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.

Retaining player pop after total loss

FlokiiFlokii Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Scenario:
A player joins AoC for the first time and becomes a citizen of a large and stable city. Acquires land, gear and saves months worth of items/materials in their home.
3 months after playing, the city comes under siege and they lose their homeland and all of their belongings other than what they have in their inventory. They had no secondary home or alt character and their friends/connections scatter to different Nodes.

What systems or driving forces are going to be in place to motivate this person to keep playing the game?

Context: I have Alpha2 and I am hyped for AoC, asking as it's one of the very few things that concerns me most with AoC player retention.
I often look at how Albion has become a gankfest of PVP and is much less of an enjoyable mmo for many character progressive focused mmo players.
dlEUUUn.png

Comments

  • MaezrielMaezriel Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Here you go.

    You don't lose everything, only a portion of your mats...maybe. After that you go and buy a house elsewhere and your furniture and trophies follow you.

    Losing your stuff is supposed to act as the motivator to defend against a siege. If that risk isn't there then why fight?
    ZeFuP1X.png
    If I said something that you disagree w/ feel free to say so here.
  • FlokiiFlokii Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    The Wiki says that after a successful Node siege, the remnants will be only rubble and the victors will be able to loot materials. It doesn't say anything about the defender being able to recover any mats or having lost only a % of the mats.
    Clarification on this would be handy.

    Yes, I get that it's a motivator (a strong one at that). I look forward to the risks/rewards.
    dlEUUUn.png
  • MaezrielMaezriel Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Flokii wrote: »
    The Wiki says that after a successful Node siege, the remnants will be only rubble and the victors will be able to loot materials. It doesn't say anything about the defender being able to recover any mats or having lost only a % of the mats.
    Clarification on this would be handy.

    Yes, I get that it's a motivator (a strong one at that). I look forward to the risks/rewards.

    BRMtip0.png

    0BlUmpM.png

    Yes, the Node is destroyed but only a portion of your stuff is looted. You still get mailed (possibly) a blueprint of your home's layout so you can attempt to restart in a new Node.

    Same thing happens w/ Freeholds

    7CULnQ5.png
    ZeFuP1X.png
    If I said something that you disagree w/ feel free to say so here.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Looting materials means crafting resources.
    Basically, you still have the vast majority of your stuff. You just have to move to a new location.
  • tautautautau Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I am sure that a few people will quit after their node is successfully sieged and they lose things that they helped to build.

    However, these are the same people who would have soon quit when their weapon was too much trouble to craft, or their big raid failed, or their caravan got ambushed. No great loss to the player community and I hope they prepaid for a 2 year sub for the game's sake.
  • ConradConrad Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Varying by how punishing this will be, players either will stay or quit. They need to find a fine balance or ppl will quit when they house is wrecked
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited June 2021
    This is a very good question that strikes at the heart of AoC's game play loop. I was discussing with Azherae about this not too long ago and we came to the conclusion that there was a relatively easy way to increase the game play loop without spending too many resources on it development wise (Azherae can correct me if I missed any points.) While loss rates will almost assuredly be tweaked and tested during Alpha 2 and Beta 1, I feel this solution needs to be on Intrepid Studio's radar as a possible approach to not just player retention but making AoC feel more like a living world.

    Refugees and Quest:

    An enemy attacking a node should and probably will have some form of preparation time for the defending players. During this preparation period it would be great if there were quests that spawned in surrounding nodes of npc's sympathetic to the situation. This could possibly spawn a quest to help fortify the area in some way. Upon victory, this would result in some form of 'increased confidence in alliance' between the two nodes. Upon defeat, this would result in the sympathetic party offering to take in the player as a refugee in some outskirts outside of town to temporarily store their stuff and possibly offer some form of limited temporary citizenship to give some access to vital utilities.

    Why do this:

    There are a few reasons why this makes for an effective game play loop.
    1. The type of person who owns a house in a node and gets emotionally upset at losing their home is likely to be the sort heavily invested in the PvE, questing, and crafting side of the game. They are economic contributors adding real value and capital to the game.
    2. A quest in a surrounding area gives the player a mental default as to where to retreat to and lessens the devastating effect of not just losing a large chunk of your property, reward, and feeling of progress in the game, but all the utilities that made it possible to be an effective economic actor as well.
    3. Such quests offer a sense that connections to surrounding nodes are important and expand the players scope of what they are investing in. In other words if you are interested in a surrounding area not just one specific place at any given time, it is harder to fall into the emotion that you have truly lost everything.
    4. It also helps reshape the context of REBUILDING. Rebuilding after loss is part of the gameplay loop. Losing your stuff and home can be extremely demoralizing. Changing the context to 'being a refugee on your back foot amongst allies with somewhere to go and refocus your efforts' can be inspiring.
    5. When a player is emotionally upset it's harder to think clearly. Having a quest to nudge the player to a default area (that they chose through their own agency by starting the quest) provides an anchor point while they mentally regroup and get back to what 'fun' is for them.

