How is Ashes different?

The fantasy class of massively multiplayer online role-playing games is stagnating. The genre's archetype, World of Warcraft, had the positive effect of opening the hobby to the general public, but in its undisputed success, created a development bubble populated by projects that struggle to differentiate themselves from WoW, yet invariably end up duplicating it.

The core philosophy that WoW and all its progeny cannot escape is that no matter how much time, financing, creativity, talent and will, developers possess, they cannot produce content faster than the user base can play it. All deviations from this basic premise end up creating experiences which struggle to make the player feel unique, and fail. This, coupled to an attachment to antiquated pen and paper metaphors such as stats, deny the true capabilities of the computers these MMORPGs run on.

So my question to this community is what really makes Ashes all that different? I've seen some youtube videos, and Ashes looks very pretty, but if quests are the same for all players, then how does the player feel unique? If attack patterns have no element of creativity, then how will we know a player has skill? If vendor loot is still the predominate reward for questing, and more valuable items have unlimited supply, then how will we know our items have value?

These are just some of the reasons why we play these games and then leave them. We get bored doing the same things. We have no way to express ourselves besides loot that everyone else has. We see no point in having a player house for our stuff, when items don't actually have value beyond where we obtained them.

My intent is to find out what excites you about Ashes, so I can get excited too. Ultimately, what I am looking for is a place, not a game.

Thanks,

Taylors

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

bloodprophet

From a purely mechanistic view point you are spot on. That leads in to determinism if the game will end at some point why play? Your stuck on the content the creators put into it but there is so much more to it then that.
A friend of mine logged in one night and ran around Dalaran the floating city in Northrend for like 3 hours talking to people. he never once left the city. To me that sounds terribly boring but to him the social aspect was THE reason to log in. He raids so forth as well but it is the people that keep him coming back.
Another friend of mine was playing Age of Conan long after it was no longer fun for him. He was playing with people speaking languages he doesn't. As he was complaining to me I made the point to him he kept playing do to a false sense of loyalty. The game was fun the fun is gone why keep playing. However fun is purely subjective. my friend the socialite for example. hes all good hanging out talking I tend to be more task orientated and need to do stuff or I get bored and move on.
This leads to bigger questions though. Infinite growth for example. How does one implement that and what does it look like long term? Keep getting new skills every level or two for how many levels 50? 100? 10,000? How many skills is it possible of the average person playing the game to have on their screen and or skill page before it becomes overwhelming and unmanagable. What is the power gap between a level 50 a 200?
How big should the world be to explore? They could go the route of Star Citizen and create whole solar systems and large worlds but would the product ever launch? How much resources would it take? Who's footing the bill for them to hire 1000 programmers/designers to build this stuff. I like the skill set to help on that front.
There are a lot of things that need to be accounted for with unlimited growth. Kind of like real life nobody can learn everything. Certainly not in the short 80ish years we are here not enough time and the brain keeps leaking information back out. So we learn what we can hope we don't forget important stuff.

Jamation

Taylors Expansion wrote: »

...so by the 'end' there is nothing else to do except exist in the world, and that is just not fun. So we leave.

I'm jumping into this halfway, but I mean that's an opinion, not a fact.

Based on the initial topic (and the skimming I did through the rest) though I don't think what would interest me would hold the same for you. I'm not super gear/item obsessed so I can't really relate to a lot of the problems presented because I do actually enjoy just existing in these worlds. One of my favorite past times is decorating my in game houses or just fishing with no other goal other than to fish. Even after "finishing" everything I still enjoy playing. I think having a good community/friend group usually helps me because we end up doing silly things which usually always ends up with everybody laughing or having a good time. With the amount of "side" stuff as you call it, I think I'll have plenty to do and create. I've already started a whole document about potential guild/personal events that we could do throughout the year. Content doesn't necessarily have to be obvious, as "player content" can simply be holding a game of hide and seek (which I've done in a game btw and was super fun) and it could simply be to have a good time, or a reward could be presented to the winner. But in the end a game is what you make of it.

People play and enjoy games differently, and Ashes of Creation is indeed a video game. The only thing I can think of in terms of "place" are real world related.

bloodprophet

Agreed the players are most of the content.
A couple friends of mine cleared most of a dungeon and pulled the last boss back to the start. Kicked a DPS and let a new one spawn in from the que. Then the hunter would use misdirect and give the new DPS aggro letting them die. Said they did this for like an hour just killing off players at the door. Cruel to the incoming dps? Maybe hell probably but still super funny none the less.

Taylors Expansion

bloodprophet wrote: »

From a purely mechanistic view point you are spot on. That leads in to determinism if the game will end at some point why play? Your stuck on the content the creators put into it but there is so much more to it then that.
A friend of mine logged in one night and ran around Dalaran the floating city in Northrend for like 3 hours talking to people. he never once left the city. To me that sounds terribly boring but to him the social aspect was THE reason to log in. He raids so forth as well but it is the people that keep him coming back.
Another friend of mine was playing Age of Conan long after it was no longer fun for him. He was playing with people speaking languages he doesn't. As he was complaining to me I made the point to him he kept playing do to a false sense of loyalty. The game was fun the fun is gone why keep playing. However fun is purely subjective. my friend the socialite for example. hes all good hanging out talking I tend to be more task orientated and need to do stuff or I get bored and move on.
This leads to bigger questions though. Infinite growth for example. How does one implement that and what does it look like long term? Keep getting new skills every level or two for how many levels 50? 100? 10,000? How many skills is it possible of the average person playing the game to have on their screen and or skill page before it becomes overwhelming and unmanagable. What is the power gap between a level 50 a 200?
How big should the world be to explore? They could go the route of Star Citizen and create whole solar systems and large worlds but would the product ever launch? How much resources would it take? Who's footing the bill for them to hire 1000 programmers/designers to build this stuff. I like the skill set to help on that front.
There are a lot of things that need to be accounted for with unlimited growth. Kind of like real life nobody can learn everything. Certainly not in the short 80ish years we are here not enough time and the brain keeps leaking information back out. So we learn what we can hope we don't forget important stuff.

