OrcLuckMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
World of warcraft never really felt dangerous to me. I don't think even that ultimately the punishment for resurrecting at the spirit guardian when you were being camped by gankers was all that harsh, just less punishing then trying to escape level capped trolls.
In the end, I think a little more difficulty will encourage people to group up and be more community focused. I don't think it will invalidate the solo experience either. I think people who want to explore the world will feel special because its difficult. Not because its something everyone does when they're bored.
The main question is, why do so harsh penalties apply on pvp deaths too? Won't it turn "free-pvp" into a non-challenging 20-vs-5-like ganks with guaranteed wins and rewards and totally discourage any form of pvp-for-fun, since you get no rewards there but only punishments?
This game is an adventure. If someone's adventure includes many pvp fights, why should they constantly pay for it in a most boring and senseless way of exp grind? It really needs to be replaced with something more investing or at least the grinding part should just be removed as far as game designers try to avoid any form of grind.
As the easiest fix, pvp death penalties (at least in free pvp zones and events) should include only materials drop (maybe higher %), gear damage and increasing respawn timers. On the one hand, it keeps pvp a bit risky and prevents permanent zerg rush from spawn points, but on the other hand, it won't punish players with many hours of braindead grind.
I was reading about the death penalty and was surprised how severe it seems to be. While you can't de-level you get:
Experience debt
Skill and stat dampening
Lower health and mana
Lower gear proficiency
Reduction in drops from monsters
Durability loss
Drop a percentage of raw materials
Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter.
Personally I love it - lack of death penalty was one of the reasons I gave up on WoW within 3 months of playing it. It was beyond boring to kill people and watch them constantly just run back and die until they could zerg you out of an area because they had no risk. If there isn't risk then the game just as well be a FPS like CoD where we just constantly spawn on top of each other after death and see who can shoot more people in the back before the round ends.
The stat dampering will likely be a debuff that wears off over time. Shadowbane had this as well and it was really good because it creates a balance from the player who was killed not being able to rush right back and avenge their death with full health/mana etc as the person they fought may need to heal/recover.
Durability loss was another great feature in Shadowbane that I loved, it's a great balance for still creating risk for the PvP playerbase that leaves the city with no intention of carrying loot - this way they still have gear/money risk at death.
Frankly I'm upset that the drop is a % and not their full inventory.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Just because you put money, doesn't mean that you have ownership and control over a game, nor does it necessarily entitle you to preferential treatment.
The game is not yours, or mine, it's in the hands of the company behind it. Even then, that wasn't the point I was making, it's the fact that it's a sign that there are way more people who would be upset at that cost.
And I didn't mean to say that in WoW there is "absolutely" no punishment, but that loss of xp isn't part of the game, if you die, you need to repair, and if you die in PvP you don't get that penalty.
And no matter what people may believe, it's one of the aspects that helped greatly expand WoW's playerbase, because xp loss was an actual barrier for the casual player.
And people may talk about Runescape, EQ or FFXI, but they still fell before WoW's more casual approach.
That's because any MMO will require to cater to them (not solely though) because that's the nature of MMOs.
Just because you don't die much, that doesn't mean that other players won't, or that other players won't be worse than you. Not everyone is a competent hardcore player, and let me repeat, that the hardcore segment of the population IS NOT THE MAJORITY AND NEVER WILL BE.
Especially in a game where PvP is a big part of the gameplay, and you would still get punished for dying in PvP, those who are not as good as you or cannot dedicate the same amount of time, will get shafted.
Stop thinking like you're the only type of player running around, you're not.
I realise you have different taste and want different things, but a MMO will have to cater to everyone because that's how a healthy population is achieved.
And it's a good thing WIldstar was named, because that's precisely a game that tried hard to cater to an audience of nostalgia ridden hardcore gamers that promptly failed and died. And that was without the toxicity of PvP being thrown in, mind you.
"Challenge" and "meaningful" have become buzzwords.
You'd rather have a game with less players, despite being in a genre and a system where MANY players are needed to keep the game going?
Ludicrous. That's not MMORPGs are for in general, unless you want the whales to pay you for the rest of the players. But supposedly this game isn't meant to be p2w, and got a p2p model.
Unless you want the 10k to 50k population like Eve Online, in a game where ONE SERVER is capped at 10k, then I'm sorry but that is just stupid and ridiculous.
At the very least debt loss needs to go, and that's the bare minimum.
Of course we have entitlement for putting money in. We were the people that backed this game, that helped it get where it is. If 20k backers had not pledged $3.25m where would Ashes be now? No, that doesn't make the game ours. It is still Intrepid's game. But you don't acquire £3.25m on a promise and then completely reverse your promises. If they did I'd be pissed.
In what way did Wildstar try to cater to nostalgia? I played Wildstar and I quit when I realised every class was a replica of each other. Wildstar wasn't a game to appeal to these so called hardcore gamers?
Toxicity of PvP? If you feel like that about PvP then perhaps you have set your sights on the wrong game. Ashes will be very PvP-centric, though not dependent on it. You seem to have come to a game that is being designed as a throwback and to try and bring back what was great about MMOs, before the money grabbing dullness of the past ten years. I'm not about to push you away. I want the people on the edge to enjoy Ashes. I might have said I'd rather less people than many people who want to change every mechanic, but I also said I'd love to change the opinions of those people on the edge.
You seem to have decided upon an approach to Ashes that has already doomed it in your mind. You use words like "challenge" and "meaningful" as if they are dangerous words to be scorned? Why do you think games such as Divinty: Original Sin and Pillars Of Eternity have seen a boost in passion for games of that ilk? They challenge the player, and many like that. EQ still has a hugely passionate following, and there are a number of games in development that may be even more challenging than Ashes. Pantheon, Defend the Night, Saga Of Lucimia. There is always going to be a push to recreate the MMOs of old, what with the staleness in the genre.
At the very least debt loss needs to go, and that's the bare minimum.
Bare minimum, or what? Why do you think 20k backed this game?
You are quite happy to tell us that we shouldn't have challenging death penalties and go on to make demands?
Give it a try first. You are chucking the idea of a demanding game out before you've even entertained the idea. You seem to have made up your mind before you've even set foot in the game.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The main question is, why do so harsh penalties apply on pvp deaths too? Won't it turn "free-pvp" into a non-challenging 20-vs-5-like ganks with guaranteed wins and rewards and totally discourage any form of pvp-for-fun, since you get no rewards there but only punishments?
This game is an adventure. If someone's adventure includes many pvp fights, why should they constantly pay for it in a most boring and senseless way of exp grind? It really needs to be replaced with something more investing or at least the grinding part should just be removed as far as game designers try to avoid any form of grind.
As the easiest fix, pvp death penalties (at least in free pvp zones and events) should include only materials drop (maybe higher %), gear damage and increasing respawn timers. On the one hand, it keeps pvp a bit risky and prevents permanent zerg rush from spawn points, but on the other hand, it won't punish players with many hours of braindead grind.
You realize that a PvP death between two normal flagged opponents is literally half of the penalty of a PvE death, correct?
If I was a designer I'd want players who seek to take risks, throw caution to the wind, engage powerful enemies, go explore an evil looking cave...without the constant fear of attaining these negative effects. It seems like it'll create an atmosphere of playing things safe, not taking risks, not exploring or being adventurous. I don't understand these types of penalties. I know people will say that death should have significance and to a point yes, but I think they should be rather minor (especially in pve). This is a video game, first and foremost, shouldn't it be about FUN? This just seems like it'll lead to frustration.
If there are no penalties, what makes an enemy powerful? What makes a cave look evil and dangerous? What makes exploring different from watching a slideshow on a random website?
If there's no penalties, there's no risk, and no sense of danger, no sense of adventure. Nothing will be a threat to you, nothing will feel dangerous or risky, nothing will feel interesting anymore because it can't hurt you. There's no challenge to overcome, since you're risking nothing but time.
Just because risk is part of the game, doesn't mean that stupid risk that is highly likely to damage the game's accessibility for other players, in a game designed to work with as many people as possible, is "good" risk to have.
And no, I'll say it again, it doesn't matter that you paid, you simply financed the project and vision, you're not shareholders that dictate where the project is going, unless you have those shares, you simply presented a company with the funds to see x vision through if you participated in the Kickstarter or you're someone buying the packs.
These are opinions and suggestions.
Wildstar is pertinent because that's exactly what happened. It did cater to an audience that wanted the oldschool raiding scene with 40 players, extreme difficulty, "meaningful" attunements, etc.
It is a fact that contributed heavily in scaring away potential raiders, to the point where the guilds had a lot of trouble finding players if they weren't the ones that were already organised from the get go.
Which is why the REQUIREMENTS to do content, got toned down.
Yes, Wildstar had other problems with bugs and so on, but it was trying to cater to the oldschool audience with its marketing, and failed as a result.
The reason I mentioned PvP toxicity was to highlight how just those problems were enough to kill a MMO (together with mismanagement of the game of course, which is connected anyway) when the game mostly had PvE.
That it didn't account for the natural flow of toxicity that PvP causes in a community. It doesn't mean "I don't like PvP", that wasn't the point, it's that it simply didn't suffer from the typical drawbacks that PvP adds to a game. And the game failed even without those DESPITE PvP MMOs failing one after the other or becoming extremely niche.
One of the main concern is that many people are treating it as if it were their personal playground, where they're running around as kings and nobody else can enjoy it. Instead of actually wanting a functional game that can last.
I'm here because I break the circle jerking, to burst the bubble, to offer a different perspective that a lot of people here have ignored.
I don't think people understand what it takes to make a MMO. They need a massive population, they need to cater to multiple needs, they need to achieve a healthy balance.
But from what I've observed, so many are chasing an obsession. The obsession with the "oldschool" and meaningful journeys in a game that at the end of the day is still a game that will be controlled by a company that wants to make money.
If you guys think they're not aiming for the million (at the least) players, then you're sorely mistaken.
