Best Of

Flanker wrote: »

Any Lineage player would understand perfectly what I'm talking about above, but there is no way for you to know about such minor, but important details unless someone tells you that.

I completely disagree here, because designing locations as they were designed is the most logical thing to create a situation you described. Strong players fighting over best content, while weaker players still have things to farm.

This is literally the design I've been discussing and promoting on these forums for years now. And it's "a design", because L2 devs knew what they were doing with it.

If literally no one at NCsoft asked in a design meeting "ey bois, what do you think will happen if we only have 3 mobs with this valuable loot? Won't the players fight over that exact spot?" - those devs would've had the worst designers in the industry, cause this shit is the most obvious question to ask. ESPECIALLY considering that the game was a sequel to L1, which was afaik similar in this part of its design, so they would've already had all the social info they needed to create these pvp situations.

So I fully agree with Noaani here.

Flanker wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Oh, so you're saying the L2 developers didn't even know how to develop their game?

Dude, I never said such thing, stop twisting my words and stop making wrong assumptions based on my words.

It isn't twisting words.

People spent a lot of time in L2 (Source; NiKr) at those farming spots. If they were a "happy accident" and the develoeprs didn't intend for that to be the focus of the gameplay, then what did they expect the focus to be?

Like, in y our opinion, since you are the one seemingly saying that it wasn't the developers intention for those spots to be farming spots, what did the L2 developers intend players to do, to fight over?

I'm agreeing with NiKr in saying it was those spots, you are disagreeing with me, so what is it you think the developers intended?

Because otherwise it would end up being another PvE-casual-carebear-friendly-modern-mmo-player-orieted game (we have plenty of those already) and the main reason: because Steven said so during one of the livestreams.

No it wouldn't.

There are games that have PvP somewhat similar to Ashes that don't have this issue.

Your whole point is based on assumption that "we need to eliminate it". We don't, there just has to be a proper balance of Risk vs Reward that can be easily achieved by changing one tiny thing that, apparently, bothers you so much that you ready to change the game's core pillars and Steven's vision.

Who said anything about changing any core pillars?

I think you've made an assumption here that isn't true.

Again.

Flanker wrote: »

One of the reasons of WoW's popularity is the fact that back then it was a solo-player-friendly game that wasn't really THAT hardcore, compared to others including Lineage 2.

Evolution.

Beside that: WoW is hardcore if it wants to be hardcore (or needs to be hardcore), there is content in the game that only few perenctage of the entire world will ever see and play - both PvE- and PvP-wise. But WoW provides also a huge variety and diversity of other content for all player types, and this is why it is that successful still today - because, guess what, the majoritay of gamers are not elitists and unemployed frequent players, and that's why no serious MMO designs a game around that player base, but around the majority of the other player types which carry the game and ensure that several linked systems are running smoothly.

And that hp bars and chats are not the reason is fully clear for everybody I guess.
But it's also important to record: Just because there is one game without providing hp information does not mean that that's the needed or good solution, right? It can be done like this, it obviously mustn't be done like this, as (quite all) other MMOs show. Or is there even a second MMO where health bars are not shown?
And are there MMOs out there where you cannot toggle your chat-channels to you personal wish? I don't know one. This option can be implemented in an easy way and it provides the players choice - and thats what matters. Player choice.

You know the phrase: Exceptions prove the rule. L2 seems to be the (one time / one hit wonder) exception, several other MMOs are the rule.
Do you agree?

Flanker wrote: »

So to summarize, calling you out on:

> Talking about the game you know nothing about;
> Suggesting things that fit your personal preferences instead of them being good for overall game's longevity;
> Misrepresenting facts and intentional twisting of words;
> Making false statements based on thin air;
> Using manipulations;
> Using arguments with obvious logical fallacies;
> Jumping from one topic to another the moment when you get cornered?
> Etc.

Sure, you called me on them, but you didn't back that up with anything.

Noaani wrote: »

L2 was a specific game that was in part a product of it's time in terms of technology, and in part a product of the industry still figuring out how an MMORPG should be. He liked the game a lot and so has something of rose tinted glasses when looking at it (understandable), but he gets it..

If I'm not wrong, L2 and WoW both started quite at the same time (end of 2003 / beginning of 2004 (valid for EU Release in WoW -> my start).

So, you can assume, that there where like two fully different mentalities and attitudes of player types starting those two different MMOs. Today we know, from history, what happend with both games. One is releasing Addon after Addon (now with an entire new trilogy) + revivial of the "old" gameplay (WoW Classic) and the other MMO is quite dead (obviously because of bad developer decisions, whatever - I'm conviced it's not only that, but nobody wants to discuss that).

WoW (or GW2, or ESO, or ...) players and L2 (or AA?, or ...?) players will only find few similarities for some mechanics and features.

I've really played a lot of MMOs. And I know a lot of people from my country/region (EU), some US, that play "this" kind of MMOs. I don't know ONE player that played Lineage2. So, it's seems to be, I really don't know, a topic about culture (??? - no offense meant! Just thinking loud) mentality, attitude and behaviour why somebody plays WoW-like games or somebody playes L2-like games. In both you have pvp (played for years on permanent pvp-servers, so do not tell my something about 100% pvp uptime at every second of playing) and hundrets of features. WoW did a huge evolution during the years, still beating most of all the other MMOs in between, as the create or copy with excellence and highest production quality. WoW is different to 2004. Yes, it is. Not WoW classic, but retail. That's the success story. Players changed, so the game changed accordingly. Once you adept a bit (GW2, ESO) you can be very successful although there is a top dog like WoW still running around since over two decades. Just listen to the market and take existing features to a next level.