To your first point, a good one by the way, you answered your own question. They stayed for the other players, NOT for the game. They would stay in ANY game, based on that lure, right? They have used the MMORPG in its most technical sense, as a graphical IRC channel.

And your second question makes one very basic assumption, an assumption that too many other games have made. That we are playing with dice, and keeping stats as metaphors for growth. Is that really the only system? Levels? What the heck are levels? Why can't I wear a level 2 pair of socks if I'm only level 1. Do the socks jump off my feet? It's silly, if you think about it. And it made sense, when you had pen and paper, but we have these neat devices called computers, and they have these cool programs called databases, so maybe it is time we start moving beyond the traditional systems, and start using the real power of computers. I'm sorry, I kid, but this is 2021, and we still use systems used in 1995 (Meridian59, if anyone cares).

These are not just complaints, these are existential issues that if not resolved, will keep us right where we are. Do we want Ashes to succeed? Do we want something truly new and groundbreaking? Then let's make suggestions that if not implemented themselves, at least give the devs some paths they may not have considered.

My suggestion is what is called the exposure system. It's tough to explain, but I do have a working (very simple) prototype, so I know the concept works. Imagine you meet your first creature, and it is a humanoid, and it throws spells at you. The first time you meet it, that's all you know, because you've only been exposed to it that one time. After enough times meeting the same creature, instead of it being described as a humanoid spell caster, it now is an orc spell caster. And after enough battles, an orc shaman. You LEARNED what it was through exposure. And when you get a shield, you are totally able to use it, but you are pretty crappy with it, because you've only just been exposed to using it. As you use it more, your exposure increases, and therefore your ability to use it increases. Make the learning curve asymptotic, and the rate of learning tied to the only stat I think is relevant in these games, intelligence. So if you are really smart, you will learn really fast, but if not, like a barbarian, you may never learn that it is an orc shaman, but who cares, because you are really tough. And the exposure also works in the opposite direction. The orc shaman gets exposed to you, and over time, it's ability to know your weaknesses increases, and battles with them are harder. How many times have we gone back to a level 1 area and fought the creatures? Zero. Why? What's the point, unless they have some special loot. And that shield, it also gets exposed to you, and over time, maybe it rejects any other users. This would give a REASON for soul binding. Also, imagine a dungeon that you explore. Each time you travel through it, its exposure to you increases, so that over time, the dungeon begins to respond to you, to defend itself, or to help you, depending on your actions.

I am really sorry I cannot explain it better than that, but consider that leveling may not be the only system out there, and if we want a truly groundbreaking game, then these fundamental, and traditional, systems, need to change as well.

WAY too long, sorry.

Taylors

Greendino

Jamation wrote: »

Taylors Expansion wrote: »

...so by the 'end' there is nothing else to do except exist in the world, and that is just not fun. So we leave.

I'm jumping into this halfway, but I mean that's an opinion, not a fact.

Based on the initial topic (and the skimming I did through the rest) though I don't think what would interest me would hold the same for you. I'm not super gear/item obsessed so I can't really relate to a lot of the problems presented because I do actually enjoy just existing in these worlds. One of my favorite past times is decorating my in game houses or just fishing with no other goal other than to fish. Even after "finishing" everything I still enjoy playing. I think having a good community/friend group usually helps me because we end up doing silly things which usually always ends up with everybody laughing or having a good time. With the amount of "side" stuff as you call it, I think I'll have plenty to do and create. I've already started a whole document about potential guild/personal events that we could do throughout the year. Content doesn't necessarily have to be obvious, as "player content" can simply be holding a game of hide and seek (which I've done in a game btw and was super fun) and it could simply be to have a good time, or a reward could be presented to the winner. But in the end a game is what you make of it.

People play and enjoy games differently, and Ashes of Creation is indeed a video game. The only thing I can think of in terms of "place" are real world related.

I'm with you on this one. It isn't the end game content or shiny new gear every 2 months that keeps me playing. Its the community and feeling sharing a world that do. All the major games from WoW onward have largely failed for me because they didn't offer that feeling.

Taylors Expansion

bloodprophet wrote: »

I stand by my hypothesis that what makes all existing games identical is that development is purely in the hands of developers, and no matter how much ,time, money, talent, experience or other resources, content cannot be made faster than players can play it. What results is 'end game', a code term meaning there is no more content, so you need to rinse and repeat until more is created.

Taylors

Not really sure what your asking for here? A blank slate similar to Minecraft where every thing is made by the people playing?
There are a lot of people people is a lot of games that do community events.
Like this:

Greendino

Taylors Expansion wrote: »

Respectfully, what you are saying is that this is the way it is, so deal with it. If that was the attitude for any technology IRL, then we would still be on horses. Rockets would never land themselves. Cars would never drive themselves. It is ok to see our current place as a stepping stone, instead of an end point.

From the dev perspective, I imagine the calculus is about RISK. It is a business, after all. We mere players can come up with any ideas, and they may even work, but they KNOW what works is the WoW model. So the least risky move is to use that model, but add FEATURES, which are novel. The node system is one of those features, and I actually do applaud the attempt, but in the end, Ashes will suffer the same fate as all the others. And that is preventable.