There are different ways to approach this, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, you are not the majority of the MMO audience, this forum and the other sites, are not representative of a market that reaches the 10s of millions of customers. Those that you MAY attract as new players and those you may STEAL from the other competitors.
Again, people here underestimate how big of a thing the xp debt and loss are. Just the fact that it exists, is bound to cause issues.
It is excessive.
I don't understand the obsession with everything being "oldschool" or hardcore gameplay to excess.
Well I do to be honest, since it's not the first time I've seen something like this pop up in multiple games, but on this one issue about death, I'm strongly against such penalties.
I don't think people realise how big such a thing is. This is not an aspect that the vast majority of players will actually welcome with open arms. It's one of those things that, at least back in the old days, had always been seen as a problem, and when one MMO in particular came on the scene with no such high penalties, it was praised and gained a big following as a result. I guess we all know what that game is, it's WoW.
If you don't understand the reason behind the penalties why are you going to suggest doing away with them?
Since you seem to be stuck on what WoW offers and you probably haven't read my response here are a few reasons these items are in the game:
The stat dampering will likely be a debuff that wears off over time. Shadowbane had this as well and it was really good because it creates a balance from the player who was killed not being able to rush right back and avenge their death with full health/mana etc as the person they fought may need to heal/recover.
Durability loss was another great feature in Shadowbane that I loved, it's a great balance for still creating risk for the PvP playerbase that leaves the city with no intention of carrying loot - this way they still have gear/money risk at death.
-
You seem to think every game needs to measure up to WoW and while historically it has been a massively successful game in the terms of player base - no MMO needs the same numbers as WoW to be successful.
There is one fundamental difference between WoW in addition to many MMO's that you may have understanding of and while you believe sheer game subscribers is a measure of success I do not believe the game needs anywhere close to that type of commitment in order to succeed. Keep in mind WoW is a blizzard/Activision - these companies are run by a board/shareholders trying to maximize profit not a company trying to make a game for the people.
You seem to think you understand business models for MMOs so please elaborate on how many active subscribers all MMOs need in order to be successful. How many servers will they need? How many employees? What should they budget for monthly rent for their real estate office space lease and what should their monthly digital server leases run in cost?
WoW Should never be the base line example of an MMO for any developer that is trying to create an actual good game for the players. WoW was designed for the shareholders - it's why you're here posting about how having penalties at death (especially all of the ones listed) are too much for you. It will turn some people off to the game there is absolutely no doubt in this, however the game model does work and there are enough of us low hanging fruit that want this game model for this to be successful.
Lastly, since there is likely no game developer with the balls or long enough of a leash in the industry able to build another game that would compete with this - AoC will be in a unique position to retain they're player base year in and year out regardless of the MMOs that come out. Even New World completely shifted their core focus of the game because of people like this complaining about the PvP and frankly I think it's going to kill the game if they don't go back to the original design. I lost 100% of my interest in the game as soon as they did that - the game they're building now likely doesn't appeal to many people because it's primarily a PVP game with no real reward/risk. WoW already exists if I want more of the same boring PvP experince and there will be plenty more vanilla brand MMOs that come out over the years offering the same stupid zero consequence gameplay so that the players can feel safe, comfortable and not get upset when they lose some in game item, exp or have a penalty applied to their character.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
1
Options
DrokkMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If there are no penalties, what makes an enemy powerful? What makes a cave look evil and dangerous? What makes exploring different from watching a slideshow on a random website?
If there's no penalties, there's no risk, and no sense of danger, no sense of adventure. Nothing will be a threat to you, nothing will feel dangerous or risky, nothing will feel interesting anymore because it can't hurt you. There's no challenge to overcome, since you're risking nothing but time.
It'd make the game boring to a fault.
It becomes more difficult to have a discussion when people just keep assigning me arguments I've never made. When did I ever say there shouldn't be any penalties? It's simply a matter of balancing the severity.
And besides that, I don't understand what you're saying here. What do death penalties have to do with the challenge of the content? Are mobs suddenly doing less damage to you? I suppose in the sense that if you're weakened from death penalties it becomes that much harder. But if someone can't kill a mob at 100% efficiency they're not going to try at 90% (to pull out a random number). They'll grind away the debuff and carry on. That's not challenging; that's just tedious.
1
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Just because risk is part of the game, doesn't mean that stupid risk that is highly likely to damage the game's accessibility for other players, in a game designed to work with as many people as possible, is "good" risk to have.
And no, I'll say it again, it doesn't matter that you paid, you simply financed the project and vision, you're not shareholders that dictate where the project is going, unless you have those shares, you simply presented a company with the funds to see x vision through if you participated in the Kickstarter or you're someone buying the packs.
These are opinions and suggestions.
1st it is Steven's project not our it is his. This goes both ways. Risk management is subjective.
No game is for everybody and nor should it be. Look at WOW as your example lots of subs but the game play is lacking. It has been so horribly dumbed down it is a shell of its former self and why most of us stopped playing.
Wildstar is pertinent because that's exactly what happened. It did cater to an audience that wanted the oldschool raiding scene with 40 players, extreme difficulty, "meaningful" attunements, etc.
It is a fact that contributed heavily in scaring away potential raiders, to the point where the guilds had a lot of trouble finding players if they weren't the ones that were already organised from the get go.
Which is why the REQUIREMENTS to do content, got toned down.
Yes, Wildstar had other problems with bugs and so on, but it was trying to cater to the oldschool audience with its marketing, and failed as a result.
Wildstar had a lot of problems that led to its down fall. Should they learn and avoid them yes.
The reason I mentioned PvP toxicity was to highlight how just those problems were enough to kill a MMO (together with mismanagement of the game of course, which is connected anyway) when the game mostly had PvE.
That it didn't account for the natural flow of toxicity that PvP causes in a community. It doesn't mean "I don't like PvP", that wasn't the point, it's that it simply didn't suffer from the typical drawbacks that PvP adds to a game. And the game failed even without those DESPITE PvP MMOs failing one after the other or becoming extremely niche.
Interesting "natural flow of toxicity that PvP causes in a community." I never considered that a game would alter human behavior and natural tendency towards negative behavior.
Interesting that choosing to challenge your self against a person vs a computer algorithm so how leads to toxicity.
One of the main concern is that many people are treating it as if it were their personal playground, where they're running around as kings and nobody else can enjoy it. Instead of actually wanting a functional game that can last.
I'm here because I break the circle jerking, to burst the bubble, to offer a different perspective that a lot of people here have ignored.
I don't think people understand what it takes to make a MMO. They need a massive population, they need to cater to multiple needs, they need to achieve a healthy balance.
But from what I've observed, so many are chasing an obsession. The obsession with the "oldschool" and meaningful journeys in a game that at the end of the day is still a game that will be controlled by a company that wants to make money.
If you guys think they're not aiming for the million (at the least) players, then you're sorely mistaken.
Why settle for a million when you have potentially 7billion costomers.
On the upside Intrepid is hiring. https://intrepidstudios.com/careers
I am sure they would love to have you come help them make the product the best it can be. They are looking for good devs and sure they would love to have you come help.
There are different ways to approach this, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, you are not the majority of the MMO audience, this forum and the other sites, are not representative of a market that reaches the 10s of millions of customers. Those that you MAY attract as new players and those you may STEAL from the other competitors.
Again, people here underestimate how big of a thing the xp debt and loss are. Just the fact that it exists, is bound to cause issues.
I think you underestimate people and their ability to adapt and overcome.
The biggest problem you are running into with those of us from the early days is .
Steven and friends decided to build an MMORPG.
Went to kickstarter and said "Hey we want new friends and are going to build this game. Want in?"
A lot of us looked at what they offered and wanted to do and said "YES!'
We got our wallets out and gave them money for the product they presented.
Every couple of weeks we get a new person that comes in and says all the same stuff you have said. Your not first.
When I left WOW couple years ago I looked around for a new MMO. Found nothing out there that interests me for various reasons. Know what I didn't do? Go their forums and complain they need to make the product fit what I wanted. I simply said not for me and moved on.
Intrepid is making the product many have been looking for. It WILL NOT be for everyone and that's ok.
We welcome you to the community and hope to see you in game.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
3
Options
DrokkMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think you underestimate people and their ability to adapt and overcome.
The biggest problem you are running into with those of us from the early days is .
Steven and friends decided to build an MMORPG.
Went to kickstarter and said "Hey we want new friends and are going to build this game. Want in?"
A lot of us looked at what they offered and wanted to do and said "YES!'
We got our wallets out and gave them money for the product they presented.
Every couple of weeks we get a new person that comes in and says all the same stuff you have said. Your not first.
When I left WOW couple years ago I looked around for a new MMO. Found nothing out there that interests me for various reasons. Know what I didn't do? Go their forums and complain they need to make the product fit what I wanted. I simply said not for me and moved on.
Intrepid is making the product many have been looking for. It WILL NOT be for everyone and that's ok.
We welcome you to the community and hope to see you in game.
You weren't addressing me but I'd like to respond to this. I'm very aware the game is not meant for everyone. But I don't see a harm in voicing my opinion and offering up my preferences based on my decades of experiences. I'm not screaming the game will fail and this will ruin the entire experience. I'm just looking at this system from a 'what makes the most fun experience' perspective. Obviously that's skewed to my preferences, and others have theirs. That's fine. Steven and the designers make that call.
I just don't see much value in this system. But I've said we know so little that it's hard to theorize anything. Things will be iterated and changed. There's a grander scheme of things and I can't see the full picture. But all I can do is base off the info I can gather. And based on that I think these penalties are excessive. Someone earlier said that without some of these penalties that all you're sacrificing is time. Well, time is a valuable commodity in an mmo. In and of itself it makes death a meaningful consequences. But anyway, let's go over these penalties..
