Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Daily Quests: A Different Take.
The general consensus on these forums is that traditional dailies are
bad as they become repetitive chores. I completely agree with that
assessment, as I stated in the thread started by @Solarion about Daily
Quests/Log-in Rewards:
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/33123/i-agree-with-steven-daily-quests-log-in-rewards-often-become-chores#latest
But what if we change the concept of Daily Quests to make them more suitable for the dynamic and changing world of Ashes?
The following is what I think could be an interesting system:
Daily, weekly and even montlhy quests should be of two kinds: Individual and public. They would work as standard MMO quests except for the fact that they can be completed only once per reset by the first player/s who meet the requirements. After a quest has been completed for the first time, it becomes unavailable to other players until it resets, a day, a week, or a month later. Basically, only 1 player can complete an individual daily (weekly, monthly) quest, and only a preset number of players can complete a public daily (weekly, montlhy) quest.
Let me provide a simple example: A NPC baker has run out of flour and cannot bake any more bread. He will offer a reward to the first player who provides the flour. But once he has everything he needs, he goes back to work to actually make the bread. He will not accept any more flour from other players as he does not have any use for it... until the quest resets and another player can complete it.
Public dailies would work exactly the same way but requiring more people to complete them. Let's say a Guard Officer needs volunteers to patrol the city gates. Players pick up the quest and go on patrol. After the Officer receives reports from all the gates, the quest becomes unavailable until the next reset. Those players who were on the quest but did not make it in time to report to the NPC will simply see the quest marked as failed so that they can abandon it.
I think this system might have some pros:
1) It would incentivize exploration, especially because NPC quest-givers won't have huge exclamation marks over their head. Quests might be hidden in a tavern just around the corner, but even in a remote forest miles away from your freehold;
2) It would make the world more lively. Players will want to interact with NPC's, even with those they see every day in town. Who knows who might make you an offer you can't refuse?
3) It would give players a sense of change in the world. NPCs which have never talked to them before, or maybe were even unfriendly or rude to them, now suddenly are asking those same players for help;
4) It would provide players with the only good thing traditional daily quests offer: A reson to log in even for a 5-minute long session;
5) There would be achievements tied to these quests, for the joy of completionists.
I hope you guys can offer comments, constructive criticism and ideas. Thank you all for reading.
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/33123/i-agree-with-steven-daily-quests-log-in-rewards-often-become-chores#latest
But what if we change the concept of Daily Quests to make them more suitable for the dynamic and changing world of Ashes?
The following is what I think could be an interesting system:
Daily, weekly and even montlhy quests should be of two kinds: Individual and public. They would work as standard MMO quests except for the fact that they can be completed only once per reset by the first player/s who meet the requirements. After a quest has been completed for the first time, it becomes unavailable to other players until it resets, a day, a week, or a month later. Basically, only 1 player can complete an individual daily (weekly, monthly) quest, and only a preset number of players can complete a public daily (weekly, montlhy) quest.
Let me provide a simple example: A NPC baker has run out of flour and cannot bake any more bread. He will offer a reward to the first player who provides the flour. But once he has everything he needs, he goes back to work to actually make the bread. He will not accept any more flour from other players as he does not have any use for it... until the quest resets and another player can complete it.
Public dailies would work exactly the same way but requiring more people to complete them. Let's say a Guard Officer needs volunteers to patrol the city gates. Players pick up the quest and go on patrol. After the Officer receives reports from all the gates, the quest becomes unavailable until the next reset. Those players who were on the quest but did not make it in time to report to the NPC will simply see the quest marked as failed so that they can abandon it.
I think this system might have some pros:
1) It would incentivize exploration, especially because NPC quest-givers won't have huge exclamation marks over their head. Quests might be hidden in a tavern just around the corner, but even in a remote forest miles away from your freehold;
2) It would make the world more lively. Players will want to interact with NPC's, even with those they see every day in town. Who knows who might make you an offer you can't refuse?
3) It would give players a sense of change in the world. NPCs which have never talked to them before, or maybe were even unfriendly or rude to them, now suddenly are asking those same players for help;
4) It would provide players with the only good thing traditional daily quests offer: A reson to log in even for a 5-minute long session;
5) There would be achievements tied to these quests, for the joy of completionists.