I'm not asking for Minecraft. As I already stated, the technology is not there yet. But allowing a lesser ability to modify the world and its content IS possible. My suggestion, was our player houses. If they could be made into our own dungeons, with our own purposes, then that would be enough to at least explore the concept of player content creation. My example was a player creating a dungeon in their 'house' (maybe it's a cave, or whatever) where they secretly practiced their nefarious arts to produce an army of creatures that they intend to release on the unsuspecting node, all the while being the outwardly upstanding node citizen. Just having players finding out more about other player's housing through skills/spells/etc would be unique. And if the inside of the house was instanced instead of contiguous, then my guess is this is well within the technological abilities of the system. What it would mean for the devs is producing a limited world-building interface for the players, instead of the much more complex system they use to design the actual world.

Taylors

Respectfully, sir, do you not understand that this project was started and fully funded by an individual who had business success in order to accrue such wealth due to the fact that he was frustrated by the direction the MMORPG genre was going after World of Warcraft?

There is no publisher pulling the strings. It is not simply that the Node system is novel. Utilizing older ideas and philosophies lost to the current design of MMORPGs and combing them with new ideas is arguably exactly what the genre needs. Furthermore there was a project where total changing of the world was the goal, and Everquest Next is long dead.

The Node system itself gives players the ability to change the world in meaningful ways. Which areas will be developed, which content becomes available. Furthermore do not discount the importance of actually having and allowing multiple paths of play. Being able to be a crafter, trader, bounty hunter, mercenary, adventurer, criminal, soldier, war leader, etc is something that greatly lacking and is itself important.

It is precisely the fact that is not being pushed as a cash grab by greedy corporate suits that tells me that this game will actually be different.

Everdark

Taylors[/quote]

Not really sure what your asking for here? A blank slate similar to Minecraft where every thing is made by the people playing?
There are a lot of people people is a lot of games that do community events.
Like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1WMAcBHQp8

The Developers built the world and set the rules for it. The rest is up to the people using systems set in place by the developing team to do as they wish.
By the strictest definition of your hypothesis all game are the same in that they have an end. [/quote]

And yet we leave 100% of the games we play. Why? What is the core reason we do? We do not start wanting to leave, but after playing, something compels us to find something else. And let's face it, the devs don't want us to leave. They want us to keep spending money on their product, yet 100% of games fail to keep their communities attached indefinitely. Why?

The answer is content. When games are young, there is tons of content, and it takes months to play through all that can be played. Meanwhile, the devs are working behind the scenes to make more content, fresh content, so that us players don't get bored and leave. At first, they can keep up, but after about a year, maybe two, there is simply no way to do so. Some devs have tried using procedural generation, crating addition to the world, but additions that are sterile. The node system is an attempt at creating a lot of content up front, so it will take a long time to play it all, hopefully giving the devs time to produce new content before the node system is no longer new to us. So in a sense, the node system is a delay tactic (no offense, devs, but let's be honest here).

The real question is what makes a game fun, right? At the beginning, fun is learning, exploring, growing our character and experiencing challenges, coupled typically to loot that is, at first unique. By the 'end', there is no more exploring, no more learning, no more growing. They have said that the cap will be 50, so once that challenge has been met, then what is their to strive for? If growth was so fun, why do they take it away from us? If learning is so fun, why do they take it away from us? If exploring is so fun, why do they take it away from us? Need I continue?

The answer is content. They cannot produce content faster than we can play it, so by the 'end' there is nothing else to do except exist in the world, and that is just not fun. So we leave.

Please, destroy my calculus. If there are holes, I do not see them.

Taylors[/quote]

The hole is quite bluntly the players, or rather human nature if you really want to dive into it. Opening up creation to the players so to speak will not work in an MMORPG without significant developer oversight and is therefore constrained the same way developer content is.

'Fun' as you put it above is frankly (simplified significantly) just your brain's dopamine response to a combination of game factors like accomplishment (level growth, skill acquirement, gear attainment, combat success, etc.), and limbic resonance (emotive responses to player-player and player-plot interactions.)

Developers design games for PLAYERS to enjoy. Put simply, they design the world and all its systems to provide different pathways and avenues to dopamine responses - the 'fun'. When you open the world for players to create some of the content, MOST players choose to create content seeking that dopamine response for THEMSELVES, not for all other players. Now, a player creating content is incentized to produce 'fun' content; as their dopamine response is undoubtedly driven by recognition, admiration, and maybe even compensation from other players in response to player created content. BUT, here's the rub. Players do not typically have the skill or time that developers do to create content because well... they aren't developers. That means almost all player created content will be inferior to developer created content that players have already experienced. As such, player creations will typically fail to generate similar dopamine responses compared to developer content and will be 'less fun'.

How does that play out then? Well, SOME players will SOMETIMES (artistic creations are almost always low success rate endeavors) create great content that hits factors that induce dopamine responses in the experiencing players, but almost always less than developer content. MOST players will create content that is ignored or overlooked either because it is not of sufficient quality relative to player expected baseline, or because one of the above successful players did it better. Overlooked or ignored players receive NO dopamine response for their effort and in turn those creators give up on content creation and go looking for that dopamine response through other game experiences.

Over time, the population of players creating content declines and it becomes impossible for the player base to produce enough sufficient quality content as fast as players can experience it. And that leads you right back where you started - 'not enough content'. If I were to end it here, player creation is at best a stop-gap measure to buy the development team time. However....

Compounding all of this is that some players will undoubtedly try to either break the game with their creations or produce content that is considered unacceptable to the community - requiring the dev team or community to police player created content constantly. If the dev team is involved (almost a necessity) then they end up spending their time policing player content using the very time the stop-gap measure was intended to buy them.

You might think that Minecraft is an exception to the above - it isn't, and I'm happy to explain why if you so desire in another post that hopefully won't be as long.

MoGod

Vhaeyne wrote: »

How is ashes different?

It's bankrolled by a mad lad who seems to have played, and enjoyed all of my favorite old school MMOs.

This page is what sold me on AOC.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Design_pillars

L2,SWG, and EVE are some of my favorite MMOs. I see AOC as the next evolution of these games.