Experience debt: I'm unsure what the benefit of this is. Is it there to artificially increase the leveling time? I can see this as a means of basically telling a leveling character they're in over their head...go kill some lower level mobs or something. Obviously once you hit max this is meaningless. I don't have a big problem with it.
Durability loss: This is pretty much a staple of dying in mmos. Absolutely fine. It makes realistic sense your armor and weapons would suffer damage from the horrible wounds suffered of defeat.
Dropping a percentage of raw materials: Perfectly fine. That's part of the risk of carrying around that stuff. Also it incentivizes pvp.
Which leaves lower health and mana, skill and stat dampening and lower gear proficiency. This is where I have a problem. I just don't see any benefit in this. How can failure making further failure more likely be good design? From a pve perspective it just means players won't take on challenging mobs or areas. They'll play it safe. From a pvp perspective it's a nasty spiral of frustration. I think maybe sieges and caravans are exempt from these penalties? I can't remember, but even just for open world pvp...let's say you're out questing and run into another combatant. You two have an epic battle and he just barely manages to win. Now you respawn and you're weaker and they have an advantage. You die again and you're even weaker. Now you're just being spawn camped with no real way to fight back. What is the counter-play here? Flag yourself green and hope they don't wish to incur corruption? Or call for friends to come help? I guess that's one solution, but I think it would be better to not create such an advantage where the loser keeps digging deeper and deeper into a hole out of which they'll never be able to climb.
Well, time will tell how this all plays out. I just don't like the philosophy behind it.
Your response @bloodprophet simply shows the naivete of part of the audience they have accrued.
Let's make it clear, I'm not trying to change the entire game to fit my needs, I thought that my other posts would have established that by now, because unlike many people here, I realise this is not my personal playground.
I'm using WoW as an example for what happened in the past, and the history of the MMO genre, and WoW wasn't the only one.
I've also been following Ashes of Creation from before the Apocalypse fiasco.
So don't tell me that after such "exploits", questioning their decision making is completely unreasonable or is paramount to "changing the game into a WoW clone".
I certainly do find applying the penalties they have in mind now to be "excessive" on a personal level, I personally dislike such mechanics heavily, that is true, and I'm not the only who does that.
But I'm not saying that they should change it because they must do what I tell them to. Nor is expressing said disapproval for such direction equiparable to wishing for everything to change, and going against the sacred tenets of the philosophy behind the game.
You and the rest who believe in its monolithic quality are treating it like this.
Because of your wording, I can't really tell what you're trying to say here, on whether it's sarcasm or not. It's due to the way you have expressed yourself, on the subject. So in regards to PvP I'll just say that, it's really dishonest how many PvPers tend to not acknowledge that PvP will bring toxicity.
Plenty of genres that focus on PvP will nurture a community that does scare away new players or those who would like to play the game but without having to deal with the negative aspects that this community brings.
And considering for a good chunk of my MMO experience, I have been a PvPer first and foremost, I know that there are more than enough... less than pleasant people who engage in PvP.
So finally coming to how things work when making a MMO, then I'd suggest people, though I assume some already are, to get acquainted with Bartle's taxonomy. It's simplistic but it is an actual study that's been used by companies to make games, and for a long time too, since this study is quite old, but has been applied on MMOs and evolved as a result.
Furthermore, to elaborate on what another guy said.
Yeah, this game will require a massive population, and I'll say it again MMORPGs are meant to be massive, they're not meant to have 10k players, it's not like it was in the past, nowadays things changed, and no matter how hard you may want those times back, they won't be.
Why does this game require many players?
Because of the mechanics of the game, a server capacity approaching 10k, large scale battles, etc.
Everything screams it requires servers to be well populated, but one of the more important things is regarding monetisation:
this game is P2P.
And not just that, it's not meant to be P2W.
What does this mean?
It means that the game to maintain itself after Steven's investment will have to make reliable gains.
A P2P model without P2W means one thing in particular: no whales.
No whales because without a cash shop that allows the whales to get an advantage with money, means that the only way they're going to make money is through subs and the cosmetic shop they have, and cosmetics will have to be really appealing in a P2P model to actually sell. And yet, people are complaining about there being a cash shop in the first place, they don't want cosmetics to "detract from what you can gain in the game".
Without the whales, there's no way to make additional cash, and the potential whales themselves will be relying on 3rd parties to get ahead, which means the cash will not flow into Steven's pockets.
This is why I call it all shortsighted from your side.
Anyone who thinks the objective is to create a sandpark without gain, is fooling themselves.
If you believe this is a mere passion project with nothing else to it, that's the epitome of naive.
And @Drokk is right in regards to the "challenge". At the end of the day, it simply becomes tedious, and it will be boring, naturally not for everyone.
With that being said, it's why this constant wish to go back to "oldschool" and for some to be clamouring for "hardcore" in such manner, simply becomes an obsession, not a genuine desire for the game to be successful in the long run.
I think you underestimate people and their ability to adapt and overcome.
The biggest problem you are running into with those of us from the early days is .
Steven and friends decided to build an MMORPG.
Went to kickstarter and said "Hey we want new friends and are going to build this game. Want in?"
A lot of us looked at what they offered and wanted to do and said "YES!'
We got our wallets out and gave them money for the product they presented.
Every couple of weeks we get a new person that comes in and says all the same stuff you have said. Your not first.
When I left WOW couple years ago I looked around for a new MMO. Found nothing out there that interests me for various reasons. Know what I didn't do? Go their forums and complain they need to make the product fit what I wanted. I simply said not for me and moved on.
Intrepid is making the product many have been looking for. It WILL NOT be for everyone and that's ok.
We welcome you to the community and hope to see you in game.
You weren't addressing me but I'd like to respond to this. I'm very aware the game is not meant for everyone. But I don't see a harm in voicing my opinion and offering up my preferences based on my decades of experiences. I'm not screaming the game will fail and this will ruin the entire experience. I'm just looking at this system from a 'what makes the most fun experience' perspective. Obviously that's skewed to my preferences, and others have theirs. That's fine. Steven and the designers make that call.
I just don't see much value in this system. But I've said we know so little that it's hard to theorize anything. Things will be iterated and changed. There's a grander scheme of things and I can't see the full picture. But all I can do is base off the info I can gather. And based on that I think these penalties are excessive. Someone earlier said that without some of these penalties that all you're sacrificing is time. Well, time is a valuable commodity in an mmo. In and of itself it makes death a meaningful consequences. But anyway, let's go over these penalties..
Experience debt: I'm unsure what the benefit of this is. Is it there to artificially increase the leveling time? I can see this as a means of basically telling a leveling character they're in over their head...go kill some lower level mobs or something. Obviously once you hit max this is meaningless. I don't have a big problem with it.
Durability loss: This is pretty much a staple of dying in mmos. Absolutely fine. It makes realistic sense your armor and weapons would suffer damage from the horrible wounds suffered of defeat.
Dropping a percentage of raw materials: Perfectly fine. That's part of the risk of carrying around that stuff. Also it incentivizes pvp.
Which leaves lower health and mana, skill and stat dampening and lower gear proficiency. This is where I have a problem. I just don't see any benefit in this. How can failure making further failure more likely be good design? From a pve perspective it just means players won't take on challenging mobs or areas. They'll play it safe. From a pvp perspective it's a nasty spiral of frustration. I think maybe sieges and caravans are exempt from these penalties? I can't remember, but even just for open world pvp...let's say you're out questing and run into another combatant. You two have an epic battle and he just barely manages to win. Now you respawn and you're weaker and they have an advantage. You die again and you're even weaker. Now you're just being spawn camped with no real way to fight back. What is the counter-play here? Flag yourself green and hope they don't wish to incur corruption? Or call for friends to come help? I guess that's one solution, but I think it would be better to not create such an advantage where the loser keeps digging deeper and deeper into a hole out of which they'll never be able to climb.
Well, time will tell how this all plays out. I just don't like the philosophy behind it.
Open World focused games require a mechanic, that prevents people from joining the fight to combat a couple of issues. Most noteably the following:
> Return kills in PvP
> Zerg Rushing open world content (especially bosses)
> They also provide an window of opportunity to others players to tackle the content the died players has just failed to complete.
Alternative measures include: Unnecessary long distances to the next respawn point. Long Death timers that don't allow you to respawn in the first place.
Measures for this are absolutely a requirement in any good OW mmo. Unless you can come up with another mechanic, there is hardly any point arguing about it. @Drokk
They usually are rather short and limited in terms of how much they affect your character.
25% loss of strength for 60min? Close to nobody would support that. Debating numbers doesn't make sense until we see the first iteration from intrepid though
@Enasithia
You're such an expert on MMOs I see but you've failed to provide any hard numbers on what MMOs need for revenue, what their expenses should be etc. You're just a bunch of hot air trying to say "THEY WILL FAIL IF THEY DON'T LISTEN TO ME".
Give me some numbers to back up your ridiculous rant or bow out of the conversation.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I see and agree with some of your points.
A lot of it comes from personal perception.
I think we need to have faith that Intrepid will find a good balance on this. Death should hurt. the only thing I don't like is dropping of gear. But as long as that stays only with corrupted players I am all for it.
Doing world bosses in Rift during zone events if you die you simply run back res and start again. After a while with endless gear repair you end up with enough money that repairing means nothing more then finding a vendor couple clicks later back on your way.
GW1 had negative impact on stats that maxed out at 25%. Made finding your way forward a little more challenging but not undoabble.
.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
I was reading about the death penalty and was surprised how severe it seems to be. While you can't de-level you get:
Experience debt
- Skill and stat dampening
- Lower health and mana
- Lower gear proficiency
- Reduction in drops from monsters
Durability loss
Drop a percentage of raw materials
Just to fix this list for you, experience debt causes those four things after it, meaning that they are all on a scaling system just like corruption penalties. They will be minor, almost ignorable unless you continuously screw up and accrue a ton of it. At that point, you would’ve earned the harsh penalties for consistently being reckless and playing unintelligently.
