Best Of
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
I wish more people can think about it in the way that once investemt is done a reward is the suitable answer, independent of artificial barriers. ;-) Not the equally same reward, but not no reward. That's not respecting the time of the player, which should be highest goal if asking for monthyl payment. Then, a lot of broad content with rewarding systems and entertaining featurs must be offered. You can't provide Netflix with 18 Dollars with only horror movies just because the horror movie fans say they only want horror movies and everybody should watch them accordingly.Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »
A solo player and a casual player are different playertypes or can be different player types.There's gonna be a ton of stuff that solo/casual players can enjoy in the game, as long as they realize that they're solo/casuals, which is not the same as a large group of coordinated players.
Casual usually references to the time quota possible to put into the game. A casual still can be a very good player (with our without a group) and perform well, but perhaps cannot put 10h a day into a computer game. A guild member can be casual, so having not enough time and performing low. This "barrier" between "casual", "solo" and whatever is pointless. And he can do this solo or in group content, as long as the game supports this (if not, it's an issue of the game, not the player) This said, he should be rewarded for this investment, even if it is a different kind of investment, but he definitley should not get nothing or low rewards, as long as he puts in high investment.
I wish more people wouldn't take a game that serious that having elitist and frequent-player behaviour overwhelm a fantasy MMO with lots of potential in modern design, UE5 graphics, combining good old-school features (and leaving out the bad ones based around exclusion and elitism) for different sort of players and entertainment and fun.
Chaliux
3
Re: [EU/DE] Seelensturm ruft! [PvX] Casual
Zumal wir noch nicht abschätzen können inwieweit die Wahl der Rasse das Spiel beeinflussen wird ;-)
Sehr interessant - > eine klare Mehrheit von Spielern die einer bestimmten Rasse wie z.B. Kae'lar, oder Tulnar, oder Dünir oder sonstwem angehören,
können das kulturelle/rassen-abhängige Aussehen der Infrastruktur einer Node prägen.
Wenn z.B. die meisten Spieler die die meisten Quests für die Node abschliessen, die meisten Sachen, Erträge, Erfolge, etc. abschliessen was alles der Node zugute kommt,
- > wenn diese Spieler Dunir-Zwerge sind - dann wird Deine Node wohl das klassiche Zwergen-Aussehen haben.
Vielleicht wird der Einfluss von Spielern die andere Rassen spielen auch ein klein wenig in der Node wiedergespiegelt - aber der Großteil des Aussehens wird wohl immer von der jeweiligen Rasse kommen, deren Spieler/Mitglieder die meisten Quests und so für die Node gemacht haben.
Aszkalon
1
Re: My PvE combat impressions so far: Enemy numbers, enemy type variety and group combat complexity
As the tank wouldn't you dictate how many mob you pull? It seems like your issue is more with the playstyle of the shown players rather than the direction of the game. This is why people are misunderstanding you, because it comes of as a critique of playstyle, pushing for zergier WoW style combat.
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
Very well-put. I hope more people can think like this instead of asking for high rewards for low investment.Find you place, or have fun trying.
There's gonna be a ton of stuff that solo/casual players can enjoy in the game, as long as they realize that they're solo/casuals, which is not the same as a large group of coordinated players.
Ludullu
3
Re: Loot System Changes
Yes, L2 is the only one that I've meaningfuly played.What spies? What will they find out?
If there is a group of 6 man running around and two randoms show up and those 8 players come together, than the 2 players are spies? That's your way of playing and thinking in a MMO?
Would you please mention the MMOs you've played so far? It was only Lineage2, right?
They could be spies for other guilds who'll wait for the opportune moment to remove your party from the boss and end it off quickly, which would let them spend fewer resources on that encounter.
I've experienced this in L2 a lot of times. Guilds would have alts in log-off around important boss respawns, or just send off-guild chars to check on those locations, and if you didn't remove those off-guild characters asap - they'd be relaying information about your progress to the enemy guild.
