The number one lesson from new world imo is to make sure you have a launch plan. I understand you can't always account for how many players buy the game at launch instead of Pre ordering it but Amazon should have suspended sales until they had enough servers to handle the playerbase. They should have also did what FF14 does and cut off people from making new characters until a servers population got under control.
Typically servers crash the first few days of a launch, so... NW launch was still better than many.
technically almost every game is RP if you think about it. You are playing as the role of a character either directly or indirectly but for categorising things based on features one could understand the intent for reasonings between the variations of definitions.
Yes, the features do allow you to use essentially any combat build with weapons etc. I would definitely agree Valheim is more true to the survival definition but it's definitely more sandbox. Truer survival games allow you to die from things such as starvation. NW just allows you to craft more and for bonuses. Valheims food just reflects health bonuses/regen with stamina etc. I dont think one could die from starvation though it makes you die easier having a shallower health pool.
I would say it's more of a crafting MMORPG with survival-like features in it. I did read it was first intentionally supposed to be more hardcore PvP game as well be turned into what it is now.
Before anyone suggests this,
It is more common with modern games to have features from many genre's and sub-genre's as games become more advanced. The spectrum of game genre's are blending to different degrees. Many shared features versus true spectrum definitions within genre's. The tangential branches of genre's are becoming vast to the point where they are just feature-like elements in the games.
So what makes it a survival game? being able to build your class how you want? that's more sandbox with freedom of choices. Does crafting things make it survival? not unless you have to craft in order to stay alive with features involving hunger/starvation/dehydration etc.
Sandbox is more freedom to what you want, like playing in a sand box, it's up to your imagination with resources provided from gathering, crafting, building, free from class defining restrictions etc
Survival would imply that you have to do certain things in order to stay alive from features such as, well hunger/thirst etc. Horde survival is another feature.
Crafting is just that, crafting. It's a feature. How deep that crafting is and meaningful to the game depends on the genre it is tagged onto and game design.
I believe RP is becoming more of a style of how to play games for fantasy immersion. I could RP in an RTS for whatever reason if one wanted to.
Obviously there are true genre's based on design but the gaming world is evolving. It's not so black and white anymore with definitions which is really cool.
New World sucks, but it shows MANY lessons to be learned.
If New World had a big launch, imagine how much bigger Ashes' will be, especially if it launches on Steam too. I don't know what's the best way to deal with the early game influx of players, but I think 12 hour queues are not good for the image of game.
I considred it but I've been quite busy these days and the whole hypocrisy of ''we got p2w for the sake of the players'' just turned me off.
I have observed tho and I think there are a lot of lessons to learn
- One bad PR episode and the good will of hundreds of thousands of people flies out the window (yes the whole ''we got p2w for the sake of the players'' thing, among others).
- Don't reveal your whole bloody game before it even launches. Your game is already solves and to many boring, before it even comes out.
- No risks no rewards. New World is just another standard mmo-rpg, pretty good quality, but nothing new. No real risks were taken no real reward will be found.
among many others
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
technically almost every game is RP if you think about it.
That's like saying any ball game where you use your hands is technically Handball and any ball game that has bases is technically Baseball.
Unless we're comparing US Football to Football in the rest of the world, but let's not go down that contradicting path haha.
Genre's Vs Features on the spectrum. So many tags being thrown on video games for marketing purposes because of features rather than true genre defining reasons but it's understandable because of how loose those colloquial terms are used now as the industry evolved.
AoC genre would be PvX MMORPG, its features would include... etc
anyways, definitely veering away from OP and Topic lol
technically almost every game is RP if you think about it.
That's like saying any ball game where you use your hands is technically Handball and any ball game that has bases is technically Baseball.
There are, by my count, six different sports that are called "football" in different parts of the world.
You have NFL in North America, you have Rugby in New Zealand, Rugby League in Sydney, Australia, AFL in Melbourne, Australia, and Gaelic football in parts of Ireland - as well as what the rest of the world calls football.
These games share very little in common with each other (one is even played on a very large oval shaped field), but claiming that only one of them is football, or that any one of them is not football, would be incorrect.
Just because YOU have a definition of what an RPG is, that doesn't mean others don't have a totally different, completely valid definition of what an RPG is.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2021
More to the point...