Just because risk is part of the game, doesn't mean that stupid risk that is highly likely to damage the game's accessibility for other players, in a game designed to work with as many people as possible, is "good" risk to have.
And no, I'll say it again, it doesn't matter that you paid, you simply financed the project and vision, you're not shareholders that dictate where the project is going, unless you have those shares, you simply presented a company with the funds to see x vision through if you participated in the Kickstarter or you're someone buying the packs.
These are opinions and suggestions.
Then, does that mean your opinion matters even less if you didn't put any money in to this project? Of course it doesn't. Opinions are important. But you can not get past the fact that there are 20k of us here that backed this project on a belief that it might offer us something different from the norm. Something more enticing than the samey samey gameplay of the MMOs of the past ten years. Something we could get our teeth in to, feel challenged and get memories out of.
Wildstar is pertinent because that's exactly what happened. It did cater to an audience that wanted the oldschool raiding scene with 40 players, extreme difficulty, "meaningful" attunements, etc.
It is a fact that contributed heavily in scaring away potential raiders, to the point where the guilds had a lot of trouble finding players if they weren't the ones that were already organised from the get go.
Which is why the REQUIREMENTS to do content, got toned down.
Yes, Wildstar had other problems with bugs and so on, but it was trying to cater to the oldschool audience with its marketing, and failed as a result.
The reason I mentioned PvP toxicity was to highlight how just those problems were enough to kill a MMO (together with mismanagement of the game of course, which is connected anyway) when the game mostly had PvE.
That it didn't account for the natural flow of toxicity that PvP causes in a community. It doesn't mean "I don't like PvP", that wasn't the point, it's that it simply didn't suffer from the typical drawbacks that PvP adds to a game. And the game failed even without those DESPITE PvP MMOs failing one after the other or becoming extremely niche.
But Wildstar didn't offer that. Raiding does not equal risk versus reward or challenging gameplay. Wildstar was just another run of the mill themepark game that threw quest after quest at the player, had basic, dull classes, and allowed a player to progress to max level by themselves.
The reason Wildstar didn't attract raiders, if that was indeed the case (i've never been a raider and I didn't really stick around in Wildstar very long), was because it wasn't a good game.
Yes, PvP can cause toxicity. That is why Intrepid have mechanisms to combat that. The corruption system and the bounty system are ways to combat that associated toxicity. The PvP nature of Ashes is just another way to bring the community together via the risk of the caravan system. Players will have to cooperate to move goods if they want to maximise profits. I suppose you'll want to be able to just send your goods on to an alt via the mail too? Risk equals compelling gameplay, and there we have another element that creates a memorable game.
The same is true for death. I think @khrome summed it up best. I won't even try to compete with his words. I'll just quote what he said:
If there are no penalties, what makes an enemy powerful? What makes a cave look evil and dangerous? What makes exploring different from watching a slideshow on a random website?
If there's no penalties, there's no risk, and no sense of danger, no sense of adventure. Nothing will be a threat to you, nothing will feel dangerous or risky, nothing will feel interesting anymore because it can't hurt you. There's no challenge to overcome, since you're risking nothing but time.
It'd make the game boring to a fault.
This is everything wrong with the MMOs we've been getting for years. Nothing is new. It's the same content over and over with a new skin. Nothing makes a cave look evil. Nothing but numbers make an enemy powerful. I want to head in to a new area and not know if I'm going to come out with vast treasures, or get my butt handed to me by a mass of sinister bandits. If I lose experience I've learnt. What is the good of challenging myself if I come out a loser but just rinse and repeat? What is the harm in losing a bit of experience and sufering some item degradation. Item degradation is just a money sink really, and many games have that. WoW had a debuff, so if WoW was so looked up to how can people complain about that?
At the end of the day let us get back to what was so prominent in MMOs like Everquest:
The game is the journey.
You lose experience and you get to experience that journey even more. I want that. I'm fed up of MMOs where there is no journey. MMOs where experience is so easily come by, and the journey so mapped out for you, that nine out ten players are max level in two weeks.
One of the main concern is that many people are treating it as if it were their personal playground, where they're running around as kings and nobody else can enjoy it. Instead of actually wanting a functional game that can last.
I'm here because I break the circle jerking, to burst the bubble, to offer a different perspective that a lot of people here have ignored.
I don't think people understand what it takes to make a MMO. They need a massive population, they need to cater to multiple needs, they need to achieve a healthy balance.
But from what I've observed, so many are chasing an obsession. The obsession with the "oldschool" and meaningful journeys in a game that at the end of the day is still a game that will be controlled by a company that wants to make money.
If you guys think they're not aiming for the million (at the least) players, then you're sorely mistaken.
We're not treating Ashes as our own personal playground. We're open to ideas. But we also come from a place where we remember games being adventures rather than just simple rides. We remember experiencing the whole deal rather than going in just to ride the biggest rollercoaster. We want the full package, and for once an MMO is offering that.
Then a bunch of newcomers (who, and let's get this straight, are more than welcome) try to alter that adventure wonderland. They want the thrill without the cons. They want to buckle themselves in with seatbelts and we want to stand up and enjoy the thrill.
Okay, crazy analogy perhaps, but you'll get the point. It's about time we had the full experience rather than one ride and the rest of the park closed.
And, yes, we do know what it takes to make an MMO, and what it takes to make an MMO successful. Many of the people who backed Ashes have come from MMO to MMO looking for a game that makes them feel like they really are part of a world. A game that gives them memories like they have from the MMOs they used to enjoy. A game that brings people together and creates bonds and friendships. I can count on my two hands the number of times in the past ten years when I have really felt I have connected in an MMO, and felt the need to stick with those people. If we're talking Everquest, Everquest 2 or SWG then I'd need to borrow your fingers and toes. Probably your friend's too.
And an MMO doesn't need millions of players to be successful. That is a WoW thing. That is what MMOs have been doing for the past ten years. Trying to emulate WoW, often at all costs. MMOs have been trying to boil things down to the perfect formula for too long now, but that has meant dropping all the best stuff time after time. GW2 removing the trinity is possibly the biggest example.
There are different ways to approach this, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, you are not the majority of the MMO audience, this forum and the other sites, are not representative of a market that reaches the 10s of millions of customers. Those that you MAY attract as new players and those you may STEAL from the other competitors.
Again, people here underestimate how big of a thing the xp debt and loss are. Just the fact that it exists, is bound to cause issues.
But we were the audience before the influx, and the game obviously has appealed to new players or this new influx from the communities of people like Asmongold and the other guy (whose name escapes me). There must be something intriguing about this game to have had them so excited. I think they'll find a way to handle a few penalties. Incidentally, can you direct to where Asmongold has said the death penalties are extreme and would stop him playing? Has he said that, beause I got from an earlier post that he might have.
And, no, I think it is you overestimating how big a thing xp debt and loss are. Give it a try and it won't seem quite so scary. When you are running about a fantastic MMO world, making friends and having wonderful memory creating experiences you'll forget you died and lost half a level. You'll tackle that cave again, with the great bunch of friends you just made, and wonder what on earth you were ever so bothered about.
A balance is important. I would like to see some of them off the list at the cost of deleveling. At least it would be easier to understand if I deleveled then missing a huge chunk of my stats for no reason.
A balance is important. I would like to see some of them off the list at the cost of deleveling. At least it would be easier to understand if I deleveled then missing a huge chunk of my stats for no reason.
Perhaps things need to be clearer, I thought, so I went through the list in the OP and checked the wiki and sources.
1. Experience loss is not so much loss as a debt. You won't delevel, but you will have to work off that debt at a cost to experience gained. The source is also three years old. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUJugtqTBxw&feature=youtu.be&t=13m37s)
2. Stat dampening, lower health and mana and lower gear proficiency sounds like it will be a similar sort of thing to experience debt, i.e. you will have to kill to work off a debt. I would think the killing of an unknown numbert of mobs in a possibly easier area to which you died would fullfill that debt. Again, the source is three years old. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCvcB4S-tZM&feature=youtu.be&t=43m05s)
3. Lower drop rates is another point that that can be paid off with less important mobs. I guess you just don't kill the boss mob until you've worked your debt eitehr fully off or close to off. This source is newer. (https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/233161/#Comment_233161).
4. The dropping of carried raw materials is the one I would be happiest to see reduced or gone. I do think that could make risk less valuable for basic resource gathering. Of course, you could be considered a fool for running in to a dungeon area, or any dangerous area, with crafting resources on you. I do think there needs to be a risk vs reward mechanic for high end resources though. If, as a crafter, you go into a dangerous area to gather resources then you willw ant to make sure you are prepared to do so. From listening to the source, which again is three years old, it sounds more like the possible loss of gear is just from PvP and for corrupted players. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCvcB4S-tZM&feature=youtu.be&t=43m05s).
5. A further source clarifies more on the subject of gear being looted or your mule being looted and suggests it is a PvP thing, and I would say likely for corrupted players. This source is only two years old and may not be accurately placed with player death. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DABir_vvMfY&feature=youtu.be&t=47m46s).
6. The loss of certificates seems to be another thing I am not sure belongs under player death. From the source it sounds like it's more a warehouse thing that lets the winner of a siege take some goods from the conquered node. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AeuqaELjFg&feature=youtu.be&t=27m11s).
Essentially, I think the most important factor to remember for people that might be dubious is that there is refinement to come. The more I read in clarifying the death penalties makes me think it is a lot less harsh than even I thought it might have been. Experience debt is not expereince loss, for example. You won't be delevelling. There has to be a risk though, and my reasons for that have been discussed.
But, yeah, the closer I look, the less I think that is harsh. It is harsher than many modern MMOs, but compared to games like EQ it could be considered nothing.
@nidriks
5. & 6. certainly belong under player death.
Gear is obviously only related to corruption, that's correct.