    Overall, I think this will really flesh out AoC's game play loop. Even in the real world we have refugees after catastrophic battles. Giving a way for players to have a tent outside a familiar enough area and some access to essentials for getting back on their feet is a great way to both make the world feel like a constantly changing and fleshed out place and mitigate some of the real player psychology challenges that arise from AoC's core gameplay. Not only that, but the quest writing and generation is quite easy to do without expending a lot of resources. Even just the quest itself without the refugee status will almost assuredly lead to a less negative and more immersive game play loop for some section of players.
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited June 2021
    @JustVine
    I like that a lot.

    As much as I despize the game, I think there are lessons to learn from Clash of Clans here - their gameplay loop deals with this exact issue. Big difference: in clash of clans your buildings are not truly destroyed, they just go through a phase of regeneration.

    I think you could implement a similar effect in Ashes by providing some sort of boost to recouperating a portion of lost resources (but need to make sure that the siege was still a resource sink overall), probably via refugee-only quests.
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • daveywaveydaveywavey Member, Alpha Two
    Flokii wrote: »
    What systems or driving forces are going to be in place to motivate this person to keep playing the game?

    REVENGE!!!!! >:)

    giphy.gif
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/


    giphy-downsized-large.gif?cid=b603632fp2svffcmdi83yynpfpexo413mpb1qzxnh3cei0nx&ep=v1_gifs_gifId&rid=giphy-downsized-large.gif&ct=s
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    maouw wrote: »
    @JustVine
    I like that a lot.

    As much as I despize the game, I think there are lessons to learn from Clash of Clans here - their gameplay loop deals with this exact issue. Big difference: in clash of clans your buildings are not truly destroyed, they just go through a phase of regeneration.

    I think you could implement a similar effect in Ashes by providing some sort of boost to recouperating a portion of lost resources (but need to make sure that the siege was still a resource sink overall), probably via refugee-only quests.

    Rule Exception! (I'm posting in this thread, that is)

    The part JustVine 'forgot' from our discussion was related to the feelings for the attacker. She mostly directly answered the question, so this is just context.

    Anything that makes the attacker feel like they wasted their time, or that the target 'got off easy', is likely to be annoying. Drama or sometimes even without drama, some people just want their enemies to suffer as much as possible.

    Politics therefore becomes the main thing here, the attackers feel 'good' because their opponents really have lost the full amount, and they can even threaten the node that dares to act as their refuge, if they think that the players will regroup and strike back.

    Alternately they can try to convert people who were defeated to their side, telling them to come live in their nodes and not have to face the wrath of the advancing army again, and some people will do this because they join the winning side if they have nothing left to lose.

    You can even add an alternate quest in the attack origin node (or node run by the attacking guild) where they offer to integrate citizens similarly, for 'those people who didn't agree with fighting back', though it is likely that quite a few of those people technically defected to begin with, and just 'became unable to move their stuff' once the Siege was declared.

    So you've got three different emotions to grab most involved. Attackers get to feel powerful or as if they inflicted whatever effect they wanted. Defenders can feel 'accepted into the powerful army and safe' or 'accepted into the friendly nearby node as refugees and plot'. Not to mention the double agents, the political posturing, and the fallout from any dungeons or points of interest that despawned when the Node fell.

    It won't catch everyone, but it should probably be enough, especially if it's really clear.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • TyranthraxusTyranthraxus Member, Alpha Two
    edited June 2021
    A big assumption that yours truly found himself intially guilty of is the notion of "my initial Node will stand FOREVER!"

    However, the more and more I read and watch AoC's pre-launch content, the more I've come to accept that the majority of players will likely change nodes (willingly or un-willingly) probably 2 or 3 times/year.

    It feels like going into the game with more of the latter expectation sets up a better mentality, for the game. You'll have tales and memories of the heights of your previous Nodes, and you'll be better equipped to both help the advancement of your new Node, and more capable of accepting the eventual loss of the one you're now in.

    The game-world will change like real life changes, and for some people that'll be too much to handle. The game's not for everyone; Some people would prefer a static WoW-like world that never changes no matter what you do. HOWEVER, yours truly shares IS's vision that MMO players would prefer a more-dynamic world where the things you personally partake in that lead to those changes will stimulate your interest and keep you playing in the long-run.



