Game Longevity

ArchivedUser

Does anyone know what they are doing to retain long term interest in the game? Despite all the fanfare, over time, no matter the game interest will be lost unless there is something going on to retain that interest.

ArchivedUser

Ashes of Creation is a unique take on the MMO experience. Our world structure is dynamic and built to react to the actions of our players. Cities will rise and fall, their populations based on the history of the world as the players create it. Quests will unlock as these populations gather, their needs grow, and secrets are unlocked.

As the world’s NPC structure is established in real time, players will have the ability to destroy what they’ve created, paving the way for new development, new populations, and real change. Political strife and intrigue will play a very real role in the structure of your world. 

Gone are the days of static worlds, change is here to stay.

ArchivedUser

@leolavertu How are you today?

@lexmax gave some great quotes on what Steven and the Developers have said.

To add to this, AOC will be following the Subscription base and never go F2P or P2W. Because of this AOC will be getting a Steady flow of income to help produce more content for the game. A example of this would be World of Warcraft, they have been able to set pretty standard expansion packs and updates because of P2P.

Another way AOC will keep its longevity is the way they work with the community. Unlike AAA titles and company's that never really listen to there player base. The AOC is coming from the other side of the wall. Our side, and they know that staying active in the community is a major part of keeping your players happy. Not only are they active, they listen. If by any chance things start to die down or there are issues. The AOC team should be right on top of it.

ArchivedUser

A friend of mine has a rule for video game quality, if you play the game for 1 hour for every 1 dollar you spend, the game was worth it. With that in mind I would owe Bethesda several hundred additional dollars for Skyrim. In fact, the only reason I take long term breaks from Skyrim and play other games is because even after the expansions I have been everywhere and seen everything.

If Skyrim had the dynamic where villages would grow into cities and cities would fall into obscurity I would never stop playing. I will admit I am a creature of habit and it does not take a lot to keep me in a game long term. I am not the type to get bored easily with an RPG, especially if I give my character a life. Assuming the node system works as planned I will most likely not experience a loss of interest.

...I might need to take a month off here or there though...

ArchivedUser

LOUD NOISES!

ArchivedUser

XombieCrisis said:

LOUD NOISES!

Another node burned to the ground, or is the loud noise from the one next door building up?

ArchivedUser

Ninja Shadow said:

XombieCrisis said:

LOUD NOISES!

Another node burned to the ground, or is the loud noise from the one next door building up?

Sorry... sorry... its from my Braver of Worlds Inn. I ran a special - All Dwarfs get 2 for 1 bean burritos and dip with the purchase of a pint of ale and all you can eat bean burritos with the purchase of a pitcher. Even the Necromancer left.

ArchivedUser

I dont know about others, but if there are farming, housing and crafting mechanics in a game thats enough to keep me going for ages. especially with owning land ( Archeage ) and not to mention Constant PvP.

Usually subscription based games are able to pump out content more frequently and is the reason why i prefer subscription based MMO's as they are usually the ones that keep me playing for long periods of time.

ArchivedUser

The thing that keeps me logging back in are friends, and not just guildmates. Just people who'm I see, and randomly do stuff with. Which is, if they truly do focus on community, not an issue. The second thing that keeps me logging in, is RP.
The third and final thing is character progression that's not based on gear.

ArchivedUser

XombieCrisis said:

LOUD NOISES!

I like that idea, I think we should work together on towards that plan

ArchivedUser

Mazikar said:

Ninja Shadow said:

XombieCrisis said:

LOUD NOISES!

Another node burned to the ground, or is the loud noise from the one next door building up?

Sorry... sorry... its from my Braver of Worlds Inn. I ran a special - All Dwarfs get 2 for 1 bean burritos and dip with the purchase of a pint of ale and all you can eat bean burritos with the purchase of a pitcher. Even the Necromancer left.

Dang is the special sill on? I'd get a pitcher foe me Dwarven friends and and I'd eat the burritos meself

Edit: but then again I am not a BOW

ArchivedUser

lexmax said:

Ashes of Creation is a unique take on the MMO experience. Our world structure is dynamic and built to react to the actions of our players. Cities will rise and fall, their populations based on the history of the world as the players create it. Quests will unlock as these populations gather, their needs grow, and secrets are unlocked.

As the world’s NPC structure is established in real time, players will have the ability to destroy what they’ve created, paving the way for new development, new populations, and real change. Political strife and intrigue will play a very real role in the structure of your world. 

Gone are the days of static worlds, change is here to stay.

