Do you think you are a part of the "Target Audience"? Why or Why not?

I was going to ask this in the related thread, but I feel this question is specific enough to need a separate thread.

I'll start:

I think I am a part of the target audience. Here is why.

I value the emergent storytelling that comes from a persistent open world competitive environment as the apex of modern gaming. Games like Eve, Darkfall Online, Lineage 2, and Mortal Online have been among my favorite examples. Games where the world is not an instanced theme park, but a theater of war for real-world people to not have to role-play, but to actually be a part of a real war. To me, the drama and betrayal that comes from these environments is better than any book I can read or movie I can watch.

This is what Ashes is trying to do with the node and corruption systems. The node system turns the traditional MMORPG world into a living, breathing theater of war. No longer will zones, be static areas for developers to tell their stories, but instead they will be dynamic areas for players to live their stories.

What also appeals to me about Ashes is that, unlike the four games listed above. Ashes has what those games have, and the features of a modern MMORPG. Mounts, cosmetics, housing, and good graphics. I have always said that I love Sci-fi, but if there was a fantasy game that was like EVE with modern third-person combat. That would be the game for me. Ashes is not exactly that, but it is a close enough cousin to get me excited and accept some of the things I feel are flaws.

If you think I am not a part of the "Target Audience", based on anything I have just said. I invite you to tell me why as well.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Okeydoke

You're vague to the point I can't pick up everything you're putting down Azherae. But I definitely get it in general. I've felt that way about most games that came out for the past 5 or 6 years.

Noaani

Okeydoke wrote: »

I get your point but those are much simpler games. There's only so much you can do with them. I don't think were going to see a caravan mechanic in the next NBA 2k22. Mmos can have more complex and diverse gameplay loops.

Yeah, but that's the problem.

Caravan systems are not a part of the core gameplay loop of an MMO - they are an added "feature" that is not necessary for that core gameplay loop.

It would be like having to book your teams transport and hotels in an NBA game.

I mean, that kind of thing would actually be fine, if - and ONLY if - the core gameplay loop of the game (basketball matches in the case of an NBA game) were as good as they could be, AND if that additional feature were optional to participate in with no major impact on that core gameplay loop to those that didn't participate in it.

For some reason, MMO's have decided to focus more on these non-core gameplay loops and this has come at the direct cost of the core loop.

That, imo, is the number one issue with the genre.

Get that core loop as good as you can possible make it, and then look at adding in secondary and tertiary loops to the mix in ways that don't detract from that core loop.

Every other genre understands this - it's time MMO's did as well.

I mean, ask Steven what he considers the core gameplay loop in Ashes, I bet he doesn't have a single answer - and that would be a major problem.

Okeydoke

Well wait, what's the core gameplay loop then?

Edit: I mean your definition of what the core gameplay loop of an mmo is supposed to be.

Okeydoke

I don't know what Steven's answer would be if asked about Ashes specifically. I think in general the core gameplay loop of mmo's is build your character, acquire money/items/resources, progress your character and gear, use your character for what you think is fun in the game.

Steven would probably say, "we've built a whole world full of options to do exactly that, choose your path."

Noaani

Okeydoke wrote: »

Well wait, what's the core gameplay loop then?

Edit: I mean your definition of what the core gameplay loop of an mmo is supposed to be.

Noaani wrote: »

The gameplay loop for MMO's should be to arrive at a new encounter, work on that encounter, kill that encounter and then move on to the next encounter. This applies on a solo, group or raid level.

That is the core of an MMO. Everything in the game should be feeding in to that.

However, I'll add the caveat of

(the core gameplay loop of PvP MMO's is still somewhat under-defined, which may be why I find most of them to be lacking direction).

All other loops in MMO's should be feeding in to that loop of arriving at an encounter, working that encounter out and killing that encounter.

Quests should be there to direct players around the game world. Basically, they exist to assist in the first portion of the loop - players arriving at an encounter.

Crafting is a secondary loop to assist in the third part of the primary loop - killing the encounter.

The problem with this loop from a developers perspective is that it requires the constant addition of new encounters in order to keep people playing the game. This is why EQ is up to it's 27th (soon to be 28th) full expansion - they are constantly adding new content in order to keep that core gameplay loop alive.

