Best Of
Re: Hard cap for Node citizens count
Soft caps are always superior for a game like Ashes because it is consistent with the feeling of player agency the game is built around as a foundational game design concept. Just like there is a 'soft cap' on player behavior via the corruption system rather than flagging for pvp.
"Soft caps are always superior for a game like Ashes" is a bold statement.
It all depends on what the soft/hard cap tries to achieve. By the always pvp enabled with soft cap of corruption - the goal is to make the world more alive. Focus on the Risk vs Reward in the game where you can always be killed. Increase the player vs player interactions in the world. Spread out the population, so if 1 group is in some farming spot, they always have the option to kill another group there so they dont steal their farm if they accept the risk of corruption.
In the other hand, for Citizenship count - soft cap does the opposite of all the above.
* It incentivize players grouping in 1 node instead of spreading to different nodes
* Lowers the Risk Vs Reward, because when most players are grouped in 1 node, there is no risk that other node will vassal your node. No risk of siege wars to demolish your node, no risks of node wars to steal your resources
* It reduce player vs player interactions in node level, since you dont need allies in neighboring nodes.
* The population is in focused in 1 place instead of spreading. I would much rather prefer all nodes to have citizens, instead of having more than half of all nodes in the world being empty.
And all of this is achieved by putting hard cap.
You can achieve all of that with soft caps. It isn't a vacuum. Resources require significant time, risk and travel. Scaling up resource requirements increases player agency while also presenting a 'problem' to solve that involves game play and decision making. Higher resource requirements require more committed activity that have diminishing returns of utility. Just have good econ design and this 'problem' you predict is solved. No hard cap need apply.
This fantasy of the 'most extreme' you are coming up with of 'everyone is going to pile into one node if it is soft instead of hard cap' is a strawman and irrelevant to my claim about how soft caps fit Ashes design principles better.
JustVine
1
Re: FUN vs. Chore?
Why not STEAL something that is very popular in other games.
The system you are talking about is literally stolen from Archeage. It was very popular there, it was considered one of that games top three features by basically everyone that played the game.
The things you are talking about all suffer from the issue of being limited time. The vast majority of activities in an MMORPG need to be things players can do on their time, not when they are told they can do them.
Bro do you just spend every day hating on any feedback ever posted on the forums
Nope.
Only the stuff I happen to come across that has obvious faults.
I'm not saying the OP's idea doesn't have some merit, I am just pointing out the pitfalls with it. If they want to rework it to remove those pitfalls, great. If they don't want to do that, this is also fine.
It really isn't my fault if the bulk of community ideas are unworkable as initially presented.
Noaani
1
Re: FUN vs. Chore?
Why not STEAL something that is very popular in other games.
The system you are talking about is literally stolen from Archeage. It was very popular there, it was considered one of that games top three features by basically everyone that played the game.
The things you are talking about all suffer from the issue of being limited time. The vast majority of activities in an MMORPG need to be things players can do on their time, not when they are told they can do them.
Bro do you just spend every day hating on any feedback ever posted on the forums
Chicago
2
Re: FUN vs. Chore?
Why not STEAL something that is very popular in other games.
The system you are talking about is literally stolen from Archeage. It was very popular there, it was considered one of that games top three features by basically everyone that played the game.
The things you are talking about all suffer from the issue of being limited time. The vast majority of activities in an MMORPG need to be things players can do on their time, not when they are told they can do them.
Noaani
2
Re: Steven, Please Rethink “Not for Everyone”
WoW is perfect as is: 3 different server types. Which is why it's lasted so long on the top.
But, yeah... I consider the Ashes servers to basically be like playing one a WoW PvP server.
Which is also why I consider Ashes to be a PvP-centric game, despite Steven labeling that as PvX.
"Not for everyone" really means Ashes is not for people who enjoy WoW/EQ/EQ2 but refuse to play on the PvP servers.
But, yeah... I consider the Ashes servers to basically be like playing one a WoW PvP server.
Which is also why I consider Ashes to be a PvP-centric game, despite Steven labeling that as PvX.
"Not for everyone" really means Ashes is not for people who enjoy WoW/EQ/EQ2 but refuse to play on the PvP servers.
Dygz
1
Re: Hard cap for Node citizens count
Soft caps are always superior for a game like Ashes because it is consistent with the feeling of player agency the game is built around as a foundational game design concept. Just like there is a 'soft cap' on player behavior via the corruption system rather than flagging for pvp.
JustVine
1
Re: Hard cap for Node citizens count
I agree that this would probably be better for balance, but I also think it would lead to a lot more negative behaviour and the type of friction that isn't necessarily good for the game.
So I'm not opposed to it, I just expect it to cause things I don't like. If they find a way to avoid those, no problem to me.
So I'm not opposed to it, I just expect it to cause things I don't like. If they find a way to avoid those, no problem to me.
Azherae
1
Re: First impression
sounds like some in here are disappointed in the lack of progress Intrepid's made. I actually wouldn't disagree with you.
but my point (and I'm surprised this needs to be clarified) is if you're comparing an alpha state game where the content and systems have yet to be fully implemented with the beta of another that's nearly feature-complete and your conclusion is: "the beta game has more polish" you've added nothing meaningful to the conversation and showing you don't understand game development.
the beta period is literally for applying and finalizing the polish you're pointing out is absent
but my point (and I'm surprised this needs to be clarified) is if you're comparing an alpha state game where the content and systems have yet to be fully implemented with the beta of another that's nearly feature-complete and your conclusion is: "the beta game has more polish" you've added nothing meaningful to the conversation and showing you don't understand game development.
the beta period is literally for applying and finalizing the polish you're pointing out is absent
Re: First impression
Currently I believe they're hurdling through Alpha phases based on a pre-determined time line but aren't actually hitting thr milestones required that they set for themselves to advance phases. The phases aren't that meaningful if the objectives aren't achieved the phases advance as if they were. I wouldn't expect a meaningfully different testing experience for maybe a year or longer.