Certificates: Monsters in AoC do not drop money. Instead you get a "certificate", that you have killed this wild beast. You return to the local hunter with the certificate and you'll receive a certain amount of gold (which might vary depending on the amount that have been killed recently). They are like hunting trophies in many older single player RPGs.
A mule is just an extension of your inventory. You might lose a different % of mule transported goods, we don't know that. But its essentially the same as losing stuff in your inventory.
4. You need the lose of resources upon death, as it is the driving factor behind ow-pvp. The fight for resources (especially late game resources) is a central cornerstone of this game. If you take the resources from the world, you'll also have to defend them. If you take more valuable resources, then you should be ready to defend it with your guild, friends or family.
Does it make sense in PvE, not really. But testibg whether the same death penalities make sense for both pve and pvp is being tested in the alphas. No point assuming things now, before we have values
I feel like the system is a very good idea, it's what makes the adventure. Exploring the outskirts of the map and coming back with rare and worth materials plus a story to tell is amazing.
On the PvP side tho, I feel like being able to drop your gear - or even your weapon, is WAY to much. I know the chance to drop that type of stuff is very low but honestly I don't care, even low is to much. Equipped gear should not be able to be dropped.
I feel like the system is a very good idea, it's what makes the adventure. Exploring the outskirts of the map and coming back with rare and worth materials plus a story to tell is amazing.
On the PvP side tho, I feel like being able to drop your gear - or even your weapon, is WAY to much. I know the chance to drop that type of stuff is very low but honestly I don't care, even low is to much. Equipped gear should not be able to be dropped.
you only have a cha ce to drop it if you murdered someone before. (killed someone who didn't fight back)
@Warth Yeah I know that but I still feel like dripping equipped gear is to much.
Imagine I see somebody who killed me days before or somebody I just have a fight with, I kill this person and he doesn't fight back. I would be vulnerable after this and be able to drop my gear.
Steven did talk a lot about these encounters as well. I don't feel like being able to drop gear is the right way, unless somebody kills uninvolved people all the time.
Lets say you got 10 unhonorable kills in the last 7 days - now you're able to drop gear, if you get above 25 you may even drop your weapon. I'd be fine with something like that but being able to drop gear after killing just 2-3 people is to hard imo.
@/Warth Yeah I know that but I still feel like dripping equipped gear is to much.
Imagine I see somebody who killed me days before or somebody I just have a fight with, I kill this person and he doesn't fight back. I would be vulnerable after this and be able to drop my gear.
Steven did talk a lot about these encounters as well. I don't feel like being able to drop gear is the right way, unless somebody kills uninvolved people all the time.
Lets say you got 10 unhonorable kills in the last 7 days - now you're able to drop gear, if you get above 25 you may even drop your weapon. I'd be fine with something like that but being able to drop gear after killing just 2-3 people is to hard imo.
It is for people who have a murderhobo habit. Your risk of dropping gear after one PK is next to nothing.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
@Warth Yeah I know that but I still feel like dripping equipped gear is to much.
Imagine I see somebody who killed me days before or somebody I just have a fight with, I kill this person and he doesn't fight back. I would be vulnerable after this and be able to drop my gear.
Steven did talk a lot about these encounters as well. I don't feel like being able to drop gear is the right way, unless somebody kills uninvolved people all the time.
Lets say you got 10 unhonorable kills in the last 7 days - now you're able to drop gear, if you get above 25 you may even drop your weapon. I'd be fine with something like that but being able to drop gear after killing just 2-3 people is to hard imo.
Well keep in mind just because they don't fight back doesn't auotmatically flag you as corrupt- for example if you spot one of your examples above in a combat zone (which most likely will be 80% of the world map) you can attack them without fear of going corrupt - if they don't fight back that doesn't matter because the characters would be flagged as combat for just being in that zone.
Now if you see someone inside a city and you can't wait for them to leave or you don't care and want to attack them, yes you'll likely go corrupt if you kill them and they just stand there. I will note however that if I see people attack each other in a city i'm jumping in on this because that means people are going to be going combat/corrupt right in front of me, it also means they're going to draw guard aggro and if guards aren't going to be doing insta kills - seems like a good opportunity for some FFA pvp.
*sigh*
Wrong. You kill someone who doesn’t fight back, you become Corrupted. This is on the FIRST kill. Please read up on the topic before spreading misinformation.
You WILL be flagged red, but your corruption score will be low, so your penalties will be equally low. You won’t be at risk of dropping gear after one kill unless you as a lvl50 went and killed a lvl1.
The open world is governed by flagging rules. Sieges, caravans, guild wars, node wars, and arenas are not governed by flagging rules, but those will absolutely not be taking up 80% of the world. I’m honestly not even sure where you got that number from.
Non-combatants entering an open world battleground are automatically flagged as combatant and remain flagged for a period of time after leaving that battleground.[6]
Awww I basically misinterpreted this in conjunction with one of Steven's recent interviews where he described two groups competing for a dungeon by fighting it out.
I'm a bit disappointed there will not be zone wide combat zones especially in high level / scarce resource or general areas of contention that does not require mutual engagement to flag for combat.
Now I just hope my node and guild declares war on enough people to make my initial expectations more of a reality lol.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
To the guy who asked for number, if you're going to ask for them, then population, revenue and even shares, are all out there. But at the end of the day, they only show what happened, they don't explain why something failed. If you're looking for opinion polls, again, they're not going to be accurate because it's not possible to ask every single MMO player ever, what they their thoughts are, and depending on where you go, you'll get different results, and even then, good luck getting them to bother caring about it in the first place.
So if you want to talk about hot air, then anyone who's putting certain aspects on a pedestal and calling them "fun" or "good", could very well be told the very same, since it's got even less substance when you say it just because you like it, and not because you care about the longevity of the game.
"risk" and "old" do not necessarily make a game good or fun, just like "new" and "safe" don't do it. It's about the execution.
Which is why in one of my other posts I said that it's all "suggestions and opinions".
So I'm going to voice my concerns, just like you can.
If it weren't for the bubble that these places create, you would understand that outside of it, there are people who have an array of different opinions of the game, despite being interested, invested or on the fence. Those who don't care, have made it clear and aren't wasting their time trying to know more and discuss seriously, they're just going to make fun of the game and its followers and leave.
The other thing to consider is that Steven and pals made it clear that they want to have "something for everyone", which means that they do want to reach as many people as they could. It's possible that they want to do it by trying to maintain the vision as much as they can, but the fact that they're open to feedback, means that they're still deciding on how to change the game.
So to conclude with the "bubble", here is why it's an issue when having a discourse without considering what's happening outside:
1. There are people who believe the game is a scam, and want to wait until it releases and watch how it goes.
2. There are those who suspect that the PvE carrot may not be enough, despite being willing to put up with the PvP.
3. There are those saying that forcing players to engage in PvP, either to do generic stuff around the world or to participate in PvE activites, will scare away a ton of players. Thus, when it comes to *perception* on what THEY think of MMOs' playerbase is that PvE players are the majority in this genre, and a good number of PvErs will shun PvP at all costs. Unlike PvPers who they say are more likely to engage in both.
4. Some consider the system as if "it's a pain and will make you feel like you never progress".
Disclaimer: I DO NOT SUPPORT THESE POSITIONS. Before I'm accused again of trying to change everything bla bla bla.
These are the concerns of those (and there are more regarding gear, economy, etc.) who might be interested in the game, because it does offer something more than other MMOs. In my opinion, as I said in regards to WoW, it's about how old the games are and how it's about the treadmill itself being the same, rather than the new gadgets attached to it.
Archeage that was taken as an example by Steven, didn't have the same system that Ashes of Creation plans to have, the AAA MMOs in general, do not have what AoC will have to offer when it comes to freedom.
Unless we're talking about literally who MMOs like Silkroad online that pretty much no one knows and is long since dead.
What will happen to this game in the end, I know not with certainty because it's impossible to know, and that is true.
Among the concerns, that may be more pressing for a potential audience, the PvE might be the more interesting one. However, it's also the one we don't know much about, because it also relies on the development of the nodes. People interested in dungeons and raiding for a challenge, it's one of those things that at this moment and I dare say until launch, will be more obscure.
However, when it comes to death penalties, while I do realise that some may acclimate, the difference is that it's a ghost from the past. We've seen the effects of it already in other games, and we also know how AoC plans to implement it. It's too severe.
It's the kind of barriers that the game will erect, and the one about death is a red flag.
Steven is a salesman. His history a thing by itself, but after Apocalypse, I will not apologise for having doubts.
To the guy who doesn't know how to quote text, scroll up while he's replying to a thread or simply have the decency to address someone correctly. I see that you can't back up your claims. To expand on your made up reality now you're suggesting complaints other people have "So there is this thing I want to talk,er I mean my friend, er people are talking about".
Yes I get it, WoW and all the other carebear MMO's attract a bigger audience. But if you actually sit down and do math before making another 10 paragraph post you might actually learn something about what you're talking about. Just to give you some perspective, the original EQ at it's peak had a subscriber base of 550,000 +/-.
Let's use that as baseline for discussion instead of the 15+ million subscribers of WoW, do you think AoC will be a success comparative to the original EQ numbers? I understand that times have changed and it costs way more to develop an MMO now than it did 20 years ago, but in the same hand with full digital release and being able to self publish/distribute it's going to also save them (or make them) a way better return. Also the MMO market is much larger now than it was in 1999 and a LOT of MMO players have never even had the opportunity to experince what AoC is building. Keep that in mind even if just 5% (FIVE PERCENT) of the current WoW subscriber base could live with what AoC delivers that's 750k players. Not counting the other millions of subscribers from WoW who no longer play it because well.. most likely boredom.
Lastly, yes you're entitled to an opinion, I would prefer you limit your post(s) to your opinions instead of these random 3rd party comments if you truly "Do not support these positions" of course.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Comments
In the end, I think a little more difficulty will encourage people to group up and be more community focused. I don't think it will invalidate the solo experience either. I think people who want to explore the world will feel special because its difficult. Not because its something everyone does when they're bored.
