Best Of

Laetitian wrote: »

No, I don't, I don't play the alpha, and I don't follow videos and streams closely enough to have in-depth insight into what feels rewarding in the alpha yet. I am responding to community input on social media.

I wouldn't be surprised if the answer to your request is: nothing. But that's been my point - Even that would not mean that anything should change about the underlying system. You shouldn't expect to feel fulfilled by sytems of an alpha that are meant to be fun in the context of a greater experience where they serve a purpose to help you fulfil long-term goals.

I'm surprised to see someone who hasn't even played the game feel entitled to nullify my experience as a new player. You can agree with the idea of how a system should work, or specifically how it challenges the community. When I listen to Steve and hear his ideologies about the difficulty and how important crafting should be to the game, I agree. Playing and experiencing it is different. There are very few people in this world wealthy enough to ignore the monetary value of 40-hours. If I can make a paycheck in those 40 hours but I can't craft a single item, no matter how small it may be, there is a problem.

Ludullu wrote: »

I'd be all for adding arenas, but here's Steven's response to me literally asking for them

Oh wow, thanks, that is literally as clear as it gets.

So yeah, Steven just shifted to 'standard' Korean PvP MMO style.

(Note, I am not complaining about this from the 'is this.... gameplay?' standpoint or whether or not it can be good, I'm not complaining at all, I just already have a game for this stuff so it's surprising to me).

I guess Nebula Island respawns are probably easier than Turquoise Sea respawns, but it will depend on implementation.

MargaretKrohn wrote: »

The phrase “not for everyone” has definitely sparked a range of perspectives, and that’s a good thing.

What’s one feature or system you think could help bridge the gap between hardcore and casual players without compromising the game’s vision?

Thanks again for being here and sharing your thoughts—we’ll be watching this thread and others like it with interest (and possibly snacks). 😄

.

Hey Margret!

Thank you for taking the time to participate in these discussion, the extra effort doesn’t go unnoticed.

Ash’s has a lot stacked against it. Extra long leveling grinds, outdated death mechanics the industry moved on from years ago, not having a solo friendly gathering system, and the ability to have everything you own taken from you with a siege, and almost always on PVP.

Personally I think Ash’s can bring the gap in a few ways that don’t disrupt the pillars. Number 1, making solo play more rewarding and viable. Having a good questing system (RuneScape is a great example), making crafting feel achievable as a solo player and not a whole guild activity, and easing some of the early game hardships to encourage players to take that journey so they’re already invested once they get to max level and they have to deal with the games less avoidable PVP.

In short, I think Ash’s should care less about the risk versus reward starting at the beginning of the game, and more about the real meat towards mid and end game. That’s where the risk reward actually becomes fun and compelling.

Ash’s is a game that needs to have a thriving player base make it to the end game for it to really shine. Massive earth altering battles, constantly evolving alliances & politics are amazing ideas but if the average player ops out before they get their, that’s huge opportunity lost. The game revolves around risk VS reward and I think that’s awesome, but the current penalties are simply unfun.

When you die in ashes you have to deal with stat dampening, at least 25% permanent item loss, above average travel times, and XP debt.

I encourage you to rethink these compounding affects. They don’t offer fun challenge, which is challenge that’s feels good to overcome, they offer frustering obstacles that decrease the risk and fun players will attempt.

At the end of the day, all video game punishments serve as a time waster for the player experiencing it. You have 4 different time wasters stacked on top of one another. A casual player will look at that and go wow, this game doesn’t respect my time and that’s the problem. Games can be non casual and still value your time. I think any souls game is a wonderful example.

I’m also not saying don’t get rid of punishments on death, just rethink how how many you have and their intensity.

You will also get the a few hardcore dad gamers left from the old days who think this is still good game design and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Think to yourselves, will the game be more fun for your extra hardcore players if they have a healthier ecosystem of casual players to make it to the end game to flush out those extra battles, or will your hardcore player base have more fun with a needlessly smaller player count and extra time wasted every time they die.

I can't be sure if the issue you have with understanding the reaction is because you don't enjoy/understand crafting yourself...

'Long term purpose' isn't the point. Serving a long term goal isn't the point. Artisanship is supposed to be fun in and of itself and it can be judged on it that way. If you view it as a primarily competitive activity, it's impossible to get a result that is appealing to anyone except those who 'just drudge through it so that their group can be competitive', which is certainly a design option, but not the one that has been pitched so far afaik.

But more importantly, the part that matters to the concept of changing it, is related to 'why is it so unpleasant in the first place?'

Some amount of effort, however tiny, had to be put into coming up with the recipes we have in game now, for testing, and for setting temporary incentives for players. The issue is that what we have is so unappealing that it comes off as purposeful.

It looks and feels like someone did work to try to make it good without understanding it. (or did work to explicitly try to make it bad).