As I keep saying, owpvp mmos are competitive and in competitions each side does their best to prevent their competitors from winning. So using "seemingly random solos" as spies is just one of the tools that guilds can (and have in the past) use for this.
You can choose not to believe it, just as I choose not to believe that Steven will suddenly do a 180 in his design and try to appeal to the modern preferences of mmo design.So every day, for months and years, those 8 people are online and playing a MMO together. I just had to lough out load a bit ;-)
And as I keep saying. Those small groups and solo players are free to do literally any other content but bosses and dungeons, because that content is targeted towards full groups and raids.There will be plenty of players running around solo, random and in small groups because for the situation/moment there is no raid/guild scaled group online or playing.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/ZergsIn an open world a boss is not meant to be for a XY group, because the game cannot control how many players are in this area, especially not, if it is not instanced. And AoC is only instanced very limited. What you are talking about is only valid for instanced groups/raids, and it's just untrue for open world content, accessible for everyone. The correct game design here is: The boss will scale due to more players fighting against him. As it is in the other MMOs out there, at least the good ones. That's no zerg, that's unavoidable. You must scale the boss, because you always have to consider that there are not only 8 players around, but maybe 20 players.
Bosses will not scale in hp or rewards and will instead have anti-zerg mechanics.
So you just want a yet another change in the game's design. A few more changes and it will stop being Ashes and become "the good modern mmo".
No, my suggestion is "go do literally anything else in this ginormous game, instead of wasting your time on the content that's not meant for you".? You don't have to argue around the status quo everybody knows, it's about adapting loot mechanics and propose different options and choices for the players, which support playing together instead of punsish players that have no group in this certain situation. If players invest their time and actions, they should participate on rewards for progression. Your option is: If they have no group, they should not play and log out. And this is bad game design, becaue it excludes instead of providing choice.
If a group of 40 people came to farm soloable mobs - would they be wasting their time or would it be fine? Because it'd be the same situation as solos coming to party content. There's a reason why certain content is meant for certain audiences. It's to create a difference of gameplay styles and a variety of experiences. Being able to get rewards for any activity while playing solo would completely remove that variety.
This is simply not that kind of game. As I keep saying, if Steven wanted to make that kind of game, he would've shifted design direction back in 2017 when he was told this exact thing by, I'm sure, a ton of people.That's all about. Loot should not be limited. That's a punishment and disrespectful for all million players out there, that want play, want contribute, want fight, but a due to different aspects not in a group (or at this certain moment not grouped). And you simple answer is: It is like it is, whereas me (and others -> wait for the testing phases) try to explain: Change it as long as it is possible to change this. Risk and reward. But if there is no reward..?
Or, hell, he could've changeed it literally at any point in the last 7 years, because even from the 4 years that I've been following the game - every other month there's a thread of "this game is DOA if it's not instanced/if owpvp is not disabled/if rewards are not for everyone/etc etc.
Yet Steven hasn't changed his stance on this, because he doesn't want to make a game like that. And if he does change it towards that - it'd be a spit in the face of everyone who's been following the game for the exact design that's been presented so far.
You, and others, are giving your opinion on how the system should be changed. I'm giving my opinion on why it shouldn't be. Because if I wasn't here giving that opinion, Intrepid wouldn't know that there are still people that want the PROMISED design to be implemented.Not if the system would work different - which is the main core of the discussion. We are not talking about the status quo (why we would need a discussion then?), but about, how to consider and respect the time of the players in a fair way.
I followed this game exactly because of what Steven had promised. I advertised this game to my friends for that exact reason. I've started making content around the game for the same reason. And I give feedback to keep Intrepid to their promise for as long as I can, because I don't want Ashes to turn into yet another wow-clone.
The status quo is the exact thing you're suggesting, because majority expects it by this point. And I don't want that status quo.