This game is an adventure. If someone's adventure includes many pvp fights, why should they constantly pay for it in a most boring and senseless way of exp grind? It really needs to be replaced with something more investing or at least the grinding part should just be removed as far as game designers try to avoid any form of grind.
As the easiest fix, pvp death penalties (at least in free pvp zones and events) should include only materials drop (maybe higher %), gear damage and increasing respawn timers. On the one hand, it keeps pvp a bit risky and prevents permanent zerg rush from spawn points, but on the other hand, it won't punish players with many hours of braindead grind.
Personally I love it - lack of death penalty was one of the reasons I gave up on WoW within 3 months of playing it. It was beyond boring to kill people and watch them constantly just run back and die until they could zerg you out of an area because they had no risk. If there isn't risk then the game just as well be a FPS like CoD where we just constantly spawn on top of each other after death and see who can shoot more people in the back before the round ends.
The stat dampering will likely be a debuff that wears off over time. Shadowbane had this as well and it was really good because it creates a balance from the player who was killed not being able to rush right back and avenge their death with full health/mana etc as the person they fought may need to heal/recover.
Durability loss was another great feature in Shadowbane that I loved, it's a great balance for still creating risk for the PvP playerbase that leaves the city with no intention of carrying loot - this way they still have gear/money risk at death.
Frankly I'm upset that the drop is a % and not their full inventory.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Of course we have entitlement for putting money in. We were the people that backed this game, that helped it get where it is. If 20k backers had not pledged $3.25m where would Ashes be now? No, that doesn't make the game ours. It is still Intrepid's game. But you don't acquire £3.25m on a promise and then completely reverse your promises. If they did I'd be pissed.
In what way did Wildstar try to cater to nostalgia? I played Wildstar and I quit when I realised every class was a replica of each other. Wildstar wasn't a game to appeal to these so called hardcore gamers?
Toxicity of PvP? If you feel like that about PvP then perhaps you have set your sights on the wrong game. Ashes will be very PvP-centric, though not dependent on it. You seem to have come to a game that is being designed as a throwback and to try and bring back what was great about MMOs, before the money grabbing dullness of the past ten years. I'm not about to push you away. I want the people on the edge to enjoy Ashes. I might have said I'd rather less people than many people who want to change every mechanic, but I also said I'd love to change the opinions of those people on the edge.
You seem to have decided upon an approach to Ashes that has already doomed it in your mind. You use words like "challenge" and "meaningful" as if they are dangerous words to be scorned? Why do you think games such as Divinty: Original Sin and Pillars Of Eternity have seen a boost in passion for games of that ilk? They challenge the player, and many like that. EQ still has a hugely passionate following, and there are a number of games in development that may be even more challenging than Ashes. Pantheon, Defend the Night, Saga Of Lucimia. There is always going to be a push to recreate the MMOs of old, what with the staleness in the genre.
Bare minimum, or what? Why do you think 20k backed this game?
You are quite happy to tell us that we shouldn't have challenging death penalties and go on to make demands?
Give it a try first. You are chucking the idea of a demanding game out before you've even entertained the idea. You seem to have made up your mind before you've even set foot in the game.
Those penalties could in theory be anything from barely noticeable to extremely noticeable. And we don't know how long it will last.
If it's like a 10 min debuff, then it doesn't really matter.
For Pvp it will be half as bad BTW.
It's also not necessarily set in stone, so let's at least try it out first in the alphas/betas and then provide feedback from that.
If there are no penalties, what makes an enemy powerful? What makes a cave look evil and dangerous? What makes exploring different from watching a slideshow on a random website?
If there's no penalties, there's no risk, and no sense of danger, no sense of adventure. Nothing will be a threat to you, nothing will feel dangerous or risky, nothing will feel interesting anymore because it can't hurt you. There's no challenge to overcome, since you're risking nothing but time.
It'd make the game boring to a fault.
And no, I'll say it again, it doesn't matter that you paid, you simply financed the project and vision, you're not shareholders that dictate where the project is going, unless you have those shares, you simply presented a company with the funds to see x vision through if you participated in the Kickstarter or you're someone buying the packs.
These are opinions and suggestions.
Wildstar is pertinent because that's exactly what happened. It did cater to an audience that wanted the oldschool raiding scene with 40 players, extreme difficulty, "meaningful" attunements, etc.
It is a fact that contributed heavily in scaring away potential raiders, to the point where the guilds had a lot of trouble finding players if they weren't the ones that were already organised from the get go.
Which is why the REQUIREMENTS to do content, got toned down.
Yes, Wildstar had other problems with bugs and so on, but it was trying to cater to the oldschool audience with its marketing, and failed as a result.
The reason I mentioned PvP toxicity was to highlight how just those problems were enough to kill a MMO (together with mismanagement of the game of course, which is connected anyway) when the game mostly had PvE.
That it didn't account for the natural flow of toxicity that PvP causes in a community. It doesn't mean "I don't like PvP", that wasn't the point, it's that it simply didn't suffer from the typical drawbacks that PvP adds to a game. And the game failed even without those DESPITE PvP MMOs failing one after the other or becoming extremely niche.
One of the main concern is that many people are treating it as if it were their personal playground, where they're running around as kings and nobody else can enjoy it. Instead of actually wanting a functional game that can last.
I'm here because I break the circle jerking, to burst the bubble, to offer a different perspective that a lot of people here have ignored.
I don't think people understand what it takes to make a MMO. They need a massive population, they need to cater to multiple needs, they need to achieve a healthy balance.
But from what I've observed, so many are chasing an obsession. The obsession with the "oldschool" and meaningful journeys in a game that at the end of the day is still a game that will be controlled by a company that wants to make money.
If you guys think they're not aiming for the million (at the least) players, then you're sorely mistaken.
There are different ways to approach this, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, you are not the majority of the MMO audience, this forum and the other sites, are not representative of a market that reaches the 10s of millions of customers. Those that you MAY attract as new players and those you may STEAL from the other competitors.
Again, people here underestimate how big of a thing the xp debt and loss are. Just the fact that it exists, is bound to cause issues.
If you don't understand the reason behind the penalties why are you going to suggest doing away with them?
Since you seem to be stuck on what WoW offers and you probably haven't read my response here are a few reasons these items are in the game:
The stat dampering will likely be a debuff that wears off over time. Shadowbane had this as well and it was really good because it creates a balance from the player who was killed not being able to rush right back and avenge their death with full health/mana etc as the person they fought may need to heal/recover.
Durability loss was another great feature in Shadowbane that I loved, it's a great balance for still creating risk for the PvP playerbase that leaves the city with no intention of carrying loot - this way they still have gear/money risk at death.
-
You seem to think every game needs to measure up to WoW and while historically it has been a massively successful game in the terms of player base - no MMO needs the same numbers as WoW to be successful.
There is one fundamental difference between WoW in addition to many MMO's that you may have understanding of and while you believe sheer game subscribers is a measure of success I do not believe the game needs anywhere close to that type of commitment in order to succeed. Keep in mind WoW is a blizzard/Activision - these companies are run by a board/shareholders trying to maximize profit not a company trying to make a game for the people.
You seem to think you understand business models for MMOs so please elaborate on how many active subscribers all MMOs need in order to be successful. How many servers will they need? How many employees? What should they budget for monthly rent for their real estate office space lease and what should their monthly digital server leases run in cost?
WoW Should never be the base line example of an MMO for any developer that is trying to create an actual good game for the players. WoW was designed for the shareholders - it's why you're here posting about how having penalties at death (especially all of the ones listed) are too much for you. It will turn some people off to the game there is absolutely no doubt in this, however the game model does work and there are enough of us low hanging fruit that want this game model for this to be successful.
Lastly, since there is likely no game developer with the balls or long enough of a leash in the industry able to build another game that would compete with this - AoC will be in a unique position to retain they're player base year in and year out regardless of the MMOs that come out. Even New World completely shifted their core focus of the game because of people like this complaining about the PvP and frankly I think it's going to kill the game if they don't go back to the original design. I lost 100% of my interest in the game as soon as they did that - the game they're building now likely doesn't appeal to many people because it's primarily a PVP game with no real reward/risk. WoW already exists if I want more of the same boring PvP experince and there will be plenty more vanilla brand MMOs that come out over the years offering the same stupid zero consequence gameplay so that the players can feel safe, comfortable and not get upset when they lose some in game item, exp or have a penalty applied to their character.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
And besides that, I don't understand what you're saying here. What do death penalties have to do with the challenge of the content? Are mobs suddenly doing less damage to you? I suppose in the sense that if you're weakened from death penalties it becomes that much harder. But if someone can't kill a mob at 100% efficiency they're not going to try at 90% (to pull out a random number). They'll grind away the debuff and carry on. That's not challenging; that's just tedious.
I think you underestimate people and their ability to adapt and overcome.
The biggest problem you are running into with those of us from the early days is .
Steven and friends decided to build an MMORPG.
Went to kickstarter and said "Hey we want new friends and are going to build this game. Want in?"
A lot of us looked at what they offered and wanted to do and said "YES!'
We got our wallets out and gave them money for the product they presented.
Every couple of weeks we get a new person that comes in and says all the same stuff you have said. Your not first.
When I left WOW couple years ago I looked around for a new MMO. Found nothing out there that interests me for various reasons. Know what I didn't do? Go their forums and complain they need to make the product fit what I wanted. I simply said not for me and moved on.
Intrepid is making the product many have been looking for. It WILL NOT be for everyone and that's ok.
We welcome you to the community and hope to see you in game.
I just don't see much value in this system. But I've said we know so little that it's hard to theorize anything. Things will be iterated and changed. There's a grander scheme of things and I can't see the full picture. But all I can do is base off the info I can gather. And based on that I think these penalties are excessive. Someone earlier said that without some of these penalties that all you're sacrificing is time. Well, time is a valuable commodity in an mmo. In and of itself it makes death a meaningful consequences. But anyway, let's go over these penalties..