I hope you guys can offer comments, constructive criticism and ideas. Thank you all for reading.
0
Comments
I personally don't think "first" player completion quests are fair and I'd worry they would be exploited some way or another - regardless of what the reward is - I'd imagine would be a unique bonus reward because of the rarity and would be an incentive for people to actually do it. I wouldn't want people to camp these quests for unique glory titles etc - I'm not a fan of "world firsts" - it takes the ideal of "working together" away from players.
I'd prefer the second option "public" quests as it is fairer for the community (not to mention imo Ashes is all about the wider community) and less likely to be exploited. It would also allow the individuals participating to feel that they are contributing to the local community. I imagine like world events in GW2 in which there is a time frame to complete the quests and those within the vicinity have the opportunity to participate xD
Ofcourse the zone you do these "public" quests will be important because your activity will help advance the local node - so the more you do in the node zone of influence you want to support - the better!
I imagine there will be quests similar to this in Ashes anyway. I posted a comment about the types of quests in the last threads - and I'll be making an information thread soon too
I'm all for quests that get the greater community involved which also helps the community in return ^^
now sleep time Zzzzz
Instead of knowing where the shop of the NPC bakers are, in Ashes, I should know where the shops of the player character bakers are... and be more interested in helping them acquire their flour... or whatever ingredients they need that day or season.
If the city gates really need patrolling, because the city is likely to be attacked by mobs every day - I don't need an NPC guard to do that.
And the fun part, in Ashes, should be that it won't always be Fippy Darkpaw and his band of Kobolds attacking the city. The types of mobs that attack the city should change based on the improvements we make to the city and based on the season... at the very least.
The reason to return is because the stories we live through remain dynamic - rather than replaying the exact same content.
That's an interesting idea and I can appreciate that you've invested time in your suggestion.
Personally, I'd prefer to stay clear of anything remotely related to the taxonomy and nomenclature of daily quest systems and activities that are based on some sort of calendar based restriction.
2) It would make the world more lively. Players will want to interact with NPC's, even with those they see every day in town. Who knows who might make you an offer you can't refuse?
3) It would give players a sense of change in the world. NPCs which have never talked to them before, or maybe were even unfriendly or rude to them, now suddenly are asking those same players for help;
If the only time events are triggered are when a node levels up, then, yes, I think things will become too predictable and static. From the sounds of it, NPCs will change as the meter fills up along the way. Random events will occur in the nearby ZOI as well. NPCs in the node might respond accordingly to said events. Once the node reaches Stage 6 metropolis, I assume Intrepid has additional plans to keep PVE fresh, as there's no guarantee there'd be a world PVP siege anytime soon.
Throw player interactivity into the mix and the world would be even more dynamic. If players could assign tasks to each other as the occasional alternative to buying from the local node market, that'd be truly awesome.
To be sure, all of this is just speculation based on what I know from the Ashes's wiki and Q&As but this seems like the direction we might be heading.
The dynamic world of Ashes should be motivation enough to log in if even for an hour a day just to see what's going on. I wonder if my node has leveled up to a village yet? Did I miss some badass world boss appearing? Did enemy players raid us using their monster tokens? Oh dang, has there been 1 week of siege warfare going on while I was out of town? Was I not there for ___? If Ashes turns out like we expect, the #FOMO will be real lol.
I don't think any login reward incentive is needed as an explicit game mechanic. The incentives to log in should be in the game's original pillars of design.
Thank you so much for your kind and constructive criticism. I completely hear you and, as I stated more than in one occasion, I am also against traditional daily quests and login daily rewards.
I guess my question to you is: Do you feel the system I suggested would be unnecessary, a detriment to the game, or maybe worth considering as a starting point which might become a nice addition to an already dynamic world?
I think the quick answer is that your suggested system wouldn't necessarily be a detriment but, at the same time, I can't see it being necessary if Intrepid nails the systems they already have planned.
I have reservations with regards to anything with strict "first come first serve" limitations to who can complete the quests. And, something like a cycle of quests based on the day, week, month etc. could just become a routine that would hamper the dynamism and irregularity of a living world. So, if applied poorly, I guess such a system could be a detriment to the game.
If Intrepid were trying to add even more dynamism beyond their planned quest and event systems, I'd rather they implement a system where players can assign quests and bounties to other players.