Best Of
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
AirborneBerserker wrote: »NoaaniAirborneBerserker wrote: »But for the sake of argument let's assume that 100% of people will be in guilds at launch. And lets assume that 5 million people (which would be a wildly high number) buy the game on or before launch. And lets assume the game runs for 10 years which means for 9.5 years people will be joining the game after the majority of people are max level. What percentage of players do you think that 9.5 years of growth amount to?
In other words do you think in 9.5 years you would get another 5 million people playing the game and if so that would be 50% of the player base being solo players for most if not all of their leveling experience.
When you basically type "assumption, assumption, assumption, question", you kind of can't expect the question to be taken seriously.
My actual answer to your question is that I do not expect Ashes to be live for 10 years, so your question isn't something that I can answer. If you rephrase it in a way where you aren't making layered assumptions leading in to a question, I could attempt to answer it. However, in the above form, it is not a question that can be answered.
I will also point out that your rephrasing of the question in your post above is actually a different question. In that post, you are only talking about people playing during their leveling up process. MMORPG's that have published play time statistics all have around 90% of all online time in their game being on characters at the current level cap, so the leveling process only makes up 10% of total play time - meaning even if 50% of players leveling up were unguilded, that only makes on 5% of total play time for the game as a whole.
Now it's your turn to tell me the games you were talking about where 50%+ players play the game unguilded.
Not start the game unguilded, where 50%+ are unguilded.
Noaani
3
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
I don't understand what any of that has to do with growing the game, but...AirborneBerserker wrote: »But for the sake of argument let's assume that 100% of people will be in guilds at launch. And lets assume that 5 million people (which would be a wildly high number) buy the game on or before launch. And lets assume the game runs for 10 years which means for 9.5 years people will be joining the game after the majority of people are max level. What percentage of players do you think that 9.5 years of growth amount to?
I expect the vast majority of Ashes players will belong to a Guild.
People in Guilds still Adventure Solo, at least sometimes, rather than only Adventuring in a Group.
I'm not expecting Ashes to have better numbers than Albion.
The longer Ashes takes to release, the fewer people will play it. Because there will be plenty of other games to play. Especially for PvEers and Casual-Challenge players and Casual-Time players... and Soloers (people who mostly Adventure without joining a Group).
Dygz
1
Re: Steven's response to secondary archetypes
If I understand what you wrote above...True a Cleric can never be a replacement for a base class rogue. Much like a Rogue \ Cleric could never play group healer. But secondary archetypes can also change a skill to something else. Steven said as much. I could see Cleric \ Rogue even getting stealth of some type. Maybe even some damage improvements. And a Rogue \ Cleric could also do some backup heals in some way. And to his point a Cleric \ Rogue could spec deep enough that their heal spells could suffer being a main healer but could be a fun class to run with some rangers and rogues in some stealth missions.
(Keep in mind that Secondary Archetypes do not provide brand new Active Skills - I think "change into something else" is paraphrase that could be a bit misleading depending on what, exactly, that is intended to mean.)
I think I said all that...
Dygz
1
Re: Loot System Changes
You do realize that the raid number of 40 is static, right? So even if your suggestion was implemented, people would still bring 200 people to defend their loot, but they'd still only get loot for the 40.But I was talking about the current setup supporting zerging, because there is no change in the reward structure whether you have 40 people or 200 people. Currently it’s always better to bring as many people as you possibly can, because equipment gain is a static value.
Nothing changes in this regard. This is one of the examples Steven used for "zerging won't really work in Ashes". Rewards are limited so bringing more people to a boss farm would mean that you've ultimately wasted their time, cause they could've been farming something else in the meantime.
Except in your suggestion people would 100% bring more people to defend their loot, cause now all 40 raiders would be getting something. So, if anything, it's your suggestion that's promoting zerging, cause there's obviously more reward in it than in the current design.
Ludullu
1
Re: Loot System Changes
Can't be trusted in what way? If the guild gatheres all the loot but never distributes it fairly - they'd get the same bad rep as a guild that had everyone get 1 item, but then kicked anyone who didn't give up that item later.They will, but better the game not bolster their ability to be scumbags. Also, in this scenario, a guild’s bad reputation actually does have consequences. They won’t have people giving up any drops when they show they can’t be trusted.
In both cases the guild will be known as a shit one and the GL will be known as a dick who shouldn't be followed. I've seen this countless times in my 12 years of playing with the looting system of "GL picks everything up and then shares it".
But you already made the choice. You chose which guild you joined. If you didn't look into their rep - that's on you making a bad choice, not on the guild and their members.Of course plenty of players enjoy contributing when they feel like a part of the group, but that is something that has to be done of their own choice, not because their charity is by default mandated by the game.