The gathering/crafting systems and combat systems for NW are designed as a Survival game.
Amazon is now trying to turn it into more of an RPG by adding quests.
Typically, the devs of a game will not just throw any label on the genre of game they are designing. Even for marketing purposes.
Which is why Crowfall calls itself an MMO Throne War Simulator. NW calls itself an open world MMO and does not include RPG...that's because it was not originally trying to be an RPG.
I also think arguments over "is such-and-such game a RPG?" almost always miss the point. The answer to that question boils down to semantics, and the person asking the question is almost always trying to answer something else.
For instance, if the reason they're asking if the game is a RPG is because they really love games that have character customization and stats, and so you say "yes", because it has all of the elements that RPGs tend to normally have, except that you don't really customize your character and the stats don't really matter, but you're certainly playing a game, and you're doing a lot of role-playing, then your answer didn't solve the questioner's "disguised query". See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4FcxgdvdQP45D6Skg/disguised-queries for more info here.
For new world:
Can you role play (in the imagination sense)? Yeah
Can you specialize at tanking, healing, and dpsing at both a character-skill and player-skill level? Yeah
Are you dropped into an immersive world with a bunch of lore to read / absorb? Yeah
Do you get to make choices about which players to ally with, which town to try to make your home, where to set up your shop, how to earn your money, etc? Yeah
Do you get to make choices about how to progress your character and tailor your own experience? Yeah
Do you have stats and weapon/armor perks and character builds that influence how effective your character is at combat? Yeah
Does your character have "character levels", "gear levels", "weapon skill levels", and "trade skill levels" that all need to be progressed? Yes to all of those.
Is the combat turn-based? No
Is the combat inspired by turn-based games like D&D in the same way that everquest and WoW were? No. Closer to dark souls.
Is there any RNG in the combat? No
Does that help anyone who is asking "Is New World a RPG?" but really wondering about something else?
Its like they took a bunch of standard RPG tropes and put them in this game at 1/4.
Questing, but absolutely generic. Classes Races
Crafting. They offered a new element in that everything seems to be harvestable. Does that make Crafting have more depth, or was it simply a left over from its Survival game origins?
Most survival games focus heavily on gathering of junk material. You'll notice in NW that bushes are just that, bushes. Not hemlock, nor cypress, yew, dogwood, snakeweed, meyrtle, 'mountain berry', not even Generic Forest Bush 002, nope just: Bushes.
Generic resource for mass gathering of shelter building mats? Story
Remember that the RPG elements were pasted over a failed survival mmo game.
New World is an MMO Survival/PvP game trying to become an MMORPG.
I like NW combat for a survival game. I don't know that I would like it for an MMORPG.
Combat skills are mostly based on weapons rather than character abilities - there are no classes.
In Valheim, I often feel like a Hunter as I Sneak around an backstab.
I don't feel like any RPG class in New World - but that's OK because I'm not expecting NW to feel like an RPG.
The mechanics feel great for a non-RPG.
Rambling. Just incoherent rambling on a keyboard.
New world is not a survival game unless you consider you are trying not to die? Great mechanics for a non rpg? What does that even mean?
New world has classes but they don't call them classes. You pick a fire staff, you are a mage. Stacking int and all. Want to tank? Sword and shield while stacking constitution and STR. Just because a game doesn't specifically list out "classes", doesn't mean it doesn't have classes. General chat is filled with LFG dps/healer/tanks.
New world has a lot going for it...but it has WAY MORE tearing it apart.
It is stunning how poorly thought out New World is. I'm playing, nothing else to play at the moment. But wow did they ruin this game. Listened to the wrong types of players feedback. There's a few things New World does very well. But for every one of those, there's multiple things that are stunningly bad.
It is stunning how poorly thought out New World is. I'm playing, nothing else to play at the moment. But wow did they ruin this game. Listened to the wrong types of players feedback. There's a few things New World does very well. But for every one of those, there's multiple things that are stunningly bad.
I disagree. I don't think the game was ruined because of player feedback. The development team is responsible for most of the poor design choices, not player feedback.
Remember that NW was originally a sandbox survival game, a fantasy Rust if you may. They tried to port the game into an MMORPG, and the survival aspects of the game are great, while the theme park aspects are awful.