I love open world games that let the players make their own story through socialization, and deep economic and crafting systems.

Well spoken couldn't have said it better myself some very good games there hope this one lives up to any one of those and that page sold me to.

palabana

The opportunity to live in a living, breathing, reactive world together with thousands of other players is what makes Ashes different for me.

Taylors Expansion

Greendino wrote: »

Taylors Expansion wrote: »

Respectfully, what you are saying is that this is the way it is, so deal with it. If that was the attitude for any technology IRL, then we would still be on horses. Rockets would never land themselves. Cars would never drive themselves. It is ok to see our current place as a stepping stone, instead of an end point.

From the dev perspective, I imagine the calculus is about RISK. It is a business, after all. We mere players can come up with any ideas, and they may even work, but they KNOW what works is the WoW model. So the least risky move is to use that model, but add FEATURES, which are novel. The node system is one of those features, and I actually do applaud the attempt, but in the end, Ashes will suffer the same fate as all the others. And that is preventable.

I'm not asking for Minecraft. As I already stated, the technology is not there yet. But allowing a lesser ability to modify the world and its content IS possible. My suggestion, was our player houses. If they could be made into our own dungeons, with our own purposes, then that would be enough to at least explore the concept of player content creation. My example was a player creating a dungeon in their 'house' (maybe it's a cave, or whatever) where they secretly practiced their nefarious arts to produce an army of creatures that they intend to release on the unsuspecting node, all the while being the outwardly upstanding node citizen. Just having players finding out more about other player's housing through skills/spells/etc would be unique. And if the inside of the house was instanced instead of contiguous, then my guess is this is well within the technological abilities of the system. What it would mean for the devs is producing a limited world-building interface for the players, instead of the much more complex system they use to design the actual world.

Taylors

Respectfully, sir, do you not understand that this project was started and fully funded by an individual who had business success in order to accrue such wealth due to the fact that he was frustrated by the direction the MMORPG genre was going after World of Warcraft?

There is no publisher pulling the strings. It is not simply that the Node system is novel. Utilizing older ideas and philosophies lost to the current design of MMORPGs and combing them with new ideas is arguably exactly what the genre needs. Furthermore there was a project where total changing of the world was the goal, and Everquest Next is long dead.

The Node system itself gives players the ability to change the world in meaningful ways. Which areas will be developed, which content becomes available. Furthermore do not discount the importance of actually having and allowing multiple paths of play. Being able to be a crafter, trader, bounty hunter, mercenary, adventurer, criminal, soldier, war leader, etc is something that greatly lacking and is itself important.

It is precisely the fact that is not being pushed as a cash grab by greedy corporate suits that tells me that this game will actually be different.

I know this is hard to accept, and maybe you've been in this for shorter time than I have, but I have been watching and playing these games since 1979. Obviously, no MMORPGs in 1979, but I've watched the evolution from day one, have always had cutting edge systems to play them, and have heard the promises you just cited more times than I can remember. In fact, I cannot remember ever NOT hearing those promises.

I do understand that this project was started for the purpose of moving the genre forward, and that is totally possible IF the developers fully understand what needs to be moved. I respectfully hypothesize that not one developer does. I wish they did, because at nearly 50, I am getting old, and my fear is that the MMORPG that needs to come into existence to move things forward is not going to happen in my lifetime. It's a bummer and the reason I feel forced to have this thread.

If you can prove to me that my basic hypothesis is wrong, then I will happily stand down. That hypothesis is that no matter how much time, energy, money, creativity, time and resources are devoted to an MMORPG, it's Achilles heel is that content cannot be developed faster than the player base can play it. And the only solution is to give, at least to a limited extent, content production ability to the players. It is not about ALLOWING the players to make content, it is about HARNESSING the players to make content. The first game to do this, no matter what its theme, will be the dominant MMORPG from that point on.

I would be willing to bet on it.

Taylors

Taylors Expansion

Everdark wrote: »

Taylors

Greendino

Taylors Expansion wrote: »

I know this is hard to accept, and maybe you've been in this for shorter time than I have, but I have been watching and playing these games since 1979. Obviously, no MMORPGs in 1979, but I've watched the evolution from day one, have always had cutting edge systems to play them, and have heard the promises you just cited more times than I can remember. In fact, I cannot remember ever NOT hearing those promises.

I do understand that this project was started for the purpose of moving the genre forward, and that is totally possible IF the developers fully understand what needs to be moved. I respectfully hypothesize that not one developer does. I wish they did, because at nearly 50, I am getting old, and my fear is that the MMORPG that needs to come into existence to move things forward is not going to happen in my lifetime. It's a bummer and the reason I feel forced to have this thread.

If you can prove to me that my basic hypothesis is wrong, then I will happily stand down. That hypothesis is that no matter how much time, energy, money, creativity, time and resources are devoted to an MMORPG, it's Achilles heel is that content cannot be developed faster than the player base can play it. And the only solution is to give, at least to a limited extent, content production ability to the players. It is not about ALLOWING the players to make content, it is about HARNESSING the players to make content. The first game to do this, no matter what its theme, will be the dominant MMORPG from that point on.

I would be willing to bet on it.

Taylors

I don't wish to come off as overly hostile, I apologize if I have been. I understand the frustration with the MMO market, believe me. I only started in 2003 at the tender age of 11, but essentially my entire life has been watching the genre become warped around WoW and suffer greatly because of it. I think the premise of your question is somewhat flawed, though, because the primary strength of any MMORPG has never been content. Final Fantasy 14 pumps out plenty of content which I enjoy, but it doesn't retain me for very long.

