Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
There shouldn't be quest markers.
pgt1027
Member
At least if exploration is supposed to be a part of the gameplay. In a game where you're supposed to explore the world, having quest markers that tell you precisely where to go is like having an FPS with an in-built aimbot. I think it's better to have the quest describe where to go based on proximity to landmarks. EG - "We've been having trouble with dire bears attacking travelers. We discovered a den of dire bears to the west of the ancient pillars to the south of here. Go cut down their numbers so they stop venturing out into the roads".
It's also a nifty way of getting players to pay attention to quest texts and conversations with NPCs, since they know they need to read it to know where to go and what to do. You can throw bits of lore into the texts to familiarize players with the story of the setting without resorting to big exposition dumps. So, for instance, you could throw in a line about how the ancient pillars were built by the old empire or that the dire bears are normally peaceful, but are being twisted by demonic corruption or whatever.
Anyway, my ten cents.
It's also a nifty way of getting players to pay attention to quest texts and conversations with NPCs, since they know they need to read it to know where to go and what to do. You can throw bits of lore into the texts to familiarize players with the story of the setting without resorting to big exposition dumps. So, for instance, you could throw in a line about how the ancient pillars were built by the old empire or that the dire bears are normally peaceful, but are being twisted by demonic corruption or whatever.
Anyway, my ten cents.
8
Comments
There was already an official Dev Discussion on the topic a while back:
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/45931/dev-discussion-21-quest-breadcrumbs/p1
https://knightsofember.com/forums/members/winner909098.54
Yes. He said that there are no quest giver icons and that players will need to refer to the color of the NPC's name in order to tell what type of NPC they were.
I took this to be "quest markers", as in they mark the general area where you can complete the quest, and this is what I took the original comment to be pertaining to.
Yes, this.
To be honest, I don't think it should even be the general area. The quest text should tell you where to go.
But it looked as though the precise location of each page was marked on the map. A step in the wrong direction, in my opinion.
Wow.... have you ever played a game where your "party" member did not show on your mini map? I have... and trust me... you will hate it. There are some QoL that are just plain needed, and having your party members show up on your map is definitely one of them.
Agreed.
There are WAY too many people that want the game to be this hyper realistic thing but honestly it'll just turn into a chore...there's a very good reason that even survival games don't have these mechanics
I would like to see some simple quests focuses. We're explorers there to BUILD the world. We should have rare item turn ins that can be found in dungeons or through artisan expertise. We should have a local blacksmith requesting us to kill dangerous beasts that are threatening the town. Blanket quests are ok if they fit the lore and local stories. Witcher quests are a great example of what I thoroughly enjoyed. Trash like watch dogs or cyberpunk are not good IMO.
All of that. yup! I would love some dynamic quests with meaning in place of stale, old, all the time used, static quests.
It's more often then not just the lazy way out. It's the difference between Morrowind and Skyrim for example.
Morrowind has you read the quest and gives you a detailed description of where it is. So once you're in the location, you can follow the instructions. Sometimes, when the NPC doesn't know the -exact- location it gives a general ballpark and you can use some degree of logic to find out where it is.
If you're over at my place, or something. And I don't know, say we decide to play on the Switch together. I can go, I have a second controller, go grab it. Then a quest marker magically appears. Or I say, go on, grab the controller, it's in the cupboard over there, middle drawer.
I think you see what I mean
On a general note. Ashes is turning out to be a rather pretty game to look at. Following quest markers detracts from that, as you pay less attention to the world and just follow said markers. Rather than looking for landmarks described in your quest.
Can't agree with that. Not, at least, if exploration is supposed to be a part of the gameplay.
Like I said, it's as if you had an FPS with an in-built aimbot. And what is an aimbot? It's almost universally thought of as a cheat, because it streamlines and automates a core element of the gameplay and thus gives those that use it an unfair advantage. The same goes with quest markers, they do the job of exploration for you just like an aimbot does the job of aiming for you. And once you allow cheats, they quickly become the new standard and anyone who isn't using them is playing sub-optimally.
Like deciding NOT to use Soldier 76's ultimate xD
I mean, it's questing...not an auto-clicker for the boss fight
I turn off breadcrumb trails and quest markers in every other game I play such as Skyrim and Fable b/c that's how I like to play, but there are times where I just want to turn off my brain and check things off the list so having the option is fine and doesn't affect your gameplay in the slightest
Good question for Q&A maybe.
Skyrim and Fable are singleplayer games. This is a multiplayer game.
This is, once again, if exploration is supposed to be a part of the gameplay. If you think that it's okay for players to essentially cheat through it, you're saying that it's not a part of the gameplay and therefore can be skipped entirely.
I'm saying equating it to cheating is a false analogy
Questing is largely a solo to small party experience and players should be allowed to go at it how they see fit...questing is mostly for lore and story not end game items and abilities so there's no real loss to you if I want to quest w/ some markers guiding the way
The only way it's remotely a loss is in the speed leveling sense and I don't think that's enough to completely warrant lack of help to those that would prefer it
Why not add a function that allows you to automatically complete quests? It could be toggled off or on for whichever players want to use it or not.
I think many people would disagree with such a thing on the principle that it's skipping gameplay. The normalization of quest markers has given people the impression that exploration isn't "real" gameplay and is, at best, a self-imposed challenge.
And that's precisely what exploration is if you have a game with "optional" quest markers: a self-imposed challenge rather than a core element of the gameplay.
I also don't really agree with the viewpoint that questing in general isn't a real part of the gameplay on the same level as high end raiding. I see questing as a legitimate part of the game, not a road bump to max level raiding and PVP.
Please don't do that. Don't pull the same tired lazy technique that everyone on the internet does when having a conversation/debate...you know full well there's a difference between having a general area highlighted for a quest and having it auto-completed.
I've never once said, or even suggested, that exploration isn't real gameplay...merely that some might have little to no interest in it and their ability to skip it/fast lane it has no bearing on you. I don't like crafting and will likely do nothing w/ it outside of farm some oddball materials and buy gear from other players...My lack of active crafting will have no effect on others and I'd never suggest to just have it removed and just have NPC merchants in it's place.
On top of that there are multiple types of questing in AoC and for some of them, such as simple Events & Tasks, could work just fine w/ markers whereas deeper quest, such as Narrative and Epic, can forgo markers to encourage more exploration.
I guess it should be noted that exploration is mostly an element of the questing experience, and no one is forcing anyone to go questing. If you don't want to explore, you can grind NPCs outside of town, that's a perfectly legitimate way of leveling up. But I don't think the questing experience needs to be tailored to grinders. If you wanna just go grind, go grind.
At the exact same time if you want to explore you're welcome to do that...I did it for a long time in Vanilla WoW. There were no quest at the Hidden Troll Village, no interactable NPCs at the Dwarf Airport, and nothing under Ironforge but I still enjoyed discovering those areas.
There can be a middle ground, there's no good reason it has to be all or nothing. There's a reason quest markers exists in the first place and it's b/c for every feel good story of exploration and wonder in Morrowind...there's just as many of you being sent to a "cave far away" and being straight frustrated and lost for 2 hours not realizing that it's just over the hill from the NPC.
I'm in no way saying every single quest needs to hold your hand from start to finish, but there should be some indication of where in a general area to go to complete a quest and it's fairly easy to make that indicator a toggle for those that would forego it.