But, again, if you view Artisanship as 'a thing that someone is assigned to do for the sake of competing' and therefore they shouldn't seek for it to be an innately rewarding experience, especially if you think this design type is normal or good for the game, that's why you don't understand the requests for changes. At that point it would make sense for you to say 'the game would be hurt by changes' because you'd essentially want the Artisanship to be less fun on purpose to keep people out of it.

Note though, that this isn't necessary. The game forces specialization, and more importantly, the only thing these games need is a structure where available time/resources is the limit. Granted, Steven has already said 'I hate and don't want the system that's normally used for this', but even then, that system was only vital because of the economy type of the games he's familiar with.

Laetitian wrote: »

ShaggyRyn wrote: »

I’m all for making the game tough but it can’t have friction in everything you do or it just isn’t fun anymore it’s work.

If you don't enjoy this voluntary work in your pastime, have you considered...just not doing the work? And focusing on the parts of the game that you care about instead?

I really enjoy crafting systems, and I think once I truly understand this one, I’ll probably love it. I’m not asking for things to be easy—make it hard, make it meaningful. But after 40 hours of grinding, even if the reward isn’t amazing, let me walk away with something. Give me a little money, some grey gear, a health potion—heck, a slab of Grem Butt BBQ. Anything that shows my time wasn’t wasted. That kind of small win gets me invested. It encourages me to keep learning the system instead of avoiding a core part of the game that I’d normally dive headfirst into.

Are there any recommendations on what I should harvest, process, and create that you think displays the crafting system well? I'd love to try again this week.

So, if I log back into a zone I camped out of a few days earlier, that has since turned Lawless, does this mean I have to fight my out to leave? Should there be a "Get out of Dodge fast" option?

Edit: Not to derail from the original topic but just following the stream of consciousness of this thread....

Ludullu wrote: »

The problem here is that these zones become the most valuable, because Steven thinks that somehow the pvpers who go there have a higher risk to their gameplay, even though, as you yourself say, they don't even care about the pve which is supposed to be the higher reward in this context.

This is why I want systems that make the entire world have way more pvp, instead of just a few zones only made for pvpers.


... except for some peculiar reason we're getting way more pvp-related changes rather than pve-related ones, which, to me, simply screams that Steven only cares about appeasing the pvpers that are in his ears constantly.

Also, it's real funny that you say pvers are entitled, while pvpers start crying like babies the second a few lawless zones got removed I've seen waaaay more complaining from pvpers about "waaah, there's no way for me to kill people w/o penalties" than complaints from pvers about shitty pve. Mostly because pvers said that at the start, saw that things wouldn't change all that fast and left to do better things while they wait, exactly because they're not entitled to keep crying to Steven to add THEIR content first.

If there is more "valuable" rewards in there i assume that is indeed intended to whom likes that type of content then, and they (pvpers) get exactly what they want which is pvp at will...(i feel because you are unhappy, the others must as well not have fun because you say so).
You said well few zones dont know why it bothers you so much, while pretty much the rest of the world is pve based.
Yes i can say that by already backup experience, oh and the only pvp system (so far existing, because even caravans people avoid to do go figure why...) getting removed oh yes that one. And i've seem the same amount if not more usually is always more of pvers on a constant complaining about everything and anything, even when the matter isnt really related to them (cough pvp).

Ludullu wrote: »

1. PvPers come into A2
2. They get a handout in the form of land lawless zones, which are presented as "a way to test player behavior in the open seas w/o having seas" (except gameplay on land and at sea are completely different, so this was already a bad approach)
3. PvPers see that all the other PvP systems are not finished
4. PvPers exploit unfinished mechanics to bully people (mostly leashing and CCs against greens)
5. PvPers use unfinished war design to abuse absence of city guards around storage
6. Intrepid have to address this
7. PvPers abuse bad guard AI around ember springs and node to keep killing people w/o proper punishment
8. Intrepid have to address this
9. PvPers overabuse wardecs and war rewards
10. Intrepid have to address this
11. More lawless zones get added to distract PvPers from abusing the little amount of non-pvpers left in the game
12. PvPers start complaining that caravans can be exploited by crashing the game, so a 1-2 group of attackers can't kill it in time
13. Intrepid have to address this
14. Ships get added waaay ahead of schedule do add more pvp
15. Lawless zones get removed cause the game is growing
16. PvPers complain that their ffa PvP is now gone
17. Intrepid have to address this
18. *We are currently here

Also, which one of those groups have created way more needless work for Intrepid through their complaining? Half of the pvp list shouldn't even have been in the current version of the game ffs.

Needless work!? interesting choice of words... and yet you say 'yes it is an alpha' but im not quite sure you really know or understand what that means after all. Also its crucial for Intrepid to keep pvpers interested/around, without them game will be dead on arrival have no doubts (most mmos stopped caring/ (neglected) about the pvp aspects of the game or the pvpers long ago, hence why the dire state of most of them nowadays).