The primary focus in any MMO should be about building a community. This doesn't mean it has to be all about player conflict, but simply having the structures in place to help an in game culture and community develop on its own. This is, in many ways, the players creating the content. It is largely unfeasible to give players the keys to the castle so to speak. Its never been about content creation, at least not for me. It's about community building.

I don't know if something like you're proposing is viable now, but I know that shifting the market away from the current themepark dominance is certainly a good direction to be going in.

Everdark

All you are really saying is that player made content, for the most part, will suck. I agree. But having played player-made worlds since Doom, there are some real gems out there. Using my example of a player house that is the only place a player can build their own dungeon (or whatever), many of them will be stupid. But so what? Players will quickly understand which ones suck and which ones are great, and they will funnel the rest of the player base to the good ones.

It will regulate itself. Not only that, having so many bad ones, with so few good ones, will make FINDING the good ones a challenge in itself. You are not going to break into every single house to find the good one, are you? Unlikely. Chances are you will ask other players, find out what their experiences are, which gives you a real incentive to interact with others, or even to use knowledge of good places as a commodity.

On day one, these player made spaces will be primitive. A room maybe, or a few rooms, with maybe some mobs in them. It doesn't have to be much. Maybe they guard some special 'hot potato' that a player obtains, but is stealable. As time goes on, the devs will add more to the system, and believe me, there are players (not me) who have amazing creativity with very limited tools.

This concept IS possible, well within the technological capabilities, and only requires the will of the developers to understand where we are and why. Otherwise, we get another game that makes great promises, but in the end, is just another flavor of WoW. Consider that without knowing anything about Ashes, not its concept, features, or mechanics, just based purely on all the other games that have existed, I can say with good confidence that Ashes will not last more than a few years without going to a F2P model. Because that's what always happens. I would hate to see that happen here.

Taylors[/quote]

The player content creation you seem to be suggesting won't work well with this type of game unless its so simplistic that it's irrelevant, or without IMMENSE developer time and investment.

This isn't minecraft where there is effectively no base content to experience besides the content creation process and other player's content. AoC is an RPG, most of the game's content will have nothing to do with player created content in the form you seem to be suggesting. That base developer made content, while not exhaustive, will be easily accessible and of far greater scope and quality than 99% of all player created content. That developer content is what you and every other player trying to create content is competing with each and every time.

Dopamine responses for individuals as they pertain to content creation is driven in large part by recognition. That means that all those players that created content that "sucked" (aren't recognized) are VERY likely to switch to the developer content and create nothing ever again, as developer content is a quicker more assured path to that feeling of 'fun'.

Furthermore, the only way those players could be creating any content in the first place is with some form of builder sandbox built into the game by the developers. While technologically possible, its VERY difficult and time consuming to implement this well to any extent (check out the history of EQ Landmark as an example). Why would Developers waste time and resources on that system? So most players will try it once before never touching it again and returning to developer made content? I won't deny that it is possible that some incredible player made creations could be generated - but it will never be economical in this type of game.

Look, you're right that harnessing players to create content is key. But you're wrong in thinking we've come that far from a technology standpoint. In order for players not to abandon creating their own content for developer made content, at least one of two things must be true. Either minimal or no developer content must exist with which player created content must compete or, the creation tool must allow players to create content equivalent to developer content at a fraction of the time or cost. The second requirement is nearly an impossibility as any player realized increases in content scope or quality yield would be amplified on the developer side as they have greater time and expertise.

As to the F2P comment, sounds like cynicism frankly. FFXI is subscription based MMORPG that still lives decades later and it survived the release of WoW and all the MMORPGs since without compromising that.

Taylors Expansion

Everdark wrote: »

All you are really saying is that player made content, for the most part, will suck. I agree. But having played player-made worlds since Doom, there are some real gems out there. Using my example of a player house that is the only place a player can build their own dungeon (or whatever), many of them will be stupid. But so what? Players will quickly understand which ones suck and which ones are great, and they will funnel the rest of the player base to the good ones.

It will regulate itself. Not only that, having so many bad ones, with so few good ones, will make FINDING the good ones a challenge in itself. You are not going to break into every single house to find the good one, are you? Unlikely. Chances are you will ask other players, find out what their experiences are, which gives you a real incentive to interact with others, or even to use knowledge of good places as a commodity.

On day one, these player made spaces will be primitive. A room maybe, or a few rooms, with maybe some mobs in them. It doesn't have to be much. Maybe they guard some special 'hot potato' that a player obtains, but is stealable. As time goes on, the devs will add more to the system, and believe me, there are players (not me) who have amazing creativity with very limited tools.

This concept IS possible, well within the technological capabilities, and only requires the will of the developers to understand where we are and why. Otherwise, we get another game that makes great promises, but in the end, is just another flavor of WoW. Consider that without knowing anything about Ashes, not its concept, features, or mechanics, just based purely on all the other games that have existed, I can say with good confidence that Ashes will not last more than a few years without going to a F2P model. Because that's what always happens. I would hate to see that happen here.

Taylors

The player content creation you seem to be suggesting won't work well with this type of game unless its so simplistic that it's irrelevant, or without IMMENSE developer time and investment.

This isn't minecraft where there is effectively no base content to experience besides the content creation process and other player's content. AoC is an RPG, most of the game's content will have nothing to do with player created content in the form you seem to be suggesting. That base developer made content, while not exhaustive, will be easily accessible and of far greater scope and quality than 99% of all player created content. That developer content is what you and every other player trying to create content is competing with each and every time.

Dopamine responses for individuals as they pertain to content creation is driven in large part by recognition. That means that all those players that created content that "sucked" (aren't recognized) are VERY likely to switch to the developer content and create nothing ever again, as developer content is a quicker more assured path to that feeling of 'fun'.