As I've said before, it's obvious that you're used to cooperative mmos. I've played a competitive one. Steven played the same one and then decided to get inspired by it and make his own game, which is why I keep saying that the design won't change, unless Steven wants to make a completely different game.Why "should" he? Who is saying this? What if the guild already started something and 5-6 members are coming online later so they run around in the world and facing a random enounter somewhere? Why shouldn't they play this encounter with other groups? Why should the entire guild stop what they are doing to go there, which perhaps need minutes of traveltime until the fight is already over? Why should those 5-6 members join the guild activity if that event (perhaps raid) is at 80% already and the group of 40 players is already full?
Your view on how to play in a MMO in every day meaning sounds really really strange to me. Played 20y+, as I've said, but never had such an experience or discussion.
Owpvp mmos are about player friction. There's gonna be no friction if everyone gets a reward. And if there's no friction - there's no owpvp, at which point it's no longer Ashes (at least as it has been presented so far).
I feel very sorry that you haven't experienced an mmo where a guild is always ready to help you farm something and/or support you in some activity.Ok, so they are all online every time and you always have 50 members free to support ad hoc whatever happens. Okaayyy ;-)
I've been blessed to have played in dozens of guilds of various sizes (from 20 up to alliances of 500) that were always ready to help out and party up for anything.
You ask my why should people play in parties and be in guilds, but then say that the game MUST adapt to others. Why must it? There's enough people out there that want the exact kind of game that Steven has promised. Those people are not in your gaming circles, because it's obvious that we've played in different ones, and I know a ton of people who are very excited for the Ashes that has been promised and not in something else that they can get from other mmos.We will see, whether this will work out. My forecast is: It will not. Things must be adapted to reach a better player base, especially in a pvp game, otherwise you will have some realm/server dominations and small guilds, groups, solo-players ALL will leave in weeks or month after the release. We've seen that in so many other MMOs before, maybe you don't have this experience as your only main experience is Linage 2?
Also, you build your entire argument of "solo players will leave" purely on the basis of "if raids don't reward everyone", all while there's countless other sources of content and rewards in the game. Not everyone is interested only in raids and bosses. Not everyone will be present when bosses are around (which will be the tiniest sliver of time btw). Not everyone will be willing to spend their gear durability and any resources their haev on them just in hopes of getting some random material from a boss, as Azherae pointed out.
All of those people can still enjoy the game in a variety of ways. I've known countless solo players in L2, and that game is way more aggressive about its "you gotta be in a party at all times" design than Ashes will be. So no, I don't agree that Ashes will suddenly die purely because bosses don't reward everyone around them with loot.
This is not true. Anyone who "invested" $40 into Concord can't play it now cause the game failed (now it should be mentioned that they got refunded, but not all failed games do that). The same is true about anyone who preorders games that die super quickly, or subs to services that they stop using within hours of subscription, or any other example of where people waste money on entertainment but do not get entertained.In real life and business, in entertainment and computer games that's of course different. It's a game providing fun, it's no serious real thing. Punishment and exclusion is never better than rewarding and inclusion. That's valid for real life and for gaming.
What you're suggesting amount to the same as existing. A zerg of 300 people can come to a boss, all do a few hits on it, kill it within seconds and all get a reward. That barely constitutes as participation even, let alone an active one. But that's exactly what'll be done if Ashes changes its looting rules, because that would be the optimal thing to do (well, unless that reward is a dull piece of glint and nothing else )They are not existing, they are activly participating but excluded and punished only for one game design reason and design.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Server_prime-timeWhich prime time?
As I said, if there's more than the predetermined amount of people on the boss - the boss goes into anti-zerg mechanics and becomes harder w/o giving more rewards. At that point it's not helping and instead making it worse.It's not siphoning, it's supporting. And there are groups and players out there that understand this, it's your personal setting and bias to mistrust and to exclude other players and mark them as "siphoning randoms". It's a question of attitude and behaviour.