  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    We will reclaim our original Node the moment the usurper pops to Village.
    Bet!!
  • bloodprophetbloodprophet Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I can see times when a guild might pick up and change nodes all at once. Big caravan and 300 peeps trekking across the map to a new location they have already prepared for themselves ahead of time.
    Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
  • tautautautau Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited June 2021
    Perhaps I will record the history of my server and write a Chronicle some years down the road, which nobody will read or care about. It will be just like a career in Academia!
  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I wonder if Ashes might be able to prep new players for this sense of loss as an introduction to the game?

    e.g. if they have a Tutorial Mode in Sanctus,
    Teach you to craft a chair, then have the player place the chair in the world - triggers a "bully" NPC to break your chair and then you learn combat by fighting the bully for revenge.
    ...?
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    This loss leading to players leaving the game is what I have considered Ashes biggest issue for a few years now. I've had a few discussions here.

    I personally don't see the issue as being people leaving after a single node loss, but if you combine losing a few homes in a row, losing a few caravans and being blocked out of top end content by other guilds, all of that combined will see people leaving the game - without a doubt.
  • TheHiddenDaggerInnTheHiddenDaggerInn Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Try to make a positive out of it, how many times in a game do you wish you went a different path or location, perhaps now meeting up with some friends you met in game. Always things I wish I could of done differently at the start, and now I would have the chance to do so.
    TwitchTV Streamer: The Hidden Dagger Inn Saturday's PM Cst And
    Wednesday's at PM Cst
    7wg8px59ktyc.jpg


    https://www.youtube.com/@TheHiddenDaggerInn/featured
  • TyranthraxusTyranthraxus Member, Alpha Two
    maouw wrote: »
    I wonder if Ashes might be able to prep new players for this sense of loss as an introduction to the game?

    You know, once they get further along the development path, it might not be a bad idea to have IS put out a video on relocating and what that will look like, for a guild and for individual players.

    It'll be interesting to see conglomerations of non-guilded players and the effects they'll have in seeking the well-established cities for more stability, versus the cities that will be supported by a few strong patron guilds. If you're an un-guilded player who sees three of his smaller cities and towns destroyed, it feels like that's a lot more encouragement to move to a strong Metropolis and throw your hat in, there.

    It feels as though the guilds that support a Node are likely more to be the ones that stick around in the aftermath of a loss to rebuild and learn lessons and preventative measures that can be taken, to ensure their next iteration of a city in that Node will fare better than the last time. Individual, un-invested players will likely see less sense in sticking around in the same place to build anew, but even moving to a Metropolis feels as though it's inherent encouragement to then join a community and to become invested.

    Yours truly has no complaints about the planned Node systems; It seems like it's a good way to encourage new growth, world change, and innovation in trying to hold on to your community's foothold, in the game.



  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Another weird dynamic to consider:

    The more crowded a city (node) gets, the more anonymous everyone becomes, and the less attachment you have to the location.

    Depends how "city" a metropolis will feel I guess...
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I don't see how there will be less attachment. We still know where the neighbors we play with live.
    And we still have the same Node-Type goals to pursue - more than ever before.
    Less attachment is more likely, for some, if the Node pops to an undesired race.
  • You can still be a citizen of the conquered node after they ransack it and potentially ask them for some of your stuff back. xD It's important that stuff isn't made too cheap just because of the risk of losing it as well. Assuming these systems are balanced properly. Bad tuning can ruin a game so it's important to get that right when thinking about this issue.
    zZJyoEK.gif

    U.S. East
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Yuyukoyay wrote: »
    You can still be a citizen of the conquered node

    Actually you can't.

    A "conquered" node is reduced to level 0, and a node needs to be level 3 in order to have citizens.
  • MerekMerek Member
    How could those people even handle a game such as Minecraft then? Lazy players should seek out alternative games.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Merek wrote: »
    How could those people even handle a game such as Minecraft then? Lazy players should seek out alternative games.

    This isn't about being lazy or not, it is about the fact that one of the things that distinguishes MMORPG's from almost all other genres is the notion of a persistent world. The genre is all about progression, and many players are not willing to accept that level of loss in a persistent world.

    As I said above in this thread, I don't think many people will leave the game over losing their home to a siege, but people will leave the game due to continued loss.
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Good game design with loss gives you some sort of feeling of choice or control. Usually systems, with loss are bad when they take away from this sense of agency.

    Loss (of progress in particular) is difficult in this regard. Minecraft, Darksouls, even Mario, recognize this issue. This is why they try to give you a second chance. If you succeed after the second chance, it makes you feel good, possibly even better than if you never fell in the hole or got stabbed by the hidden skeleton in the first place because you conqured the personal obstacle. Game companies are fielding focus testing and research into how to optimize the second chance and how to minimize the feeling of agency loss all the time. It is a pretty big deal if your game does it wrong as you lose a lot of players over time. It's just basic human psychology.