Furthermore, the only way those players could be creating any content in the first place is with some form of builder sandbox built into the game by the developers. While technologically possible, its VERY difficult and time consuming to implement this well to any extent (check out the history of EQ Landmark as an example). Why would Developers waste time and resources on that system? So most players will try it once before never touching it again and returning to developer made content? I won't deny that it is possible that some incredible player made creations could be generated - but it will never be economical in this type of game.

Look, you're right that harnessing players to create content is key. But you're wrong in thinking we've come that far from a technology standpoint. In order for players not to abandon creating their own content for developer made content, at least one of two things must be true. Either minimal or no developer content must exist with which player created content must compete or, the creation tool must allow players to create content equivalent to developer content at a fraction of the time or cost. The second requirement is nearly an impossibility as any player realized increases in content scope or quality yield would be amplified on the developer side as they have greater time and expertise.

As to the F2P comment, sounds like cynicism frankly. FFXI is subscription based MMORPG that still lives decades later and it survived the release of WoW and all the MMORPGs since without compromising that.[/quote]

And so the cycle continues. We can't do it, it's too hard, they have new concepts, community is key, and on and on. What you are really saying is that the horse is good enough. Cars are too loud, too slow, require roads, need gas stations, will kill people, and on and on. But then there are those who say the status quo must end.

My goal is simple. In games that I feel have potential to be groundbreaking, I will start up one of these threads until the devs finally begin to understand WHY we are in the stagnation place we're in. I fully intend to play Ashes, because I see some interesting concepts in it, but I see nothing that makes it deviate from the core WoW model of purely dev made content. If I am right, then this game, like all the others, will have a run, and then fade into history.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Taylors

bloodprophet

You mean this?
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/comprehensive-guide-to-player-made-dungeon-building.148418/

Didn't DDO do this at launch as well? I remember building this kind of thing in an MMO decade or so ago. Was clunky at best. Some people did some good stuff.

Everdark

And so the cycle continues. We can't do it, it's too hard, they have new concepts, community is key, and on and on. What you are really saying is that the horse is good enough. Cars are too loud, too slow, require roads, need gas stations, will kill people, and on and on. But then there are those who say the status quo must end.

My goal is simple. In games that I feel have potential to be groundbreaking, I will start up one of these threads until the devs finally begin to understand WHY we are in the stagnation place we're in. I fully intend to play Ashes, because I see some interesting concepts in it, but I see nothing that makes it deviate from the core WoW model of purely dev made content. If I am right, then this game, like all the others, will have a run, and then fade into history.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Taylors[/quote]

I feel like you're not giving AoC enough credit. As I defined above, games are 'fun' due to dopamine responses arising from various game factors (accomplishment (level growth, skill acquirement, gear attainment, combat success, etc.), and limbic resonance (emotive responses to player-player and player-plot interactions).

You've identified that things like level growth, gear attainment, exploration, and similar 'content' is limited by developer ability to pump out that content as quickly as players digest it. You further suggest that players can create content to bridge the gap between the pace at which players experience developer content and those developers can get it to game. Now, I believe I made it clear why a player creation oriented system is not actually an effective solution for AoC. HOWEVER, you're ignoring the second part of the equation - limbic resonance.

Player interactions with each other, with the game's plot, and combinations thereof are their own form of 'content', and seems to be what AoC is focusing on. The systems of AoC (from what we know so far) are almost entirely player driven. The node system is designed to force player interactions and create soft friction among player groups and factions. Variation has been built into both based on player influence. Taken as a whole, this seems to have been designed to DRASTICALLY increase the number and variety of player-player interactions a player experiences - i.e. the same or similar developer content can be experienced 1,000 different ways based on how one chooses to interact with their fellow players and the world. Rather than "MAKE MORE CONTENT FASTER" they've taken the approach of increasing the content YIELD of what content they do bring to the game. In theory, this is a FAR FAR more effective approach than what we've discussed above, and honestly appears likely to be quite revolutionary and groundbreaking for the genre.

Taylors Expansion

Everdark wrote: »

And so the cycle continues. We can't do it, it's too hard, they have new concepts, community is key, and on and on. What you are really saying is that the horse is good enough. Cars are too loud, too slow, require roads, need gas stations, will kill people, and on and on. But then there are those who say the status quo must end.

My goal is simple. In games that I feel have potential to be groundbreaking, I will start up one of these threads until the devs finally begin to understand WHY we are in the stagnation place we're in. I fully intend to play Ashes, because I see some interesting concepts in it, but I see nothing that makes it deviate from the core WoW model of purely dev made content. If I am right, then this game, like all the others, will have a run, and then fade into history.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Taylors

I feel like you're not giving AoC enough credit. As I defined above, games are 'fun' due to dopamine responses arising from various game factors (accomplishment (level growth, skill acquirement, gear attainment, combat success, etc.), and limbic resonance (emotive responses to player-player and player-plot interactions).

You've identified that things like level growth, gear attainment, exploration, and similar 'content' is limited by developer ability to pump out that content as quickly as players digest it. You further suggest that players can create content to bridge the gap between the pace at which players experience developer content and those developers can get it to game. Now, I believe I made it clear why a player creation oriented system is not actually an effective solution for AoC. HOWEVER, you're ignoring the second part of the equation - limbic resonance.

Player interactions with each other, with the game's plot, and combinations thereof are their own form of 'content', and seems to be what AoC is focusing on. The systems of AoC (from what we know so far) are almost entirely player driven. The node system is designed to force player interactions and create soft friction among player groups and factions. Variation has been built into both based on player influence. Taken as a whole, this seems to have been designed to DRASTICALLY increase the number and variety of player-player interactions a player experiences - i.e. the same or similar developer content can be experienced 1,000 different ways based on how one chooses to interact with their fellow players and the world. Rather than "MAKE MORE CONTENT FASTER" they've taken the approach of increasing the content YIELD of what content they do bring to the game. In theory, this is a FAR FAR more effective approach than what we've discussed above, and honestly appears likely to be quite revolutionary and groundbreaking for the genre.
[/quote]

Not ignoring, per se, just I am a fully trained research biologist, and while you have the physiological dimension of 'fun' described, it is much more complex than you are saying, more neurotransmitters for instance, and you ignore the psychological dimension, which to me, has higher relevance to this discussion. I was trying to be polite, and not address your biology statements directly, but you insisted on a response.