We already have a really wide variety of looting rules, so I'm sure there's gonna be dozens of guilds per each rule, so people will simply need to find the one that suits them.
Except we don't have that choice in nodes, while we do have that choice in guilds. Hell, if you're charismatic enough, you can even change a guild's behavior. While you can't do shit about your node being a vassal, unless you're willing to completely leave it for, potentially, weeks, in hopes of its parent decaying and the node growing in lvl (somehow ).Edit: This is the same general logic behind you wanting to be able to seige a parent node, player choice over game-mandated behavior.
Ludullu
1
Re: Divine nodes: "Mega Catacomb" Dungeon. Will the Catacombs Be PVX or pure PVE?
Most likely PvX.
Dygz
3
Divine nodes: "Mega Catacomb" Dungeon. Will the Catacombs Be PVX or pure PVE?
I'm loving the Divine node system. Digging down below the metropolis into a catacomb system. This catacomb system will potentially link you to the vassal nodes. I was wondering about the Catacomb dungeons however. Will they be PVP or PVE? Will they be instanced? These are just a couple questions I have on this topic.
Re: Steven's response to secondary archetypes
There's always gamers who claim there is a META.
To me,
it looks like the ONLY META that exists in Ashes of Creation will be - > that there will hardly be any META at all. Alone from the fact that Eight whole Classes can choose various, different Secondary Archetypes.
What for a wonderful, beautiful System. Very flexible and fresh every single time.
Aszkalon
1
Re: Steven's response to secondary archetypes
George_Black wrote: »Hutchy1989 wrote: »Theres always going to be a meta. Having less options is certainly not going to fix that.
How is 15-20 properpy fleshed out, solid and unique classes, with matching animations and ability schemes, as well as non combat functions and boons, with each class specializing in 2 to 4 weapons (let's take the extremes, mage 2 and fighter 4 weapons) "less options"?
They are true options with lots to choose from.
You think this so called customization of the 64 classes and unrestricted weapon/skill usage will offer you true freedom of choice?
You wont have a choice when the majority of the classes like cleric/rogue and ranger/tank and fighter/summoner lose to those that make sense.
You wont have choice when you realise that yes you can slot any weapon you want but they wont matter. There is no plan in this design. Only a vision in potential.
Not to mention that the animations will be lack luster to make it so that all weapon usage barely fits with the abilities, making most of them looking unsatisfying.
I actually disagree with this and there has been proof to why you are wrong in games like Ragnarok Online pre-transcendent classes.
Did certain classes have skills that gave them bonuses to use some weapons over others? Yes. But it did not mean you could not put together a viable build taking another route. There were plenty of successful thief class players, who wanted a mix of magic or to use a bow that chose the Rogue class over Assaasian. As a result you had a class which did something very good skill wise (providing debuffs), that mixed in with the theme of the original class (hiding, sneaking, stalking, backstab damage) as well as opened up a number of opportunities to explore other play styles. Stalkers could be magic users who were int based, yet still be viable with core mechanics of the class. They could go bow based and be formidable at medium range. They could play traditionally with a dagger and shield and it never overpowered the other play styles. With just one class, you had 3-4 play styles to choose from. If you account for the overall tree, we're talking about nearly 10 just from 1 starting class. I don't see it being impossible in the modern day for Ashes to be able to achieve that with sub classes. If a game like Ragnaork Online could do it back then with matching animations per skill, it's really not impossible.
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
Not every player who has a preference for solo gameplay is as much of a sour grape as you.AirborneBerserker wrote: »
Many of those 70% might enjoy the playstyle of WoW, or whatever other solo-friendly MMO, for now, because it's what has worked so far - but would be perfectly willing to adjust their expectations and behaviours in order to fit into a game where the priorities and demands are different, and change the way they play, if they find that this new gameplay loop is also enjoyable.
As for the rest, yes.
Yes, it is a fantastic idea to tell them to pass on this game.
All the reasons why WoW is such a boring soulless themepark filled with dailies and grind quests and arenas instead of anything of substance can be traced back to its attempt of appealing to everyone:
Where comfort and convenience are cranked up to the max.
And where communication and finding people whose playstyles you agree with is entirely optional, and grouping is streamlined without any social interaction required.
Ashes doesn't make this mistake.
Ashes is for players who are willing to combine PvP and PvE challenges,
who are willing to compete for high rewards at high risks and accept the setback when other players beat them to the objective,
and who care about building a world where their contribution alters the way the world looks, and what happens in it.
The rest can go play WoW, FFXIV and ESO, instead of disappointing themselves with something that wasn't made to appeal to their demands for a soloplay themepark LFG lobby.