Rather than committing to this rate of new content additions, most developers have taken one of two other routes. Either fill the game with mundane tasks preventing players from participating in that core gameplay loop (WoW), or enhance PvP aspects of the game in order to turn paying subscribers in to content, rather than making content for them (Archeage/BDO).

Both of these detract from what I strongly believe should be the core gameplay loop of all MMO's.

Okeydoke wrote: »

Steven would probably say, "we've built a whole world full of options to do exactly that, choose your path."

Indeed.

In other words, the game has no core gameplay loop.

Okeydoke

Other than the different word choices of what were describing as the core gameplay loop of an mmo, I think we pretty much agree on it. It's all about encounters (what I described as using your character for what you think is fun in the game.) What's the point of me being a world wide trader and making all kinds of money if there are no encounters in the game for me to use my now rich and geared out character on.

I think I place a lot more importance on the journey to the encounter than you do though. And I think my definition of encounter is broader too. Sounds like you're just referring to pve, I may be wrong. But I look at pvp as being just as much a part of the term encounters.

I think Ashes is going to have it all. It may not be perfectly to your liking, I don't think it'll be perfectly to my liking either. I can definitely envision days where I just can't find anyone my guilds at war with, no one my nodes at war with, I just can't find any damn pvp. And I'll sit there and wish I was in a faction based game where I can always find players of the enemy faction, pvp on demand.

But I dunno, there's literally always going to be something to do in Ashes imo.

Okeydoke

Noaani wrote: »

Indeed.

In other words, the game has no core gameplay loop.

I don't really see it that way. There's always going to be encounters to be working on and figuring out. World bosses and dungeon bosses. Enemy nodes and guilds. The combination of the two. Sieges will be encounters that players have to work at and practice and strategize over. Just running a caravan will be a potential encounter. I could go on, game will be full of encounters.

Noaani

Okeydoke wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Indeed.

In other words, the game has no core gameplay loop.

I don't really see it that way. There's always going to be encounters to be working on and figuring out. World bosses and dungeon bosses. Enemy nodes and guilds. The combination of the two. Sieges will be encounters that players have to work at and practice and strategize over. Just running a caravan will be a potential encounter. I could go on, game will be full of encounters.

It isn't a case of there being something to do or not - there is always something to do in literally every game.

It is a case of those things that you are doing making sense, and working towards a single loop.

Lets imagine you are a crafter in Ashes. You have to get materials to craft items to use or sell in order to get better gear in order to be able to get materials bought in. It is it's own, complete gameplay loop - it literally doesn't need the rest of the game other than players to attack caravans.

Not only that, but the rest of the game could exist just fine without that system. I'm not saying it should - I'm saying it could.

So, you have two games (there are actually three, sieging, PvE, and maybe four with naval content) in Ashes that could essentially exist without each other and don't actually even need each other, all competing to be the "primary gameplay loop" of the game.

None of them are going to succeed at that, meaning the game simply will not have a primary gameplay loop, but rather four aspiring, competing loops.

Okeydoke wrote: »

I think I place a lot more importance on the journey to the encounter than you do though.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I enjoy a good quest, and am all for secondary systems in games to facilitate this third of the core gameplay loop.

In the same way that crafting is a secondary loop that assists players in killing an encounter (and harvesting is a tertiary loop that supplies crafters), naval content should, imo, be a secondary loop that assists players in reaching far off encounters.

This is also the part of that primary loop that should be subject to PvP, so it is at least on par with killing the encounter in terms of how important it is in the over all picture of a good MMO.

Okeydoke

Noaani wrote: »

meaning the game simply will not have a primary gameplay loop, but rather four aspiring, competing loops.

I dunno I think we just have different philosophies heh. I don't see it as a problem if individual players have different views on what their primary gameplay loop is in a game. I think that's more a trait of sandbox mmos maybe. And that's part of the point of sandbox mmos.

Noaani wrote: »

So, you have two games (there are actually three, sieging, PvE, and maybe four with naval content) in Ashes that could essentially exist without each other and don't actually even need each other, all competing to be the "primary gameplay loop" of the game.

Yeah I guess all 4 of those games could be separate games. But it's so much cooler that they're all in one game.