If there's only a set amount of loot from the boss - your additional group of people being there would be directly siphoning loot from my group, because we'd be splitting it amongst us.
If the loot gets multiplied by the amount of people around the boss - imo that will ruin the economy completely. Unless, again, that multiplication only applies to glint. But then I highly doubt that we'll see all that many people joining random raids.
Ashes only need as many players as it takes to pay the devs and for the servers.Thanks for the discussion. altough we are don't have the same opinion how playing a modern MMO, with old-school aspects, in a high fantasy setting, should look like that it is working for a lot of players, and that is what a MMO needs: A lot of players, not only a small hardcore playerbase, especially, because it's monthly sub, so they need players, players and more players.
And I believe it'll easily sustain that amount of players, because it'll be cornering a niche that no other mmo on the market is currently cornering (TL notwithstanding cause it has its own set of problems).
I'm not surprised that you dislike AoC's designs, considering that you haven't played L2 and AA, but both L2 and AA died exactly because their devs fucked up and introduced huge changes to what had been fairly successful games. Steven is attempting to recreate that success w/o the fuckups.
If he succeeds in that - the game will have enough people to pay for the development.
Me and quite a few other people have given feedback that we wanna see a proper pvx encounter on one of the showcases. And Intrepid sure as hell have enough of testers right now to do that, but haven't for some reason. And we're now close enough to A2 that it'd be pointless to wait for that kind of showcase.And it's interesting that the latest gameplay we got to see was: PvE. Dungeons and a world boss encounter, firebrand, because what you want to tell is: There will be 4 guilds around firebrand doing pvp and not pve, and for the developer this showcase easily would have been done like this: Splitting those 40 players in 2 or 3 groups and showing pvp during the encounter fight. Or getting 20 more testers to support this showcase, the one you are talking about the whole time.
I've to state that, for an Alpha, the game looks quite nice, really. I've to state that the pve gameplay was low to middle, it was simple mob-pulling and holy trinity to get the mobs down one after the other. Firebrand was cool, that's true, but nothing we didnt see in several other MMOs pve-wise, mechanic-wise or graphic-wise.
So, if that pvp behaviour is the one, we are looking forward to see a lot of upcoming alpha material to proof that, to see what happens, if large scaled groups just terminate all other players be mass and nothing more so that soloplayers and random players and smaller groups will have no progress but all frustration all over. But, I remember, Steven said, the game should be fun. Well, we will see. I'll give it a try, but if player target audience is like you / players like to and the game will punish and limit instead of reward and entertain, than I will skip it easily (not because I will not play in a guild or group, but I will also play solo depending on the availability and online time, but if there is no meaningful activity beside group-content, it's limiting my entertainment too much), but as (nearly) all other MMOs out there, I'll try, if that could be a meaningful new home base, because New World was a fail, unfortunately, because it had a lot of potential.
As for pve - I've been one of the loudest feedbackers that we need waaaay harder pve in the game, so we agree there. I simply want harder pve that supports the pvx nature of the game, but we've yet to see even just normal hardcore pve, so it's hard to say how far Intrepid can go with their encounter design. I still hold hope that they can make a true pvx game.
Ludullu
2
Re: Loot System Changes
True.„I'm not surprised that you dislike AoC's designs, considering that you haven't played L2 and AA
Well, guess why? That's what MMO players want. Meaningful systems, respecting the time of the player, not designing restrictations and not focussing elitst frequent players and not excluding players out of content, but instead providing meaningful content and systems for them. A game designed around hyper guilds farming all content (and all players) will struggle in the first weeks after release, independent of the nostalgic dreams some players have, because it worked 15 or 20 years in the past. Things change, one must accept that.every other month there's a thread of "this game is DOA if it's not instanced/if owpvp is not disabled/if rewards are not for everyone/etc etc.