Experience debt: I'm unsure what the benefit of this is. Is it there to artificially increase the leveling time? I can see this as a means of basically telling a leveling character they're in over their head...go kill some lower level mobs or something. Obviously once you hit max this is meaningless. I don't have a big problem with it.
Durability loss: This is pretty much a staple of dying in mmos. Absolutely fine. It makes realistic sense your armor and weapons would suffer damage from the horrible wounds suffered of defeat.
Dropping a percentage of raw materials: Perfectly fine. That's part of the risk of carrying around that stuff. Also it incentivizes pvp.
Which leaves lower health and mana, skill and stat dampening and lower gear proficiency. This is where I have a problem. I just don't see any benefit in this. How can failure making further failure more likely be good design? From a pve perspective it just means players won't take on challenging mobs or areas. They'll play it safe. From a pvp perspective it's a nasty spiral of frustration. I think maybe sieges and caravans are exempt from these penalties? I can't remember, but even just for open world pvp...let's say you're out questing and run into another combatant. You two have an epic battle and he just barely manages to win. Now you respawn and you're weaker and they have an advantage. You die again and you're even weaker. Now you're just being spawn camped with no real way to fight back. What is the counter-play here? Flag yourself green and hope they don't wish to incur corruption? Or call for friends to come help? I guess that's one solution, but I think it would be better to not create such an advantage where the loser keeps digging deeper and deeper into a hole out of which they'll never be able to climb.
Well, time will tell how this all plays out. I just don't like the philosophy behind it.
Let's make it clear, I'm not trying to change the entire game to fit my needs, I thought that my other posts would have established that by now, because unlike many people here, I realise this is not my personal playground.
I'm using WoW as an example for what happened in the past, and the history of the MMO genre, and WoW wasn't the only one.
I've also been following Ashes of Creation from before the Apocalypse fiasco.
So don't tell me that after such "exploits", questioning their decision making is completely unreasonable or is paramount to "changing the game into a WoW clone".
I certainly do find applying the penalties they have in mind now to be "excessive" on a personal level, I personally dislike such mechanics heavily, that is true, and I'm not the only who does that.
But I'm not saying that they should change it because they must do what I tell them to. Nor is expressing said disapproval for such direction equiparable to wishing for everything to change, and going against the sacred tenets of the philosophy behind the game.
You and the rest who believe in its monolithic quality are treating it like this.
Because of your wording, I can't really tell what you're trying to say here, on whether it's sarcasm or not. It's due to the way you have expressed yourself, on the subject. So in regards to PvP I'll just say that, it's really dishonest how many PvPers tend to not acknowledge that PvP will bring toxicity.
Plenty of genres that focus on PvP will nurture a community that does scare away new players or those who would like to play the game but without having to deal with the negative aspects that this community brings.
And considering for a good chunk of my MMO experience, I have been a PvPer first and foremost, I know that there are more than enough... less than pleasant people who engage in PvP.
So finally coming to how things work when making a MMO, then I'd suggest people, though I assume some already are, to get acquainted with Bartle's taxonomy. It's simplistic but it is an actual study that's been used by companies to make games, and for a long time too, since this study is quite old, but has been applied on MMOs and evolved as a result.
Furthermore, to elaborate on what another guy said.
Yeah, this game will require a massive population, and I'll say it again MMORPGs are meant to be massive, they're not meant to have 10k players, it's not like it was in the past, nowadays things changed, and no matter how hard you may want those times back, they won't be.
Why does this game require many players?
Because of the mechanics of the game, a server capacity approaching 10k, large scale battles, etc.
Everything screams it requires servers to be well populated, but one of the more important things is regarding monetisation:
this game is P2P.
And not just that, it's not meant to be P2W.
What does this mean?
It means that the game to maintain itself after Steven's investment will have to make reliable gains.
A P2P model without P2W means one thing in particular: no whales.
No whales because without a cash shop that allows the whales to get an advantage with money, means that the only way they're going to make money is through subs and the cosmetic shop they have, and cosmetics will have to be really appealing in a P2P model to actually sell. And yet, people are complaining about there being a cash shop in the first place, they don't want cosmetics to "detract from what you can gain in the game".
Without the whales, there's no way to make additional cash, and the potential whales themselves will be relying on 3rd parties to get ahead, which means the cash will not flow into Steven's pockets.
This is why I call it all shortsighted from your side.
Anyone who thinks the objective is to create a sandpark without gain, is fooling themselves.
If you believe this is a mere passion project with nothing else to it, that's the epitome of naive.
And @Drokk is right in regards to the "challenge". At the end of the day, it simply becomes tedious, and it will be boring, naturally not for everyone.
With that being said, it's why this constant wish to go back to "oldschool" and for some to be clamouring for "hardcore" in such manner, simply becomes an obsession, not a genuine desire for the game to be successful in the long run.
Open World focused games require a mechanic, that prevents people from joining the fight to combat a couple of issues. Most noteably the following:
> Return kills in PvP
> Zerg Rushing open world content (especially bosses)
> They also provide an window of opportunity to others players to tackle the content the died players has just failed to complete.
Alternative measures include: Unnecessary long distances to the next respawn point. Long Death timers that don't allow you to respawn in the first place.
Measures for this are absolutely a requirement in any good OW mmo. Unless you can come up with another mechanic, there is hardly any point arguing about it. @Drokk
They usually are rather short and limited in terms of how much they affect your character.
25% loss of strength for 60min? Close to nobody would support that. Debating numbers doesn't make sense until we see the first iteration from intrepid though
You're such an expert on MMOs I see but you've failed to provide any hard numbers on what MMOs need for revenue, what their expenses should be etc. You're just a bunch of hot air trying to say "THEY WILL FAIL IF THEY DON'T LISTEN TO ME".
Give me some numbers to back up your ridiculous rant or bow out of the conversation.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
A lot of it comes from personal perception.
I think we need to have faith that Intrepid will find a good balance on this. Death should hurt. the only thing I don't like is dropping of gear. But as long as that stays only with corrupted players I am all for it.
Doing world bosses in Rift during zone events if you die you simply run back res and start again. After a while with endless gear repair you end up with enough money that repairing means nothing more then finding a vendor couple clicks later back on your way.
GW1 had negative impact on stats that maxed out at 25%. Made finding your way forward a little more challenging but not undoabble.
.
Just to fix this list for you, experience debt causes those four things after it, meaning that they are all on a scaling system just like corruption penalties. They will be minor, almost ignorable unless you continuously screw up and accrue a ton of it. At that point, you would’ve earned the harsh penalties for consistently being reckless and playing unintelligently.
Then, does that mean your opinion matters even less if you didn't put any money in to this project? Of course it doesn't. Opinions are important. But you can not get past the fact that there are 20k of us here that backed this project on a belief that it might offer us something different from the norm. Something more enticing than the samey samey gameplay of the MMOs of the past ten years. Something we could get our teeth in to, feel challenged and get memories out of.
But Wildstar didn't offer that. Raiding does not equal risk versus reward or challenging gameplay. Wildstar was just another run of the mill themepark game that threw quest after quest at the player, had basic, dull classes, and allowed a player to progress to max level by themselves.
The reason Wildstar didn't attract raiders, if that was indeed the case (i've never been a raider and I didn't really stick around in Wildstar very long), was because it wasn't a good game.
Yes, PvP can cause toxicity. That is why Intrepid have mechanisms to combat that. The corruption system and the bounty system are ways to combat that associated toxicity. The PvP nature of Ashes is just another way to bring the community together via the risk of the caravan system. Players will have to cooperate to move goods if they want to maximise profits. I suppose you'll want to be able to just send your goods on to an alt via the mail too? Risk equals compelling gameplay, and there we have another element that creates a memorable game.
The same is true for death. I think @khrome summed it up best. I won't even try to compete with his words. I'll just quote what he said:
This is everything wrong with the MMOs we've been getting for years. Nothing is new. It's the same content over and over with a new skin. Nothing makes a cave look evil. Nothing but numbers make an enemy powerful. I want to head in to a new area and not know if I'm going to come out with vast treasures, or get my butt handed to me by a mass of sinister bandits. If I lose experience I've learnt. What is the good of challenging myself if I come out a loser but just rinse and repeat? What is the harm in losing a bit of experience and sufering some item degradation. Item degradation is just a money sink really, and many games have that. WoW had a debuff, so if WoW was so looked up to how can people complain about that?
At the end of the day let us get back to what was so prominent in MMOs like Everquest:
You lose experience and you get to experience that journey even more. I want that. I'm fed up of MMOs where there is no journey. MMOs where experience is so easily come by, and the journey so mapped out for you, that nine out ten players are max level in two weeks.
We're not treating Ashes as our own personal playground. We're open to ideas. But we also come from a place where we remember games being adventures rather than just simple rides. We remember experiencing the whole deal rather than going in just to ride the biggest rollercoaster. We want the full package, and for once an MMO is offering that.
Then a bunch of newcomers (who, and let's get this straight, are more than welcome) try to alter that adventure wonderland. They want the thrill without the cons. They want to buckle themselves in with seatbelts and we want to stand up and enjoy the thrill.
Okay, crazy analogy perhaps, but you'll get the point. It's about time we had the full experience rather than one ride and the rest of the park closed.
And, yes, we do know what it takes to make an MMO, and what it takes to make an MMO successful. Many of the people who backed Ashes have come from MMO to MMO looking for a game that makes them feel like they really are part of a world. A game that gives them memories like they have from the MMOs they used to enjoy. A game that brings people together and creates bonds and friendships. I can count on my two hands the number of times in the past ten years when I have really felt I have connected in an MMO, and felt the need to stick with those people. If we're talking Everquest, Everquest 2 or SWG then I'd need to borrow your fingers and toes. Probably your friend's too.