So I like that and all, and it's a noble goal, but I wonder if the actual play will in fact mimic that vision.  Once all of the nodes/metropolises have been set and running for years, I honestly see very little movement in their destruction.  I suspect it will be a race in the beginning to establish with competing interest, but once the initial turmoil is over, I think things will calm down and remain static for the most part.  So I hope intrepid isn't relying completely on that for their end game, but rather I hope the node siege system is just an aside to the end game content they plan on drowning us in.  Too many studios in the past make this same mistake of not enough content, so I pray Intrepid realizes this.

ArchivedUser

Warkov said:

lexmax said:

Ashes of Creation is a unique take on the MMO experience. Our world structure is dynamic and built to react to the actions of our players. Cities will rise and fall, their populations based on the history of the world as the players create it. Quests will unlock as these populations gather, their needs grow, and secrets are unlocked.

As the world’s NPC structure is established in real time, players will have the ability to destroy what they’ve created, paving the way for new development, new populations, and real change. Political strife and intrigue will play a very real role in the structure of your world. 

Gone are the days of static worlds, change is here to stay.

So I like that and all, and it's a noble goal, but I wonder if the actual play will in fact mimic that vision.  Once all of the nodes/metropolises have been set and running for years, I honestly see very little movement in their destruction.  I suspect it will be a race in the beginning to establish with competing interest, but once the initial turmoil is over, I think things will calm down and remain static for the most part.  So I hope intrepid isn't relying completely on that for their end game, but rather I hope the node siege system is just an aside to the end game content they plan on drowning us in.  Too many studios in the past make this same mistake of not enough content, so I pray Intrepid realizes this.

I could see if things got too stale IS might make something blowup

ArchivedUser

Ninja Shadow said:

Warkov said:

lexmax said:

Ashes of Creation is a unique take on the MMO experience. Our world structure is dynamic and built to react to the actions of our players. Cities will rise and fall, their populations based on the history of the world as the players create it. Quests will unlock as these populations gather, their needs grow, and secrets are unlocked.

As the world’s NPC structure is established in real time, players will have the ability to destroy what they’ve created, paving the way for new development, new populations, and real change. Political strife and intrigue will play a very real role in the structure of your world. 

Gone are the days of static worlds, change is here to stay.

So I like that and all, and it's a noble goal, but I wonder if the actual play will in fact mimic that vision.  Once all of the nodes/metropolises have been set and running for years, I honestly see very little movement in their destruction.  I suspect it will be a race in the beginning to establish with competing interest, but once the initial turmoil is over, I think things will calm down and remain static for the most part.  So I hope intrepid isn't relying completely on that for their end game, but rather I hope the node siege system is just an aside to the end game content they plan on drowning us in.  Too many studios in the past make this same mistake of not enough content, so I pray Intrepid realizes this.

I could see if things got too stale IS might make something blowup

Considering the dynamics of the game  where nothing actually remains static and all depends on players choices I don't foresee the game wearing thin.  PvP players will always want something to slaughter, as it's in their nature.
Landscapes will change when they attempt to tear things down.  I have seen devoted players rise up and defend their home bases.   
Do you really think IS will not expand and add to the game?
A game such as Ashes really has no end game.  It offers to be an ever changing world.   
The only way I see Ashes becoming stagnant as you say is if another game comes out that can overshadow Ashes and the players quit in droves.  

ArchivedUser

CylverRayne said:

Ninja Shadow said:

Warkov said:

lexmax said:

Ashes of Creation is a unique take on the MMO experience. Our world structure is dynamic and built to react to the actions of our players. Cities will rise and fall, their populations based on the history of the world as the players create it. Quests will unlock as these populations gather, their needs grow, and secrets are unlocked.

As the world’s NPC structure is established in real time, players will have the ability to destroy what they’ve created, paving the way for new development, new populations, and real change. Political strife and intrigue will play a very real role in the structure of your world. 

Gone are the days of static worlds, change is here to stay.

So I like that and all, and it's a noble goal, but I wonder if the actual play will in fact mimic that vision.  Once all of the nodes/metropolises have been set and running for years, I honestly see very little movement in their destruction.  I suspect it will be a race in the beginning to establish with competing interest, but once the initial turmoil is over, I think things will calm down and remain static for the most part.  So I hope intrepid isn't relying completely on that for their end game, but rather I hope the node siege system is just an aside to the end game content they plan on drowning us in.  Too many studios in the past make this same mistake of not enough content, so I pray Intrepid realizes this.