Players and markets change. As s company sometimes you need to adapt. Its not clear whether L2 would still live with same popularity if no changes where done. We only know this result.but both L2 and AA died exactly because their devs fucked up and introduced huge changes to what had been fairly successful games.
You think the developers are guilty. Maybe. I think players and markets change.
Mention 3 successful big pvp hardcore MMOs to me that are still running with huge playerbase and are supported fully be the developer (like WoW, GW2 and ESO are).
WoW meanwhile provides both. It adresses old vanilla WoW gameplay (WoW Classic) for fans of time consuming and more group based content and modern WoW gameplay (Retail) with huge QoL features and improvements in solo and small group play to respect player time (same players that are 20y older but still fans). Both is successful, retail even more. Playing with four people (two couples, both mid 40) for 1-2 hours after work from 20-22? No problem, you can play a lot of content with full entertainment (you get your competition in work ;-))
Intrepid not only wants to pay their employees, the are a company and therefore focussed to make profit and maximise it over time. Its naive to feel different. They have a responsibility as employer, thats business, no garage programming.
Thanks for your insights and opinion, we will see, how things will work and what the testers and players will feedback until release - and afterwards. Its good to have a vision, its bad if a huge part of the market doesnt want this vision as reputation and viral communication will cause issues, because frustrated players due to frustrating designs will be loader than everything else - as always. And for MMOs this is crucial.
Chaliux
2
Re: My PvE combat impressions so far: Enemy numbers, enemy type variety and group combat complexity
Some of you still don't seem to get my main point. Yes you can pull singular or multiple mobs.FrootLoopJunkie wrote: »As the tank wouldn't you dictate how many mob you pull? It seems like your issue is more with the playstyle of the shown players rather than the direction of the game. This is why people are misunderstanding you, because it comes of as a critique of playstyle, pushing for zergier WoW style combat.
I want to be forced, at least in group content, to face group of enemies which have variety of roles, just like players in the game have their own classes. What is more interesting, at least on paper? Facing 10 copy pasted melee enemies, all with 2k of HP and the same basic moves, or a varied group of enemies with different roles in a combat engagement, with some variety to their special abilities. Those enemy roles should push players into direction of actually thinking more about who they should focus first, who disable/silence, and use their kit like abilities to cleanse statuses, disel magic to counter play the mobs' special attacks.
We have seen SOME of that, at least on the concept level, in the footage from the citadel, but those groups of enemies usually were 4 enemies max, with 2 melee unites, 1 archer and 1 caster if I remember correctly. Those groups should be bigger, so should the enemy variety and their ability to use abilities in combat (bow barrage, AoEs, charge, heals, DoTs, CCs etc).
Re: So....bagpipes for the Bard class?
Make Dwarves Great Short Again.I think we can all agree this is a must have instrument, particularly for us Dunir.
If it provides any stats or mechanics is optional in my opinion, the astetics matter more.
This could even work as similar cosmetic options, but the current VFX / SFX of bard skills just feel "slightly" too cheerful for a bagpipe troubadour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV94m6t7P_A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwWmcMz0ZVk
Re: Guild taxes
One thing I think we can agree upon is that IF a guild can tax its members the RATE will be adjustable possibly all the way to zero. Because Intrepid has already specificed that Mayor and node based taxes are adjustable it is INCONCIVABLE that they would not likewise do so with any Guild tax system. So people bitching about how they refuse to pay taxes can just join a guild which fits their preference for purely voluntary contributions.
Please proceed with the thread under the basic and obvious assumption without strawmanning of saying you support or oppose guild taxes being a system in the game "IF INTREPID SETS THE RATE AT X%" because their is zero chance Intrepid is going to set some kind of universal rate.
Please proceed with the thread under the basic and obvious assumption without strawmanning of saying you support or oppose guild taxes being a system in the game "IF INTREPID SETS THE RATE AT X%" because their is zero chance Intrepid is going to set some kind of universal rate.
Lodrig
2