I do think you brought up a valid topic, though. What is fun? We know when we are having it, but we have a hard time describing it. And unless we can do so, then how can we achieve it in these games? Turns out, the same old gamers who share my opinion regarding the core reason why all these games are the same, are in a conversation to find out exactly how to answer that question. I personally believe that somewhere out there is an equation for fun, some set of simple rules that if applied to any situation, results in the players having fun. One caveat however, is that fun is time-limited, meaning the same activity done repeatedly may at first be fun, but ultimately loses that description.

The conversation is still early going, but so far, we have that fun is actually a dimension of work. Whether playing soccer or tic-tac-toe, the player is performing some task, and is also problem solving. There are always rules, which are easy to understand at first, so play is immediate, but with subtleties that, once discovered, allow the player to express themselves through their creativity and strategy.

Care to add to this? Remember, it must apply to ANY game.

Taylors

Everdark

Not ignoring, per se, just I am a fully trained research biologist, and while you have the physiological dimension of 'fun' described, it is much more complex than you are saying, more neurotransmitters for instance, and you ignore the psychological dimension, which to me, has higher relevance to this discussion. I was trying to be polite, and not address your biology statements directly, but you insisted on a response.

I do think you brought up a valid topic, though. What is fun? We know when we are having it, but we have a hard time describing it. And unless we can do so, then how can we achieve it in these games? Turns out, the same old gamers who share my opinion regarding the core reason why all these games are the same, are in a conversation to find out exactly how to answer that question. I personally believe that somewhere out there is an equation for fun, some set of simple rules that if applied to any situation, results in the players having fun. One caveat however, is that fun is time-limited, meaning the same activity done repeatedly may at first be fun, but ultimately loses that description.

The conversation is still early going, but so far, we have that fun is actually a dimension of work. Whether playing soccer or tic-tac-toe, the player is performing some task, and is also problem solving. There are always rules, which are easy to understand at first, so play is immediate, but with subtleties that, once discovered, allow the player to express themselves through their creativity and strategy.

Care to add to this? Remember, it must apply to ANY game.

Taylors[/quote]

You'll have to forgive my gross oversimplifications, but I have doubts that most of our fellow gamers reading this thread would appreciate details of the neurobiologic processes underpinning dopaminergic pathways and reward systems. In similar form I've ignored the phycology component (aside from that which I've indirectly implied) due to the same concerns.

That sounds like an interesting discussion and I'm curious how you arrived at this initial hypothesis. I do believe that 'fun' is related to work, or rather to the accomplishment or completion of a task - I'll explain below:

If I were to evaluate 'fun' as you have above, my logical progression would be thus. Firstly, fun is something that generates repetitive behavior. That repetitive behavior varies between individuals and organisms and does not appear to be predicated on survival requirements or to relieve some preexisting condition. Ergo, it is likely that the repetitive behavior generates some neurochemical response pleasurable or arousing to the organism engaging in the behavior that drives further repetition of the behavior AND some commonality likely exists between different behaviors' that generate the same pleasure response. To summarize, fun must generate a neurochemical pleasure response.

The following is predicated on the preceding paragraph, so if you disagree with the logic to this point, you can essentially ignore this and what follows. IF 'fun' is something that generates a neurochemical pleasure response, the next logical step is to evaluate actions or mechanisms that result in those responses. Hedonic brain regions and pathways are (to the best of my knowledge) not well understood outside of the dopminergic pathways and the nucleus accumbens. Furthermore, I'm certainly no expert on behavioral neuroscience to theorize outside of the knowledge base to which I am accustomed. As a result, I'll continue my trend of focusing on dopamine response (once again drastically oversimplified), as I feel like it can remain logically coherent without delving too deep into the details.

If you'll agree that dopamine responses can generate the neurochemical pleasure response identified in the first hypothesis, then it is logical that those actions one takes that correlate with that dopamine response are those that one would likely call 'fun'. It's somewhat well studied that when one accomplishes a task (or at least feels like they have) it generates a pleasurable dopamine response in the brain. It is also supported that repetitive task completion sees diminished dopamine response unless those tasks relate to more significant goals. So, I would contend that fun is predicated on work, in that work is necessary for task completion. While these are by no means the only experiences that generate a dopamine response, I'm going to focus on those two for now, as this post will already be much longer than I would like.

Applied to video games the above appears to hold true. In WoW for example many of your quests are repetitive and monotonous. However, most players will enjoy those quests far longer than their design warrants because those quests contribute to either progression of a greater narrative quest line, or to your experience bar and level progression. The same holds true with most combat encounters or even crafting. Take a game like Dark Souls where combat is far more difficult and players invent accomplishment in terms of improving prowess. One can die to the same boss 50 times but if they get closer and closer to winning each time, most players will feel a sense of accomplishment and keep at it, even if no formal task completion has occurred. Hence, despite players finding the game frustrating, most still describe it as fun.

So to your point - I'd take the position that 'fun' is predicated on work only in so far as work is necessary to derive completion of a task. I'd further contend that the influence of problem solving applies only in framing the perceived complexity or difficulty of the task to be accomplished as that relates to the perceived level of accomplishment a player expects to feel on completion. I'm not certain what position to take on rules frankly. As mentioned above, players have the capability and inclination to invent their own micro tasks to accomplish when none are provided, and I'm unsure if the same cannot hold true for rules. That said, I do think they are necessary, as you cannot frame difficulty or an objective without them. I agree in that I don't think rules necessarily have to be simple, so much as appear that way. Rules that appear simple allow introductory players the capability of conceptualizing a goal or task to complete and estimating a level of accomplishment they would feel on completion without the requirement of being intimately familiar with the game systems.