I could see if things got too stale IS might make something blowup

Considering the dynamics of the game  where nothing actually remains static and all depends on players choices I don't foresee the game wearing thin.  PvP players will always want something to slaughter, as it's in their nature.
Landscapes will change when they attempt to tear things down.  I have seen devoted players rise up and defend their home bases.   
Do you really think IS will not expand and add to the game?
A game such as Ashes really has no end game.  It offers to be an ever changing world.   
The only way I see Ashes becoming stagnant as you say is if another game comes out that can overshadow Ashes and the players quit in droves.  

I agree, but the point I was trying to get at was I do not feel that IS will just sit back and let things get stale enough to die and they are going to take a more active role in monitoring the health of the game, then a passive reactionary stance

ArchivedUser

@Ninja Shadow I must apologize.  I agree with you.  I had hit the wrong "quote".  My reply was actually to someone else.

ArchivedUser

Warkov said:

lexmax said:

Ashes of Creation is a unique take on the MMO experience. Our world structure is dynamic and built to react to the actions of our players. Cities will rise and fall, their populations based on the history of the world as the players create it. Quests will unlock as these populations gather, their needs grow, and secrets are unlocked.

As the world’s NPC structure is established in real time, players will have the ability to destroy what they’ve created, paving the way for new development, new populations, and real change. Political strife and intrigue will play a very real role in the structure of your world. 

Gone are the days of static worlds, change is here to stay.

So I like that and all, and it's a noble goal, but I wonder if the actual play will in fact mimic that vision.  Once all of the nodes/metropolises have been set and running for years, I honestly see very little movement in their destruction.  I suspect it will be a race in the beginning to establish with competing interest, but once the initial turmoil is over, I think things will calm down and remain static for the most part.  So I hope intrepid isn't relying completely on that for their end game, but rather I hope the node siege system is just an aside to the end game content they plan on drowning us in.  Too many studios in the past make this same mistake of not enough content, so I pray Intrepid realizes this.

Considering the dynamics of the game  where nothing actually remains static and all depends on players choices I don't foresee the game wearing thin.  PvP players will always want something to slaughter, as it's in their nature.
Landscapes will change when they attempt to tear things down.  I have seen devoted players rise up and defend their home bases.   
Do you really think IS will not expand and add to the game?
A game such as Ashes really has no end game.  It offers to be an ever changing world.   
The only way I see Ashes becoming stagnant as you say is if another game comes out that can overshadow Ashes and the players quit in droves.  

ArchivedUser

I hope they don't end up railroading the world into certain directions for the sake of generating the content. Something many DM's are guilty of when they get a taste of the power they wield in D&D.

I hope they really allow players to have the freedom of deciding what lands become barren warzones and which ones are prosperous cities booming with trade and life.

Although this might mean all servers get different content updates... which might be problematic.

ArchivedUser

Everything has a shelf life but with the dynamic state of the world and the focus on the players making their own end game, as far as we can tell, this game will endure due to the fact that the utopia does'nt revolve around gear progression alone. It's too early to tell in truth but if IS deliver on what's been promised then I'll be playing this for years. 

ArchivedUser

CylverRayne said:

@Ninja Shadow I must apologize.  I agree with you.  I had hit the wrong "quote".  My reply was actually to someone else.

No harm done.  most of the time I don't take anything personal just like to clarify when necessary

Fanzhon said:

I hope they don't end up railroading the world into certain directions for the sake of generating the content. Something many DM's are guilty of when they get a taste of the power they wield in D&D.

I hope they really allow players to have the freedom of deciding what lands become barren warzones and which ones are prosperous cities booming with trade and life.

Although this might mean all servers get different content updates... which might be problematic.

I think they will try to railroad so much as Kickstart people into action when inactivity shows. Nor is it really feasible from a company standpoint to make updates for specific servers especially with how dynamic the node system is, that being said it is vary probable that some servers will be in a better position to experience newer content then others but that will be because of player choice not developer choice

ArchivedUser

CylverRayne said:

Ninja Shadow said:

Warkov said:

lexmax said:

Ashes of Creation is a unique take on the MMO experience. Our world structure is dynamic and built to react to the actions of our players. Cities will rise and fall, their populations based on the history of the world as the players create it. Quests will unlock as these populations gather, their needs grow, and secrets are unlocked.

As the world’s NPC structure is established in real time, players will have the ability to destroy what they’ve created, paving the way for new development, new populations, and real change. Political strife and intrigue will play a very real role in the structure of your world. 

Gone are the days of static worlds, change is here to stay.

So I like that and all, and it's a noble goal, but I wonder if the actual play will in fact mimic that vision.  Once all of the nodes/metropolises have been set and running for years, I honestly see very little movement in their destruction.  I suspect it will be a race in the beginning to establish with competing interest, but once the initial turmoil is over, I think things will calm down and remain static for the most part.  So I hope intrepid isn't relying completely on that for their end game, but rather I hope the node siege system is just an aside to the end game content they plan on drowning us in.  Too many studios in the past make this same mistake of not enough content, so I pray Intrepid realizes this.