Noaani

Okeydoke wrote: »

Yeah I guess all 4 of those games could be separate games. But it's so much cooler that they're all in one game.

If the game had a development staff four times the size of any game, sure.

As it is, they have one fairly small (comparatively) team trying to make four gameplay loops that they want to each compete individually with other games, rather than trying to make one.

I mean, there is a reason the Bioshock games and Borderlands games are independent from each other, or Civilization and X-Com, or NBA and PGA (all 2K game franchises).

Just mashing together two gameplay loops in to one game doesn't mean it will be good, it means you will have a game with two gameplay loops that are half as good as they should be.

Again, this isn't an issue specific to Intrepid, it is an issue with the MMO genre as a whole.

Okeydoke

Well we'll just have to see how it turns out. It's definitely an ambitious game, which gives cause for concern of if they can really pull all of this together and make it work. Trust me, that's not lost on me. Games fail for far less reason than that.

I have a lot of confidence in Intrepid, but I see the risks of the project too.

Dygz

Okeydoke wrote: »

I don't know what Steven's answer would be if asked about Ashes specifically. I think in general the core gameplay loop of mmo's is build your character, acquire money/items/resources, progress your character and gear, use your character for what you think is fun in the game.

Steven would probably say, "we've built a whole world full of options to do exactly that, choose your path."

Ashes includes many forms of progression - including Node progression and World progression.
We will have to see who Social Org progression and Religion progression affect the world beyond just player reputation/character progression.

The game loop is going to be very different when max level does not equal endgame.

Elo

While I definitely like the node system, seeing the questing in the videos makes me feel like the node system is just switches that do a number of things, but primarily turn quests on or off. But they're the same old quests as any other game. I think it's a great idea and improves on the genre, but since it's still basically just quests, the node system in itself doesn't really make me excited.

The thing that would really draw me into this game is if the horizontal progression systems are very deep, numerous, and complex. That is what is being advertised to a good extent, so I have some hope that I will like it, but I haven't seen it yet. I want to be amazed and jaw-dropped by the horizontal progression systems. At that point, then I'm in.

I don't want to just repeat the same good MMO experience of the past. I don't want to just relive the memories. It needs to be MMORPG 2.0. Otherwise, not gonna bother. I guess I am the target audience because I keep following the game as a wait-and-seer. I think the best thing that Steven said is "if you build it, they will come".

Nerror

Azherae wrote: »

Steven 'spent all his design capital' for ME in a few words, during that stream.

But, absolutely nothing confirmable, as always, it's all speculation and bias. I just, as mentioned prior, never specifically thought I was part of the target audience, and I lost all of the 'stuff that was starting to make me believe that'.

Sounds to me like you thought the development was much further ahead than it is, so in a way it was good to get expectations readjusted I guess. That really is one of the upsides of transparent development.

Personally I don't agree with most of your points, but then again, it's clear our expectations were different

Noaani wrote: »

Caravan systems are not a part of the core gameplay loop of an MMO - they are an added "feature" that is not necessary for that core gameplay loop.

The caravan system is going to be a major part of the node system in Ashes, and the main driver of economic activity in the game. It's not a separate little gameplay loop that just helps the artisans transfer goods to the nearest market to sell their stuff. It ties into the castle system and the taxes, as well as trade routes between cities. It will be a vital part of developing and maintaining nodes. If the nodes are the body parts, the trade routes are the veins and the caravans are the blood supply. At least, that is their design intention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCRwYIc7sQ0&t=132s (and all the other stuff on the wiki).

If for some reason the caravan system doesn't end up being an absolutely essential part of the node system, where attacking and defending caravans aren't an important part of fighting over nodes and territory control and politics in general, I think they will have failed their design goals. In that case yeah, it'll be a separate little gameplay loop.

What we saw in A1 seemed very place-holdery. I think building up nodes past village (and especially building all the buildings in the nodes) will require a massive amount of resources (caravan sized loads), some which might not be in the region the node is in. It likely won't just be a few hundred wood and stone like in the alpha. My hope is citizens need to actively participate in caravan defense for some of the critical caravans to help develop the node they are in.