    Mmos are far more difficult, because other players are acting against you and the other player is generally taking away your agency. This is the real reason why people hate being ganked. They feel a loss of agency. In a game with no 1v1 balance I can only imagine it being so much worse. Node wars can have this same feeling depending on their design, but amplified. I highly doubt node wars will always be even. Especially with many large guilds. In fact if Intrepid isn't accounting for it to be commonly uneven I would be surprised (because that is short sighted game design and they have shown themselves to not be so far.)

    AoC pushes the limit of good game design just on its core design principles and systems. This is why I think they would benefit highly from my solution above. It still fits their design culture as far as I understand it, and adds more layers to the politics of the game as well. It gives you the opportunity for a comeback type feeling and helps mitigate your sense of loss a little bit while also giving you an outlet for some feeling of agency in the situation.
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
  • MerekMerek Member
    Noaani wrote: »
    Merek wrote: »
    How could those people even handle a game such as Minecraft then? Lazy players should seek out alternative games.

    This isn't about being lazy or not, it is about the fact that one of the things that distinguishes MMORPG's from almost all other genres is the notion of a persistent world. The genre is all about progression, and many players are not willing to accept that level of loss in a persistent world.

    As I said above in this thread, I don't think many people will leave the game over losing their home to a siege, but people will leave the game due to continued loss.

    Retaining everything from any and all interactions is a themepark principle. Sure, I expect people to find it jarring after having their homes consistently destroyed, but I guess that'd push them to align themselves with groups or guilds that aren't weak or easily oppressed, no? That's where the politics come into play. Now if they were smart, they'd avoid building a house altogether, then they wouldn't have to be concerned with losing it. It's also worth noting that this game will avoid the ArcheAge landrush issue too.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited June 2021
    Merek wrote: »
    Retaining everything from any and all interactions is a themepark principle. Sure, I expect people to find it jarring after having their homes consistently destroyed, but I guess that'd push them to align themselves with groups or guilds that aren't weak or easily oppressed, no?
    Not really, as this same principle works on the guild level just as it works on the individual level.

    If you are in a guild that is always losing, that guild is likely to move on to the next game, or back to the last game. In PvP, there is always a side that loses, and the side that wins gets stronger, making them more likely to win next time, at which point they will get stronger, making them more likely to win next time.

    This is an effect that is well known to game developers, and is the principle reason Crowfall is being developed the way it is. It is also why Civilization Online was such an attractive prospect to XLGames, as it was going to be a non-persistent PvP "MMO", and XL had seen the drastic effect of this loop in every version of Archeage (which is why the notion that pay to win killed that game is not really accurate - the game died in areas without it and also in areas where players were more open to it at exactly the same rate).

    I'm not proposing any solutions to this, as since actual professionals in this field have not been able to come up with a solution for well over two decades (this effect is also seen in early L2), I am not arrogant enough to think that I would have the solution.

    All I am doing is pointing out the problem to those that may not be aware of it.
  • RamirezRamirez Member
    edited June 2021
    Noaani wrote: »
    Merek wrote: »
    How could those people even handle a game such as Minecraft then? Lazy players should seek out alternative games.

    This isn't about being lazy or not, it is about the fact that one of the things that distinguishes MMORPG's from almost all other genres is the notion of a persistent world. The genre is all about progression, and many players are not willing to accept that level of loss in a persistent world.

    As I said above in this thread, I don't think many people will leave the game over losing their home to a siege, but people will leave the game due to continued loss.

    Many players doesn t like persistent gear/items to, thats why i play Rust, Eve , Albion, mo, Valheim, I love the adrenaline of losing my things for real and believe or not thats create the real immersion in an mmorpg.

    So what? They can lose that lazy people but can get much more from a Niche that is really weak right now in terms of MMORPGs

    The majority PvE players Will leave anyway, back for ffx14,wow, Eso , Riot game, and the 1001 PvE MMORPG that Will Come. People Will Stay for Open world pvp, conquest, polítics, economy, crafting and pvx
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited June 2021
    Ramirez wrote: »
    So what? They can lose that lazy people but can get much more from a Niche that is really weak right now in terms of MMORPGs
    You ask so what... and then answer your own question.

    Sure, Intrepid can take the position that these players can just leave and thats fine.

    What that means is that Ashes is the next game in line from Lineage 2, Darkfall, Wildstar, Archeage, BDO and Albion. All of those games are in various stages of the same fate, and that is what Ashes will be.

    What that means is that rather than Ashes being the game that takes that weak niche corner of the MMO scene and makes it popular, it will simply be another in the long line of weak games in that niche corner.

    You can't do the same thing and expect a different outcome, after all.

    If you want Ashes to be the game that finally makes it in that niche, then Ashes needs to find a way to keep those players that you are happy to see go.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    People still retain the vast majority of their stuff - they just move to a new location.
    I don't know why people would be saving months worth of mats - but you still only lose a portion of mats in Siege, it shouldn't feel too bad for most players.
Sign In or Register to comment.