I could see if things got too stale IS might make something blowup

Considering the dynamics of the game  where nothing actually remains static and all depends on players choices I don't foresee the game wearing thin.  PvP players will always want something to slaughter, as it's in their nature.
Landscapes will change when they attempt to tear things down.  I have seen devoted players rise up and defend their home bases.   
Do you really think IS will not expand and add to the game?
A game such as Ashes really has no end game.  It offers to be an ever changing world.   
The only way I see Ashes becoming stagnant as you say is if another game comes out that can overshadow Ashes and the players quit in droves.  

So with pvp and nodes, what would wind happening a lot of times is that the powerful pvp/pve guilds will end up completely controlling the city/node.  From that point forward the fighting to destroy a node is generally left to the smaller groups of guild/pvpers.  And if they can't successfully rally enough other players together then they wont succeed in taking a node to change things, especially if general players like the effects of that node. So I fear we will see a lot of non movement after things get well established.  This of course will change as Intrepid introduces expansions or new dynamics like you mentioned, but it is my hope that they are not solely relying on that mechanic for the end game.

ArchivedUser

Ninja Shadow said:

I think they will try to railroad so much as Kickstart people into action when inactivity shows. Nor is it really feasible from a company standpoint to make updates for specific servers especially with how dynamic the node system is, that being said it is vary probable that some servers will be in a better position to experience newer content then others but that will be because of player choice not developer choice

Hi @Ninja Shadow !

I agree it's most likely they'll shy away from specific updates for specific servers.

To clarify what I wanted to say regarding railroading was that I'm hoping they don't universally push a content update that would be something like,
    "This region is suddenly invaded by Corrupted from another dimension!"
Something that would cause all players, across all servers to gravitate to the same location. I would prefer it if they put the same/similar content in regions of equal activity depending on which nodes progressed to what levels etc.

I understand this isn't going to always be possible and that they will want a large majority of content to be solidly defined and set to a specific regions. Especially for tying together a cohesive main line story.

But for subplot content, I think it is something that would be possible to give different perspectives to some events.

ArchivedUser

Fanzhon said:

Ninja Shadow said:

I think they will try to railroad so much as Kickstart people into action when inactivity shows. Nor is it really feasible from a company standpoint to make updates for specific servers especially with how dynamic the node system is, that being said it is vary probable that some servers will be in a better position to experience newer content then others but that will be because of player choice not developer choice

Hi @Ninja Shadow !

I agree it's most likely they'll shy away from specific updates for specific servers.

To clarify what I wanted to say regarding railroading was that I'm hoping they don't universally push a content update that would be something like,
    "This region is suddenly invaded by Corrupted from another dimension!"
Something that would cause all players, across all servers to gravitate to the same location. I would prefer it if they put the same/similar content in regions of equal activity depending on which nodes progressed to what levels etc.

I understand this isn't going to always be possible and that they will want a large majority of content to be solidly defined and set to a specific regions. Especially for tying together a cohesive main line story.

But for subplot content, I think it is something that would be possible to give different perspectives to some events.

So basically your saying that you hope that they keep everything more dynamic to the state of the world, And program events and such to be able to be applied to the servers in a more dynamic way?

ArchivedUser

Yep! Pretty much.

I understand that they will want to inspire players to get out and do things but I'm hoping that they have a slightly more tailored approach.

I personally would find it a bit annoying if a single server would always benefit from content updates because the world layout (for new resources, new bosses, new dungeons) would be based always on what nodes are most active for them.

ArchivedUser

Prior to any type of release, I think it will be normal for some of the interest to go away for those who are not keeping close tabs on the game. Those types will wait to see more gameplay and other things before their hype builds back up.

Retention after release is another animal. That all boils down to developer/player interaction and feedback. What events or things there are to do and how they are implemented, as well as, how the overall gameplay handles.

The hardest part is having enough to do long term where the player is saying "I'm having fun" and not "well, I guess I have to do X if I ever expect to get to Y where all the fun is." Even if it's repetition, which you almost can never get away from to an extent, it's finding a way to make the feel enjoyable.

ArchivedUser

I think the biggest threat to this game will be the bugs, considering how much new stuff they trying to pull off.

ArchivedUser

Warkov said:

lexmax said:

Ashes of Creation is a unique take on the MMO experience. Our world structure is dynamic and built to react to the actions of our players. Cities will rise and fall, their populations based on the history of the world as the players create it. Quests will unlock as these populations gather, their needs grow, and secrets are unlocked.