It looks like the nodes won't need materials in a direct sense to prevent node atrophy. Only in the indirect sense of rewarding players with goodies through quests that are needed to be done to prevent atrophy. In order to attract players to do those quests, the material goods might need to be nice. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens when a node is developed to the maximum possible, in terms of the amount of caravans needed to transport the goods necessary for maintenance.

Dygz

Nerror wrote: »

The caravan system is going to be a major part of the node system in Ashes, and the main driver of economic activity in the game. It's not a separate little gameplay loop that just helps the artisans transfer goods to the nearest market to sell their stuff. It ties into the castle system and the taxes, as well as trade routes between cities. It will be a vital part of developing and maintaining nodes.

LMFAO
Yes.

Noaani

Nerror wrote: »

The caravan system is going to be a major part of the node system in Ashes, and the main driver of economic activity in the game. It's not a separate little gameplay loop that just helps the artisans transfer goods to the nearest market to sell their stuff. It ties into the castle system and the taxes, as well as trade routes between cities. It will be a vital part of developing and maintaining nodes. If the nodes are the body, the trade routes are the veins and the caravans are the blood supply. At least, that is their design intention.

Yes it is.

The thing is, the node system could exist without the caravan system, and the caravan system could exist without the node system.

This means that neither is the primary gameplay loop, which means there is a total lack of focus here.

I'm not saying things like this shouldn't exist, I am saying there needs to be a primary loop, and all other loops should be secondary or tertiary to that primary loop.

When you try and make everything primary, nothing is.

akabear

In L2, part of creating alliances and then agreements about fighting one way or another for castle ownership was often to do with the wealth associated and the benefit it gave the clan that owned it. Simply owning a castle generated a percentage of the revenue from a particular town or series of town.

Now, I believe the funds generated and recieved by a mayor for running a node are not useable beyond running a node. So, I do not see the incentive to vie to run for leadership nor much of a return for it.

So surely this would then influence the caravan system and all other "loops" that had player influence?

Nerror

Noaani wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

The caravan system is going to be a major part of the node system in Ashes, and the main driver of economic activity in the game. It's not a separate little gameplay loop that just helps the artisans transfer goods to the nearest market to sell their stuff. It ties into the castle system and the taxes, as well as trade routes between cities. It will be a vital part of developing and maintaining nodes. If the nodes are the body, the trade routes are the veins and the caravans are the blood supply. At least, that is their design intention.

Yes it is.

The thing is, the node system could exist without the caravan system, and the caravan system could exist without the node system.

This means that neither is the primary gameplay loop, which means there is a total lack of focus here.

I'm not saying things like this shouldn't exist, I am saying there needs to be a primary loop, and all other loops should be secondary or tertiary to that primary loop.

When you try and make everything primary, nothing is.

I really don't see the problem here with their intended design. I mean, caravans are secondary to the node system, because without nodes there are no caravans under the current design. You can't make the caravan system its own contained loop without redesigning the game, and then what is the point?

It would help if you could provide an actual and concrete example of how you would design a MMORPG system with a primary loop where other loops tie into it. Preferably with a caravan system as secondary loop.

Dygz

We should probably leave it up to the devs to decide what kinds of game-loops they wish to try and then see what happens.
Anyone can make baseless assertions. Let's see if the prediction comes true.

Noaani

Nerror wrote: »

I really don't see the problem here with their intended design. I mean, caravans are secondary to the node system, because without nodes there are no caravans under the current design. You can't make the caravan system its own contained loop without redesigning the game, and then what is the point?

It would help if you could provide an actual and concrete example of how you would design a MMORPG system with a primary loop where other loops tie into it. Preferably with a caravan system as secondary loop.

I think you misunderstand me a little bit.

As I said above, caravans are not one of the four competing "aspiring primary loops" in Ashes. They are already a secondary component.

The aspiring primary loops in Ashes are PvE, sieges/castles, crafting and probably naval.

The problem is, none of these can be considered a singular primary gameplay loop in Ashes, which means they will all always be competing against each other and none of them will ever win.

Ashes isn't unique among MMO's in having this internal competition, but MMO's are unique amongst games in having it.

Point me to any other game genre that has competing primary gameplay loops.

Child Item