Best Of

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

Volgaris wrote: »

I don't know what success is to Steven, but he's not worried about the money as far I can tell. I assume success to him is going to be a couple healthy realms mostly full of players exploring the game and fighting it out over resources.

That mindset is great, but it doesn’t pay the salaries of 100+ employees for years to come. And to my earlier point about hiring, top talent isn’t lining up to join a studio working on a title that might not make it past a year or two. Longevity and financial stability matter, not just for players, but for the people building the game.

I agree you need to make enough money to attract the talent to make the great things that will attract and keep the players. I don't know if there is a talent drain happening. I can tell you I looked up the salaries they're paying a few months ago and it's not much, especially for San Diego.

I might have missed your point on why the game might not last, but I do agree it's possible. But I think exploits, RMT, hackers will be their largest challenge. With the game leaning so heavy into competitive play people will use everyone advantage they can get. And I think enough will chance it to get ahead. Cracking down hard on cheating has the effect of making cheating even more valuable. I don't think a sub model is a large barrier, the most successful MMOs use them, but just having one doesn't mean you're successful.

What would be success to you? A player count? Specific ROI? I guess I'd say success is that if it runs for at least as long as it was in active development for. But there are different stages of development so that might not be always fair.

Volgaris wrote: »

What would be success to you? A player count? Specific ROI? I guess I'd say success is that if it runs for at least as long as it was in active development for. But there are different stages of development so that might not be always fair.

People hate me for saying this, but to me, success would be one fully populated server and Intrepid being able to afford a small, sustainable team to maintain and update the game.

If they leaned further into the sandbox side rather than sandpark, they'd benefit from more evergreen content and less reliance on constant story updates or raid tiers. The strength of sandbox MMOs is that players are the content. There's no seasonal need to invent a new “big bad” that ends up forgotten a year later.

I don’t think the size of Intrepid’s team is what determines success. If, in the end, Steven is running the game solo from his basement but the servers are full and players are having fun, that still counts as a win to me.

Laetitian wrote: »

I think it could be okay if they have a few (Let's say 4) nodes anchored as "special" and inherently high-level, to give them an anchor for story arcs with special unique locations.
It would be a slight let-down compared to a completely fluid map, but as long as the rest of the map can still shape flexibly and become important as more players go there, it might be an acceptable trade-off between design-feasibility, unique quest-influenced story locations, and player-impact.

I'd prefer it if everything was player-influenced, but this counter-example is roughly the limit of compromise I'd be willing to deal with.
They could also announce it to be temporary for the first 1-3 years after publishing, if they maintain the modular framework as the basis of the system, and work on making the system even more flexible once the game releases.

That said, if they just give up on node levelling shaping the world (in ways that reshape where different kinds of gameplay happen), I'd be kinda done with the game, and I hope they understand that that's not a compromise they can make. Find another investor instead, if that's the limiting factor; abandoning your promises is not an option.

If the nodes aren’t equally compelling, then the vision of a player-driven world across multiple servers risks falling apart before it even begins.

Players naturally gravitate toward optimal choices. If certain nodes are inherently better—whether due to location, resources, or narrative significance—they’ll become the obvious picks, and the rest may end up largely ignored. At that point, it’s no longer about meaningful player choice—it’s about the meta.

If there are plans to anchor specific nodes, I hope the team considers ways to balance that carefully—perhaps through resource scarcity, increased development costs, or other trade-offs—to preserve the broader vision.

That said, I’d personally prefer to see all zones designed with equal potential. I understand it’s a significant amount of work, but so was designing unique outfits for every race. That commitment to extra effort “to make the game better” is part of what sets this project apart—and I think ensuring a fair and flexible node system is even more crucial to its long-term success.

Omega187 wrote: »

Not really sure why that last sentence is so hard for you to understand.

Yeah, I had no issue understanding it. Seemed straight forward to me.

As to your issues in the OP, I break them down to two main issues.

The first is that it isn't solo friendly, the second is that the quests are lacking.

While this doesn't help you today, the only real thing to point out here is that the developers have said that there will be improvements to the solo leveling experience. It won't match that of the group experience, but it will get better (this is an alpha test after all, things are supposed to be kind of bad).

For questing, they are still working on the actual quest systems. What we have so far are kind of place holder quests - so you can again expect improvements there at some stage.

No timelines on either of these.

I wonder if Intrepid would ever be 'kind' enough to share a specific thing about this balance struggle, actually.

In my experience the problem with difficulty/balance is always 'the gap'.

I've seen certain players (not even on particularly 'meta' or 'op' classes) solo content in games that other groups die to, and often, swapping just one of my guild's 'A-Listers' to a 'B-List' player makes an area or boss go from 'a casual relaxing way to spend time' to 'almost impossible to actually do' in games with really good tuning.

Does Intrepid know 'the actual skill distribution' from their data? I must know!

@Omega187
What do mean balance between even a single lvl is too skewed?
In PvP, PvE, solo questing, gathering, crafting?