As the world’s NPC structure is established in real time, players will have the ability to destroy what they’ve created, paving the way for new development, new populations, and real change. Political strife and intrigue will play a very real role in the structure of your world. 

Gone are the days of static worlds, change is here to stay.

So I like that and all, and it's a noble goal, but I wonder if the actual play will in fact mimic that vision.  Once all of the nodes/metropolises have been set and running for years, I honestly see very little movement in their destruction.  I suspect it will be a race in the beginning to establish with competing interest, but once the initial turmoil is over, I think things will calm down and remain static for the most part.  So I hope intrepid isn't relying completely on that for their end game, but rather I hope the node siege system is just an aside to the end game content they plan on drowning us in.  Too many studios in the past make this same mistake of not enough content, so I pray Intrepid realizes this.

Well thats the good thing.
Nodes only have a limited zone of influence and dont cover the whole map.
The nodes need a constant supply of resources that may not be within the nodes influence.
You may have to be out in the wilds to get resources for your node and doing so progresses that node itself. That node progression generates new content.
So you will be left in the situation where you actually have to develop every single node to find the resources you need to maintain your own node
Lost...good lol.

Just becuase there is only 5 metropolis does not mean their is only 5 cities, towns, villages etc. Their could be 100s at various stages of development.

ArchivedUser

With multiple servers the game might be a threat to itself... enter a server, try to get established as a power.. not everything goes your way.. new server opens, mass migration ensues.  Five thick and juicy  metropolii are left behind to rule over an empty wasteland... rinse and repeat. 

ArchivedUser

Wraeven said:

With multiple servers the game might be a threat to itself... enter a server, try to get established as a power.. not everything goes your way.. new server opens, mass migration ensues.  Five thick and juicy  metropolii are left behind to rule over an empty wasteland... rinse and repeat. 

Without constant resources to fend off degradation, those metropolis would probably collapse to nothing over time. Thus leaving a fresh new server anyway.

ArchivedUser

Warkov said:

CylverRayne said:

Ninja Shadow said:

Warkov said:

lexmax said:

Ashes of Creation is a unique take on the MMO experience. Our world structure is dynamic and built to react to the actions of our players. Cities will rise and fall, their populations based on the history of the world as the players create it. Quests will unlock as these populations gather, their needs grow, and secrets are unlocked.

As the world’s NPC structure is established in real time, players will have the ability to destroy what they’ve created, paving the way for new development, new populations, and real change. Political strife and intrigue will play a very real role in the structure of your world. 

Gone are the days of static worlds, change is here to stay.

So I like that and all, and it's a noble goal, but I wonder if the actual play will in fact mimic that vision.  Once all of the nodes/metropolises have been set and running for years, I honestly see very little movement in their destruction.  I suspect it will be a race in the beginning to establish with competing interest, but once the initial turmoil is over, I think things will calm down and remain static for the most part.  So I hope intrepid isn't relying completely on that for their end game, but rather I hope the node siege system is just an aside to the end game content they plan on drowning us in.  Too many studios in the past make this same mistake of not enough content, so I pray Intrepid realizes this.

I could see if things got too stale IS might make something blowup

Considering the dynamics of the game  where nothing actually remains static and all depends on players choices I don't foresee the game wearing thin.  PvP players will always want something to slaughter, as it's in their nature.
Landscapes will change when they attempt to tear things down.  I have seen devoted players rise up and defend their home bases.   
Do you really think IS will not expand and add to the game?
A game such as Ashes really has no end game.  It offers to be an ever changing world.   
The only way I see Ashes becoming stagnant as you say is if another game comes out that can overshadow Ashes and the players quit in droves.  

So with pvp and nodes, what would wind happening a lot of times is that the powerful pvp/pve guilds will end up completely controlling the city/node.  From that point forward the fighting to destroy a node is generally left to the smaller groups of guild/pvpers.  And if they can't successfully rally enough other players together then they wont succeed in taking a node to change things, especially if general players like the effects of that node. So I fear we will see a lot of non movement after things get well established. 

The massive amount of resources required to level and siege nodes will keep the same guilds or players from dominating the server. The risk of losing everything in a siege is far too high. Large loose alliances will probably be the viable meta to spread the risk. But we won't know for sure until testing. And if it's broken, we'll let IS know so they can fix it

ArchivedUser

Certainly the whole idea is risky, but that is what will make it so rewarding if it all comes together!

Its much better to imagine the flaws now, and think of ways to fix them, then to wait till launch and realize the flaws then, with no solution on the horizon.