughtful discussion here. It's clear folks are coming at this from different playstyles and priorities, and that kind of exchange is valuable. Even without full agreement, constructive conversations help surface the deeper goals people have for the game, and that's useful context as things continue to evolve!

MargaretKrohn wrote: »

So let’s keep this conversation going:
What’s one feature or system you think could help bridge the gap between hardcore and casual players without compromising the game’s vision?

My argument would still be: Wrong question.
You can use these bridges here and there to calm down people's temperament, but they ultimately won't solve the issue. You primarily have to communicate why the gap exists, and what's already in it for casual players to discover, if they embrace the advantages of it. Why the trade-offs are worth it, and there's no point being stubborn about them.

If you focus on using bridges to make the transition easier, you'll inevitably invite the people who will just keep complaining that you don't also add more of their other creature comforts, without ever really being interested in your original vision.

Instead of building bridges, make your side so impressive that those on the other side willingly swim through the river without a need for a bridge.

MargaretKrohn wrote: »

So let’s keep this conversation going:
What’s one feature or system you think could help bridge the gap between hardcore and casual players without compromising the game’s vision? (meaningful risk, no pay-to-win, and a player-driven world)

1. Expansive, immersive questing. Something that if you log on for 30 minutes or an hour, you're able to have fun and rewarding experience while playing independently.
2. Questing that is rewarding enough that it draws groups of players to go to other 3-star areas throughout the world. There was an estate area I tried to duo to complete a few quests; I looked for about an hour and a half for a group to come play in the area, and no one cared because it was considered a waste of time not to grind at HH or OAK.
3. Quest Sharing/Group Questing would allow people (who may not be able to go all the way to Winstead) to pickup a quest enjoy going outside of one group-grind room to encourage exploring an entire area dedicated to group play.
4. Crafting Accessibility I don't have specific recommendations on the solution, but after 30 hours of gathering as a noobie, I wasn't able to create a single piece of gear or potion or sell the gatherables for even 50 silver.
5. Mob Training is another one that I don't have a specific resolution suggestion. It's really annoying/disheartening to take the time to find a group, travel to the location, have an absolute excellent team you're grinding with (finally!!), only for zergers to train mobs on you. Then after a few times, you flag for PvP and get corruption for killing them. And then you get trained again, die, and they loot all of your equipment.
6. Caravans should buff the driver better. If I've spent 15 hours on gathering resources and paying money to get a caravan going, there's nothing I can do if someone 7 levels higher than me wants to take it. Or maybe make it a guild activity where money is split instead of an independent venture that encourage level 10 players to do as a noobie quest.

Meaningful risk is a good pillar. Taking everything a new player has worked for because they were following a noobie quest or because of a poor game design isn't fun.

Thanks for keeping the convo going and for all y'all do!

I have to admit that I thought Steven's "not for you" comment was related to alpha testing or not liking PvP or not wanting immediate gratification for everything. I didn't know he actually said this game isn't for casual players. That's pretty disheartening.

Being a casual doesn’t mean avoiding PvP, shunning group play, or resenting the hardcore. Many of us admire dedication—we just want a game that welcomes all playstyles without forcing one path. Playing casually means that the 400 hours it took someone to level to 50 in 6 weeks may take me 600 hours and 6 months.

Welcome back! Totally get the feeling, two years is a long time, and it's easy to assume not much has changed when just skimming the surface.

But honestly, a lot has happened. Instead of going by scattered rumors or unofficial takes, I really recommend checking the official forums, the developer livestreams, and especially the community wiki (https://ashesofcreation.wiki) you'll see the progress is real. Systems like nodes, crafting, combat, world events, and UI have all undergone major changes and polish.

That said, it’s still in Alpha, and yes, there’s a road ahead, but for a project of this scale, that’s expected. Ashes is not a theme park MMO; it’s trying to build something ambitious and dynamic, and that takes time.

If you give it a deeper look, you might be surprised at how far it’s come.