Ashes wants to address different types of players. Casuals, frequent players/elitist. Also (quite a bit) for lonewolfs, but ofc for groups/guilds (a lonewolf can be a group player, but perhaps not every day). Ashes wants to combine sandbox (L2?...?) and themepark (WoW ofc, a lot of others). Why? Because it attracts a bigger player base and that's needed for all those systems running smoothly all together. You see what is happening with sandbox MMOs usually? The sandbox is quite empty only some month after release. I'm convinced Steve did a good decision to combine themepark and sandbox elements. And Ashes will do good if it addresses content to different player types, not only the "WoW-players" and not only the "L2-players", both is way too "stereotypical". There is "no need" for a huge themepark MMO? Sure, that's probably right. But do not underestimate the player base that wants to play themepark elements but only doesnt want to play them again in games that are 20 years existing/old. Because in this games the already reached everything or most of it, they know those games by heart, every stone, every dungeon, (quite) everything. So it's the donging and huge desire to find a new home base MMO, and if it takes a serious approach combining market needs it will be succesful and fun. If it will limit itself to a special player base and limit itself out of the market the 10k realms will be empty within the first year after the release.

My take, based on EQ2 and Archeage primarily, is that unless the gameplay loop involved in transporting and stocking various markets remains enjoyable to enough players for the duration of the game, then serverwide markets are a must (though not necessarily at launch).

The market in an MMORPG shouldn't necessarily be a source of a gameplay loop ain and of itself, as it is a tool used by basically every gameplay loop in the game in question. People going out killing need it, people questing need it, people decorating homes need it, people crafting need it.

If a game has regional markets and the gameplay loop of stocking them with materials that region doesn't naturally produce ceases to be enjoyable to enough people, then the entire game will suffer.

As to gamewide markets, they have their place.

Archeages market was kind of interesting. It was faction only, but you were looking at products across three servers. This meant you were all but guaranteed to find even the most random of items, but it also meant no one could really corner any given market (the game didn't attract guilds large enough to dominate three servers at once).

So, to me, like all game design decision, it kind of depends on the rest of your game. Ashes may well have an enjoyable enough gameplay loop to keep many regional markets stocked, in which case that may work for it. However, if it turns out that this loop isn't as enjoyable as was hoped, keeping the games market functioning properly should come before keeping that gameplay loop in the game.

Ashes is not an action based MMO; therefore, if you want to play an action MMO I may suggest NW

Flanker wrote: »

Let's take a look at the next factor - some of those games (might be all of them actually) already exist for years or many years (WoW, for example). It would be fair to take into account the fact that in WoW the approach to leveling could have changed over time, so that players who didn't play it for past 15 years could still join it, wouldn't it?

That is absolutely true in some cases.

However, finding information on what these games were like at release is now much harder.

What I can say is that it took people that knew what they were doing around 60 hours to level to the cap in WoW after release, and Archeage was still only about 20 hours.

People that didnt know what they were doing - or were purposefully not in a rush - could spend hundreds of hours leveling in either game. However, the comment from Steven was not that players "could spend" 200+ hours leveling up in Ashes, it was that is what they expect at the minimum end.

Regardless of how you look at it, 200+ hours to max level is actually huge. It already means that people not actually dedicated to Ashes as their primary (or only) game will never hit the level cap. It already means the population at the level cap will be smaller than it should. It is already a liability to the game.

It is worth pointing out that while the initial time to the level cap may have been reduced in these games, that is because that is what the developers saw to be the best options. That then leaves the question - why not start the game in this manner? When Ashes releases, it won't be competing with these games as they were at the cap, it will be competing with these games as they are at the time.

As an additional point, even with ESO's fairly short time to the level cap, on the XBox version (the only one we have these statistics) only 6% of all accounts had managed to get a character to the level cap - yet the bulk of in game time is still on max level characters. People just couldn't be bothered leveling.

Edit to add; that number is from 2 years ago, I do not have numbers for today - however, that is still after about 12 months of the XBox version of the game being live. It took 5 casual days of playing to hit the cap, and that was too much for 94% of players.

Flanker wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

That is a strange list of top 10 MMORPG's.

Some of those games aren't even considered MMORPG's by their developers. Others of them wouldn't even be in the top 20.

I said I just took them from the first google search results. Whatever, pick yours, I don't care

I'll pick 6 games. Three of them are probably the most popular MMORPG's in the NA/EU region over the last 10 years, the other three are PvP focused MMORPG's that have been reasonably popular in the NA/EU region. It is worth pointing out that since Intrepid is mostly aimed at this region, it isn't worth the time or effort to even consider any other region, as gamers from every region are different for various reasons, so only looking at the region Intrepid is looking at simply makes sense.

Anyway, those 6 games, with their current time expected to max level, are;

WoW - 20 hours
ESO - 10 hours (have seen claims of 5, but don't know anyone personally that has done this)
GW2 - 0 hours (game comes with auto boost)
Archeage - 10 hours
BDO - 15 hours
Albion - 20 hours

So, with Ashes being set at around 225 hours, it is already well and truely long enough - which has been my entire point. You could level a character to the cap three times over in all 6 of the above games in that same 225 hours that it takes to get one in Ashes.

Edit to add; The above information is all either first hand knowledge of the game, second hand knowledge from someone that has leveled a character in the game in the last 18 months, or failing that, information from a leveling service which is the most reliable source for this information I can think of (they need to tell people how long the service needs access to their account, and if they take too long, people may start doing chargebacks and such).

Azherae wrote: »

I doubt this will help anything but eh, why not...

Yet another proof that having all our active abilities by lvl25 would be real nice. And a proof that the cross-lvl interactions that I keep bringing up would be a nice addition as well