I too think questing is really important and to my knowledge there's going to be some highly story driven activities. Solo or grouped focus I don't know, I'm fine with either. I wouldn't bet on too much solo content though. I have not tested much in phase 2.5, but I didn't have any issues leveling solo prior. Also didn't mind lfging my way through POIs.

As Phoenix said, the game isn't "playable" like a full release. Think of it like an experimental airplane and you're a test pilot.

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

1. Saying a game is “not for everyone” in 2025 just feels out of touch.
Steven recently said Ashes of Creation is “not for everyone.” And sure, maybe that’s meant to sound bold or unapologetic, but in reality, it’s a limiting take that could end up doing more harm than good.

In 2025, sticking to your vision doesn’t mean shutting people out. Look at Baldur’s Gate 3 or Expeditions. Both are turn-based RPGs, a genre that historically had “niche” written all over it. But those studios didn’t say “this isn’t for you.” Instead, they kept the heart of the game intact and made it easier for new players to jump in. Now look where they are.

Ashes should be doing the same. Saying "we're not for everyone" might feel like drawing a line in the sand, but it ends up sounding more like a closed door. And if the first impression people get is that this game isn’t welcoming or worth their time unless they’re already hardcore, you’re losing them before they even log in.



2. That mindset doesn't just affect the players, it affects the team too.
When the founder says something like that, it’s not just players listening. The industry is listening. And let’s be real, this isn’t 2015 anymore. It’s not an employer’s market. The best talent wants to work on games that feel exciting, future-facing, and like they’ll actually reach a big audience.

If Ashes is being positioned as a selective, high-barrier MMO, that narrows the pool of people who want to work on it. It’s not just about taste, it’s about stability. A game with long-term growth potential is way more appealing than one that already feels like it’s limiting itself before launch.

The game runs on a subscription model. That only works if new players are constantly coming in and sticking around. But right now, the early and mid-game experience feels like an afterthought. It’s all grindy, high-investment content focused on end-game PvP. Most players won’t even make it there. If the game doesn’t widen its reach, it’ll struggle to keep a big team employed, plain and simple.



3. The “not for everyone” line sends the wrong message.
Nobody’s saying Ashes should be watered down. No one’s asking it to become a theme park MMO. But when leadership says “this isn’t for everyone,” it feels like a warning instead of an invitation.

Ashes already has a lot going for it, complex systems, big ideas, and a community that wants this game to win. But the way it's being framed right now makes it feel like it's only meant for a specific type of player. That’s not how you grow a game. That’s how you shrink your audience before it even has a chance to expand.

Steven, with all respect, this isn’t just about wording. It’s about the message you're putting out into the world. And right now, that message feels a little too boxed in for a game that should be aiming way higher.

Maybe the "it's not for everyone" could hurt overall pre-sales. Maybe not. I think Steven is just trying to be as open as possible, and the truth is, is the game isn't for everyone. BG3 isn't for everyone. I love CRPGS and a coop on top of the depth was awesome. But no matter how good it is I can't get some friends to play it even if I bought it for them. They just don't like those games. Most gamers are going to know if it's for them or not, eventually at least. It's still really earlier. I see the "we're not for everyone" as a drawing of a line in the sand. They're not going to try to please every group of players, they're focusing on their take on pvx. A sure way to piss everyone off is to try to please everyone. No game can be for everyone.

I'm really confused about the statement "limiting itself before launch.". What's being limited here? We're still about two years from launch, maybe a little less if we're lucky. They're in full scale development mode, not advertising. The games not complete, there are systems and assets not even in the game lol, of course it feels limited.

Sub vs no sub model debate. In my experience sub games are better and last longer, being sub helps keep the team away from p2w bs in cash shops. To each their own, so people hate subs. To me I'd paid more than 15 a month for a premium mmorpg. Other's wouldn't. I don't know what success is to Steven, but he's not worried about the money as far I can tell. I assume success to him is going to be a couple healthy realms mostly full of players exploring the game and fighting it out over resources. There'll need to be updates to keep people interested. Playing any game that relies on the players to make the content dies fast.

To me when I head "it's not for everyone". It means they aren't pandering to people to buy in for their money. They're sticking to their principals and vision. It's a good thing.

I'm not sure what you expect from the game. It's not supposed to be like anything else out there, so I've just taken the position to expect the unexpected and hope I'm pleased with it. Are they losing some sells by their choice of words, yes, but are they gaining some, yes, which is more? Are they making a niche game? Probably. Will it be successful? Probably. Still too early to tell on much of it. Right now the game is in alpha and it's a heavy grind through broken, unfinished, and placeholder systems if it's fun great, if not, well fun isn't the target right now, just needs to work. I wouldn't judge the release version by what you see today or even in a year.

Noaani wrote: »

MMORPG's tend to drop 75% or so of their developers after launch.

There just isn't the same workload in maintaining an MMORPG and making post launch content as there is in making the game in the first place.

Ohh i REALLY hope Intrepid will keep more People in the Team. Because it is apparently not thaaat huge a Team to begin with.

Plus they could immediately go and work on Expansions and new Content in general.