Taylors Expansion

Everdark wrote: »

Not ignoring, per se, just I am a fully trained research biologist, and while you have the physiological dimension of 'fun' described, it is much more complex than you are saying, more neurotransmitters for instance, and you ignore the psychological dimension, which to me, has higher relevance to this discussion. I was trying to be polite, and not address your biology statements directly, but you insisted on a response.

I do think you brought up a valid topic, though. What is fun? We know when we are having it, but we have a hard time describing it. And unless we can do so, then how can we achieve it in these games? Turns out, the same old gamers who share my opinion regarding the core reason why all these games are the same, are in a conversation to find out exactly how to answer that question. I personally believe that somewhere out there is an equation for fun, some set of simple rules that if applied to any situation, results in the players having fun. One caveat however, is that fun is time-limited, meaning the same activity done repeatedly may at first be fun, but ultimately loses that description.

The conversation is still early going, but so far, we have that fun is actually a dimension of work. Whether playing soccer or tic-tac-toe, the player is performing some task, and is also problem solving. There are always rules, which are easy to understand at first, so play is immediate, but with subtleties that, once discovered, allow the player to express themselves through their creativity and strategy.

Care to add to this? Remember, it must apply to ANY game.

Taylors

You'll have to forgive my gross oversimplifications, but I have doubts that most of our fellow gamers reading this thread would appreciate details of the neurobiologic processes underpinning dopaminergic pathways and reward systems. In similar form I've ignored the phycology component (aside from that which I've indirectly implied) due to the same concerns.

That sounds like an interesting discussion and I'm curious how you arrived at this initial hypothesis. I do believe that 'fun' is related to work, or rather to the accomplishment or completion of a task - I'll explain below:

If I were to evaluate 'fun' as you have above, my logical progression would be thus. Firstly, fun is something that generates repetitive behavior. That repetitive behavior varies between individuals and organisms and does not appear to be predicated on survival requirements or to relieve some preexisting condition. Ergo, it is likely that the repetitive behavior generates some neurochemical response pleasurable or arousing to the organism engaging in the behavior that drives further repetition of the behavior AND some commonality likely exists between different behaviors' that generate the same pleasure response. To summarize, fun must generate a neurochemical pleasure response.

The following is predicated on the preceding paragraph, so if you disagree with the logic to this point, you can essentially ignore this and what follows. IF 'fun' is something that generates a neurochemical pleasure response, the next logical step is to evaluate actions or mechanisms that result in those responses. Hedonic brain regions and pathways are (to the best of my knowledge) not well understood outside of the dopminergic pathways and the nucleus accumbens. Furthermore, I'm certainly no expert on behavioral neuroscience to theorize outside of the knowledge base to which I am accustomed. As a result, I'll continue my trend of focusing on dopamine response (once again drastically oversimplified), as I feel like it can remain logically coherent without delving too deep into the details.

If you'll agree that dopamine responses can generate the neurochemical pleasure response identified in the first hypothesis, then it is logical that those actions one takes that correlate with that dopamine response are those that one would likely call 'fun'. It's somewhat well studied that when one accomplishes a task (or at least feels like they have) it generates a pleasurable dopamine response in the brain. It is also supported that repetitive task completion sees diminished dopamine response unless those tasks relate to more significant goals. So, I would contend that fun is predicated on work, in that work is necessary for task completion. While these are by no means the only experiences that generate a dopamine response, I'm going to focus on those two for now, as this post will already be much longer than I would like.

Applied to video games the above appears to hold true. In WoW for example many of your quests are repetitive and monotonous. However, most players will enjoy those quests far longer than their design warrants because those quests contribute to either progression of a greater narrative quest line, or to your experience bar and level progression. The same holds true with most combat encounters or even crafting. Take a game like Dark Souls where combat is far more difficult and players invent accomplishment in terms of improving prowess. One can die to the same boss 50 times but if they get closer and closer to winning each time, most players will feel a sense of accomplishment and keep at it, even if no formal task completion has occurred. Hence, despite players finding the game frustrating, most still describe it as fun.

So to your point - I'd take the position that 'fun' is predicated on work only in so far as work is necessary to derive completion of a task. I'd further contend that the influence of problem solving applies only in framing the perceived complexity or difficulty of the task to be accomplished as that relates to the perceived level of accomplishment a player expects to feel on completion. I'm not certain what position to take on rules frankly. As mentioned above, players have the capability and inclination to invent their own micro tasks to accomplish when none are provided, and I'm unsure if the same cannot hold true for rules. That said, I do think they are necessary, as you cannot frame difficulty or an objective without them. I agree in that I don't think rules necessarily have to be simple, so much as appear that way. Rules that appear simple allow introductory players the capability of conceptualizing a goal or task to complete and estimating a level of accomplishment they would feel on completion without the requirement of being intimately familiar with the game systems.

[/quote]

Wow, that's a lot to chew on, and I'm sure I'll miss some of your points in my response, but here goes. It sounds like you are associating 'fun' with addiction. Hence the initial logic that fun generates repetitive behavior. I have to disagree, or maybe I am just not understanding. If I play tic-tac-toe, and I enjoy the experience, then I agree that their is a neurological component to that. But the more I play it, the LESS likely I am to want to continue, because it stops being fun. The question is why?

Your argument sounds like you are saying that we have fun to reach addiction, not that having fun is itself addictive. And if the latter, which is my view, then we must still define what fun is. not merely how we experience it.

Taylors

Child Item