And an MMO doesn't need millions of players to be successful. That is a WoW thing. That is what MMOs have been doing for the past ten years. Trying to emulate WoW, often at all costs. MMOs have been trying to boil things down to the perfect formula for too long now, but that has meant dropping all the best stuff time after time. GW2 removing the trinity is possibly the biggest example.
But we were the audience before the influx, and the game obviously has appealed to new players or this new influx from the communities of people like Asmongold and the other guy (whose name escapes me). There must be something intriguing about this game to have had them so excited. I think they'll find a way to handle a few penalties. Incidentally, can you direct to where Asmongold has said the death penalties are extreme and would stop him playing? Has he said that, beause I got from an earlier post that he might have.
And, no, I think it is you overestimating how big a thing xp debt and loss are. Give it a try and it won't seem quite so scary. When you are running about a fantastic MMO world, making friends and having wonderful memory creating experiences you'll forget you died and lost half a level. You'll tackle that cave again, with the great bunch of friends you just made, and wonder what on earth you were ever so bothered about.
Again:
U.S. East
Perhaps things need to be clearer, I thought, so I went through the list in the OP and checked the wiki and sources.
1. Experience loss is not so much loss as a debt. You won't delevel, but you will have to work off that debt at a cost to experience gained. The source is also three years old. (
2. Stat dampening, lower health and mana and lower gear proficiency sounds like it will be a similar sort of thing to experience debt, i.e. you will have to kill to work off a debt. I would think the killing of an unknown numbert of mobs in a possibly easier area to which you died would fullfill that debt. Again, the source is three years old. (
3. Lower drop rates is another point that that can be paid off with less important mobs. I guess you just don't kill the boss mob until you've worked your debt eitehr fully off or close to off. This source is newer. (https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/233161/#Comment_233161).
4. The dropping of carried raw materials is the one I would be happiest to see reduced or gone. I do think that could make risk less valuable for basic resource gathering. Of course, you could be considered a fool for running in to a dungeon area, or any dangerous area, with crafting resources on you. I do think there needs to be a risk vs reward mechanic for high end resources though. If, as a crafter, you go into a dangerous area to gather resources then you willw ant to make sure you are prepared to do so. From listening to the source, which again is three years old, it sounds more like the possible loss of gear is just from PvP and for corrupted players. (
5. A further source clarifies more on the subject of gear being looted or your mule being looted and suggests it is a PvP thing, and I would say likely for corrupted players. This source is only two years old and may not be accurately placed with player death. (
6. The loss of certificates seems to be another thing I am not sure belongs under player death. From the source it sounds like it's more a warehouse thing that lets the winner of a siege take some goods from the conquered node. (
Essentially, I think the most important factor to remember for people that might be dubious is that there is refinement to come. The more I read in clarifying the death penalties makes me think it is a lot less harsh than even I thought it might have been. Experience debt is not expereince loss, for example. You won't be delevelling. There has to be a risk though, and my reasons for that have been discussed.
But, yeah, the closer I look, the less I think that is harsh. It is harsher than many modern MMOs, but compared to games like EQ it could be considered nothing.
5. & 6. certainly belong under player death.
Gear is obviously only related to corruption, that's correct.
Certificates: Monsters in AoC do not drop money. Instead you get a "certificate", that you have killed this wild beast. You return to the local hunter with the certificate and you'll receive a certain amount of gold (which might vary depending on the amount that have been killed recently). They are like hunting trophies in many older single player RPGs.
A mule is just an extension of your inventory. You might lose a different % of mule transported goods, we don't know that. But its essentially the same as losing stuff in your inventory.
4. You need the lose of resources upon death, as it is the driving factor behind ow-pvp. The fight for resources (especially late game resources) is a central cornerstone of this game. If you take the resources from the world, you'll also have to defend them. If you take more valuable resources, then you should be ready to defend it with your guild, friends or family.
Does it make sense in PvE, not really. But testibg whether the same death penalities make sense for both pve and pvp is being tested in the alphas. No point assuming things now, before we have values
On the PvP side tho, I feel like being able to drop your gear - or even your weapon, is WAY to much. I know the chance to drop that type of stuff is very low but honestly I don't care, even low is to much. Equipped gear should not be able to be dropped.
you only have a cha ce to drop it if you murdered someone before. (killed someone who didn't fight back)
You don't have the risk in general. @nykz
Imagine I see somebody who killed me days before or somebody I just have a fight with, I kill this person and he doesn't fight back. I would be vulnerable after this and be able to drop my gear.
Steven did talk a lot about these encounters as well. I don't feel like being able to drop gear is the right way, unless somebody kills uninvolved people all the time.
Lets say you got 10 unhonorable kills in the last 7 days - now you're able to drop gear, if you get above 25 you may even drop your weapon. I'd be fine with something like that but being able to drop gear after killing just 2-3 people is to hard imo.
It is for people who have a murderhobo habit. Your risk of dropping gear after one PK is next to nothing.
deleted
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
*sigh*
Wrong. You kill someone who doesn’t fight back, you become Corrupted. This is on the FIRST kill. Please read up on the topic before spreading misinformation.
You WILL be flagged red, but your corruption score will be low, so your penalties will be equally low. You won’t be at risk of dropping gear after one kill unless you as a lvl50 went and killed a lvl1.
The open world is governed by flagging rules. Sieges, caravans, guild wars, node wars, and arenas are not governed by flagging rules, but those will absolutely not be taking up 80% of the world. I’m honestly not even sure where you got that number from.
Awww I basically misinterpreted this in conjunction with one of Steven's recent interviews where he described two groups competing for a dungeon by fighting it out.
I'm a bit disappointed there will not be zone wide combat zones especially in high level / scarce resource or general areas of contention that does not require mutual engagement to flag for combat.
Now I just hope my node and guild declares war on enough people to make my initial expectations more of a reality lol.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
So if you want to talk about hot air, then anyone who's putting certain aspects on a pedestal and calling them "fun" or "good", could very well be told the very same, since it's got even less substance when you say it just because you like it, and not because you care about the longevity of the game.
"risk" and "old" do not necessarily make a game good or fun, just like "new" and "safe" don't do it. It's about the execution.
Which is why in one of my other posts I said that it's all "suggestions and opinions".
So I'm going to voice my concerns, just like you can.
If it weren't for the bubble that these places create, you would understand that outside of it, there are people who have an array of different opinions of the game, despite being interested, invested or on the fence. Those who don't care, have made it clear and aren't wasting their time trying to know more and discuss seriously, they're just going to make fun of the game and its followers and leave.
The other thing to consider is that Steven and pals made it clear that they want to have "something for everyone", which means that they do want to reach as many people as they could. It's possible that they want to do it by trying to maintain the vision as much as they can, but the fact that they're open to feedback, means that they're still deciding on how to change the game.
So to conclude with the "bubble", here is why it's an issue when having a discourse without considering what's happening outside:
1. There are people who believe the game is a scam, and want to wait until it releases and watch how it goes.
2. There are those who suspect that the PvE carrot may not be enough, despite being willing to put up with the PvP.
3. There are those saying that forcing players to engage in PvP, either to do generic stuff around the world or to participate in PvE activites, will scare away a ton of players. Thus, when it comes to *perception* on what THEY think of MMOs' playerbase is that PvE players are the majority in this genre, and a good number of PvErs will shun PvP at all costs. Unlike PvPers who they say are more likely to engage in both.
4. Some consider the system as if "it's a pain and will make you feel like you never progress".
Disclaimer: I DO NOT SUPPORT THESE POSITIONS. Before I'm accused again of trying to change everything bla bla bla.
These are the concerns of those (and there are more regarding gear, economy, etc.) who might be interested in the game, because it does offer something more than other MMOs. In my opinion, as I said in regards to WoW, it's about how old the games are and how it's about the treadmill itself being the same, rather than the new gadgets attached to it.
Archeage that was taken as an example by Steven, didn't have the same system that Ashes of Creation plans to have, the AAA MMOs in general, do not have what AoC will have to offer when it comes to freedom.
Unless we're talking about literally who MMOs like Silkroad online that pretty much no one knows and is long since dead.
What will happen to this game in the end, I know not with certainty because it's impossible to know, and that is true.
Among the concerns, that may be more pressing for a potential audience, the PvE might be the more interesting one. However, it's also the one we don't know much about, because it also relies on the development of the nodes. People interested in dungeons and raiding for a challenge, it's one of those things that at this moment and I dare say until launch, will be more obscure.
However, when it comes to death penalties, while I do realise that some may acclimate, the difference is that it's a ghost from the past. We've seen the effects of it already in other games, and we also know how AoC plans to implement it. It's too severe.
It's the kind of barriers that the game will erect, and the one about death is a red flag.
Steven is a salesman. His history a thing by itself, but after Apocalypse, I will not apologise for having doubts.
Yes I get it, WoW and all the other carebear MMO's attract a bigger audience. But if you actually sit down and do math before making another 10 paragraph post you might actually learn something about what you're talking about. Just to give you some perspective, the original EQ at it's peak had a subscriber base of 550,000 +/-.
Let's use that as baseline for discussion instead of the 15+ million subscribers of WoW, do you think AoC will be a success comparative to the original EQ numbers? I understand that times have changed and it costs way more to develop an MMO now than it did 20 years ago, but in the same hand with full digital release and being able to self publish/distribute it's going to also save them (or make them) a way better return. Also the MMO market is much larger now than it was in 1999 and a LOT of MMO players have never even had the opportunity to experince what AoC is building. Keep that in mind even if just 5% (FIVE PERCENT) of the current WoW subscriber base could live with what AoC delivers that's 750k players. Not counting the other millions of subscribers from WoW who no longer play it because well.. most likely boredom.
Lastly, yes you're entitled to an opinion, I would prefer you limit your post(s) to your opinions instead of these random 3rd party comments if you truly "Do not support these positions" of course.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts