Greetings, glorious testers!

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.

To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Ashes of Creation - Fiery Chaos Freeholds in your grassy fields

13»

Comments

  • KhronusKhronus Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Ventharien wrote: »
    @Dreoh Both you and OP are arguing from subjective standpoints that the devs can't possibly make gameplay decisions on. What you don't want to see is immersion to me. I want to be walking into the frozen wastes and see a magical pool of flowing water. Or a huge mushroom, or solitary tree in the middle of a desert. It would be Immersion breaking if there was some arbitrary magic rule that stops me from building something. It's my freehold, i'll build how i want.

    I think from the replies you can see your view point is pretty outnumbered by those that disagree with you, and those that don't care. So why should the devs change a thing?

    I see your perspective here and you clarified it better than I did. in an MMORPG, the immersion for me is what the players add into the world. Dreoh has a vision for what AoC should be and it just simply doesn't align with what the community or the developers want. Nevertheless, he seems to just keep banging his head on that brick wall.
  • VentharienVentharien Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    You bring up voting, and a community forming opinions, but then don't want to convince, or bring people to your opinion. People should most definitely come with their opinions. But just like the people who come forward and say "I don't want any non consensual pvp!", or "I don't want corruption!" As neither will ever be done, at the developer express statement, they are worthless opinions.

    I didn't cherry pick sentences, i just brought up points where you contradict yourself. These aren't the only ones.

    Almost no one, may as well be no one, for the purpose of enacting a change in active development, and the people who don't care have a sizable bearing on the decisions, and always on the side of maintaining the course of development, or the status quo. If 40% of the community, either does not care or has a measured stance, and 40% is against the idea, you, as the group wanting this change or restriction are not 20% vs 40%, but 20% vs 80%. So unless you can pull some of those other community members to your side, you currently hold a useless stance. Change it around, re brand it, explain it better, or compromise on points to pull some people to your side, or it remains a useless stance which won't be implemented and is really just talking to hear yourself talk.

    And yes leave politics out, it leads to stupid tangents and irrelevant comparisons.
  • VentharienVentharien Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Khronus wrote: »

    I see your perspective here and you clarified it better than I did. in an MMORPG, the immersion for me is what the players add into the world. Dreoh has a vision for what AoC should be and it just simply doesn't align with what the community or the developers want. Nevertheless, he seems to just keep banging his head on that brick wall.

    Basically. I mean don't get me wrong, I love me some immersion. The perfectly scored soundtrack, the right audio cues and sounds, the beautiful visuals that just make me wish i was actually in the world, i love all of these. Really makes time seem to fly by. But people being people is part of that world. Someone with a silly pun of a name, or just a ridiculous outfit, or house, is just another story i get to laugh with my friends about.

    If i wanted a focused theme without any distractions i'd play an single player rpg, not an mmo where the lions share of the memories, content, and stories SHOULD be from other players being zany, or amazing, or impressive, or just dumb as a brick.
  • NaxxazNaxxaz Member
    Let's see further into the development.

    To me what counts is:
    1. How many freeholds would you see at any given point?
    2. How many freeholds have skins active?
    3. How many actively try to be an eyesore?

    Think most people would agree that seeing 5+ freeholds at all times, all actively trying to stand out as much as possible with bright colours and themes, would agree that it affects the game experience negatively.

    In all honesty, wait till they test it.
    UncomfortableDangerousBarracuda-size_restricted.gif
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    We need to know how close together freeholds typically are.
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    We need to know how close together freeholds typically are.

    We need to see more info io general when it comes to freehold like type of buildings
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • RocketFarmerRocketFarmer Member, Alpha Two
    How about a toggle option for immersion that switches the freehold appearance to default for those who are so triggered by such things?

    Or each node can elect a freeholder association, much like a home owners association. Would also cover the opportunity to play evil characters. “Hi, I am the president of the local freeholders association. About your flaming tower...”
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    So far, not going to be a thing.
  • RocketFarmerRocketFarmer Member, Alpha Two
    I am not sure I would want to see valuable development time on freehold cosmetics. So many other things to tackle first.
  • KhronusKhronus Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    RocketFarmer wrote: »
    How about a toggle option for immersion that switches the freehold appearance to default for those who are so triggered by such things?

    Or each node can elect a freeholder association, much like a home owners association. Would also cover the opportunity to play evil characters. “Hi, I am the president of the local freeholders association. About your flaming tower...”

    I don't know if this is a serious suggestion or not. An HOA in game would be disgusting. I am a Realtor in California and I deal with enough of this crap already haha.

    I definitely don't like the idea of being able to toggle any cosmetics on and off.
  • MerekMerek Member
    Not surprising really, why would they bar people from using the garbage they've put up for sale? If they were actually interested in maintaining an art direction, they would've curbed the cosmetics whack levels months ago. And, if we're honest, the casual community that pushes for this shit are quite the loud lot so if they want the game to be somewhat successful, they would've needed to bend the knee eventually. Can't wait for the Fortnite season pass though.
  • VentharienVentharien Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    RocketFarmer wrote: »
    How about a toggle option for immersion that switches the freehold appearance to default for those who are so triggered by such things?

    Or each node can elect a freeholder association, much like a home owners association. Would also cover the opportunity to play evil characters. “Hi, I am the president of the local freeholders association. About your flaming tower...”

    There's two problems with that. One, that person paid to both see themselves, and be seen in that cosmetic, otherwise they wouldn't have bought it. Two, that still doesn't solve any problem for people sensitive about the looks, as they could just as easily put the actual building type they like, which a toggle won't do diddly to.

    As to your other comment, no time is being wasted on cosmetics. Assets are being created that will be used around the game world. Very little gets truly wasted during development.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Honestly a lot of this will depend on file structure of the client anyway. Anyone who seriously hates this will find some way to mod it so that any annoying freehold skin has its file replaced by some generic one. No one is harmed in this case, technically.

    So to the OP, while it would be annoying to do it every time, you can consider that it's quite likely that every freehold cosmetic that is really annoying, someone will find a way to 'overwrite' so you don't have to see it.
    The question is if that'd be considered unfortunate and an attempt to counter it made by Intrepid (either in obfuscated file structure, or refusing to start the client if it somehow detects this), or if it'd just be ignored and treated as literally 'a functional external solution that allows an annoyed player to continue playing in the way they are comfortable'.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish ♪
  • DreohDreoh Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited May 2021
    Ventharien wrote: »
    There's two problems with that. One, that person paid to both see themselves, and be seen in that cosmetic, otherwise they wouldn't have bought it. Two, that still doesn't solve any problem for people sensitive about the looks, as they could just as easily put the actual building type they like, which a toggle won't do diddly to.

    They wouldn't know who can't see it, so who cares
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Steven
  • KhronusKhronus Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    Honestly a lot of this will depend on file structure of the client anyway. Anyone who seriously hates this will find some way to mod it so that any annoying freehold skin has its file replaced by some generic one. No one is harmed in this case, technically.

    So to the OP, while it would be annoying to do it every time, you can consider that it's quite likely that every freehold cosmetic that is really annoying, someone will find a way to 'overwrite' so you don't have to see it.
    The question is if that'd be considered unfortunate and an attempt to counter it made by Intrepid (either in obfuscated file structure, or refusing to start the client if it somehow detects this), or if it'd just be ignored and treated as literally 'a functional external solution that allows an annoyed player to continue playing in the way they are comfortable'.

    This seems completely ridiculous to me. Customizing a file so a player doesn't have to see a cosmetic in an mmorpg that another player chooses to represent? If this is what someones life has become I honestly feel no games should be played by the player and they should proceed to the nearest exit and get some sunlight. Immersion is one thing but this is an asinine suggestion.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Objection: Ad hominem. Also failure to establish relevance.

    It's moreso just 'a thing that can happen'. If you have a point other than attacking a (potential) fact as an asinine action and attacking the character of a class of people based on their immersion choices in an MMO, please make it, as I didn't manage to glean it from the last post.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish ♪
  • VentharienVentharien Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dreoh wrote: »
    Ventharien wrote: »
    There's two problems with that. One, that person paid to both see themselves, and be seen in that cosmetic, otherwise they wouldn't have bought it. Two, that still doesn't solve any problem for people sensitive about the looks, as they could just as easily put the actual building type they like, which a toggle won't do diddly to.

    They wouldn't know who can't see it, so who cares

    The person paying money for it. And therefore the person that's going to be paid attention to.
  • VentharienVentharien Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    Honestly a lot of this will depend on file structure of the client anyway. Anyone who seriously hates this will find some way to mod it so that any annoying freehold skin has its file replaced by some generic one. No one is harmed in this case, technically.

    So to the OP, while it would be annoying to do it every time, you can consider that it's quite likely that every freehold cosmetic that is really annoying, someone will find a way to 'overwrite' so you don't have to see it.
    The question is if that'd be considered unfortunate and an attempt to counter it made by Intrepid (either in obfuscated file structure, or refusing to start the client if it somehow detects this), or if it'd just be ignored and treated as literally 'a functional external solution that allows an annoyed player to continue playing in the way they are comfortable'.

    I doubt you changing internal game files would be looked kindly upon, if not an outright tos breach if you go live with the change.
  • VentharienVentharien Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited May 2021
    Azherae wrote: »
    Objection: Ad hominem. Also failure to establish relevance.

    It's moreso just 'a thing that can happen'. If you have a point other than attacking a (potential) fact as an asinine action and attacking the character of a class of people based on their immersion choices in an MMO, please make it, as I didn't manage to glean it from the last post.

    Overruled, Adhominem would refer to a specific strike against you or an debator rather than their position or argument, he's referring to a third party. And it is relevant, he is stating that the thought of someone who feels the need to follow the option you proposed is acting ridiculously in his opinion, and thus out of normal bounds to him.
  • KhronusKhronus Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    Objection: Ad hominem. Also failure to establish relevance.

    It's moreso just 'a thing that can happen'. If you have a point other than attacking a (potential) fact as an asinine action and attacking the character of a class of people based on their immersion choices in an MMO, please make it, as I didn't manage to glean it from the last post.

    Overruled: Your comment was indeed asinine.

    Enjoy the game the way they deliver it. It's going to be fun and immersive even if you have to look at my bright pink mushroom helmet and my island oasis that will be in a forest. The idea of suggesting someone to customize internal game files (all to not see something that is IN THE GAME) is one of the oddest comments I have ever read on these forums.

    If you feel I am attacking you for some reason, there are other issues at hand.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Hm? Not me. OP.

    OP has given a perspective on something they want, and a way they understand that they will be affected by something.

    If we assume that OP would be the sort of person to take the option given (the only reason I gave it), then your comment is admittedly tenuously ad hominem due to it attacking a cognitive class to which OP implies to belong, but still so.

    Person A says 'this will make me have this feeling', and requests assistance or relief.
    Person B offers assistance or relief, mentioning possibility that this may not be allowed by 'law'.
    Person C indicates that the method of assistance is asinine and that the feeling mentioned by Person A indicates that they should be placed in a situation they consider negative regardless of the law, for... reasons?

    So, I don't feel attacked, as I only offered the solution. I am Person B.

    Either way, as this is not a courtroom and there will doubtless be debate on the interpretation of ad hominem, objection withdrawn.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish ♪
Sign In or Register to comment.