The people responsible for many systems and design choices are definitely not MMO enthusiasts, they lack a @Steven Sharif .
It is stunning how poorly thought out New World is. I'm playing, nothing else to play at the moment. But wow did they ruin this game. Listened to the wrong types of players feedback. There's a few things New World does very well. But for every one of those, there's multiple things that are stunningly bad.
I disagree. I don't think the game was ruined because of player feedback. The development team is responsible for most of the poor design choices, not player feedback.
Remember that NW was originally a sandbox survival game, a fantasy Rust if you may. They tried to port the game into an MMORPG, and the survival aspects of the game are great, while the theme park aspects are awful.
The people responsible for many systems and design choices are definitely not MMO enthusiasts, they lack a @Steven Sharif .
Saying it was ruined by player feedback is almost insane imo. There are many things that the community asked for on their forums which were quite popular but have had no response at all. They deleted the forums both from the closed beta and the open beta, taking them down and opening them back up cleaned and empty on release. They took all that feedback and either didn't read it or were straight up against any of the suggestions. Either way they got their feedback and didn't do anything with it. In my opinion they gave it the good ol blizzard treatment. Keep denying that a feature is garbage for months until numbers tank and they decide to add it in as "new content".
It is stunning how poorly thought out New World is. I'm playing, nothing else to play at the moment. But wow did they ruin this game. Listened to the wrong types of players feedback. There's a few things New World does very well. But for every one of those, there's multiple things that are stunningly bad.
I disagree. I don't think the game was ruined because of player feedback. The development team is responsible for most of the poor design choices, not player feedback.
Remember that NW was originally a sandbox survival game, a fantasy Rust if you may. They tried to port the game into an MMORPG, and the survival aspects of the game are great, while the theme park aspects are awful.
The people responsible for many systems and design choices are definitely not MMO enthusiasts, they lack a @Steven Sharif .
True. What they did was sell out their vision for the game for profits. It's the Amazon way. What happened was that business types were installed as the project leads, and they were directed to do whatever was necessary to make the game a financial success. AGS was desperate for just one success, because they failed countless projects and cost Amazon a lot of money. Knowing this, they knew that they would need a successful launch, so they catered the game to attracting a big audience and allowed the game to optionally be played as a single player game. Then they knew they needed to have enough content to keep everyone occupied before hitting max level, but anything after that isn't very relevant to their overall profits.
The goal for New World is a successful launch and a short term profit. The game and its business model isn't designed for long term success. They were successful, because the game already made more than its development costs.
It is stunning how poorly thought out New World is. I'm playing, nothing else to play at the moment. But wow did they ruin this game. Listened to the wrong types of players feedback. There's a few things New World does very well. But for every one of those, there's multiple things that are stunningly bad.
I disagree. I don't think the game was ruined because of player feedback. The development team is responsible for most of the poor design choices, not player feedback.
Remember that NW was originally a sandbox survival game, a fantasy Rust if you may. They tried to port the game into an MMORPG, and the survival aspects of the game are great, while the theme park aspects are awful.
The people responsible for many systems and design choices are definitely not MMO enthusiasts, they lack a @Steven Sharif .
True. What they did was sell out their vision for the game for profits. It's the Amazon way. What happened was that business types were installed as the project leads, and they were directed to do whatever was necessary to make the game a financial success. AGS was desperate for just one success, because they failed countless projects and cost Amazon a lot of money. Knowing this, they knew that they would need a successful launch, so they catered the game to attracting a big audience and allowed the game to optionally be played as a single player game. Then they knew they needed to have enough content to keep everyone occupied before hitting max level, but anything after that isn't very relevant to their overall profits.
The goal for New World is a successful launch and a short term profit. The game and its business model isn't designed for long term success. They were successful, because the game already made more than its development costs.
Makes you wonder if they will patch and update past a year. Most players will have left from boredom and not care by then. The game is so shallow and the end game ... what end game? Its a video game of Risk, but without a win state.
New World is an MMO Survival/PvP game trying to become an MMORPG.
I like NW combat for a survival game. I don't know that I would like it for an MMORPG.
Combat skills are mostly based on weapons rather than character abilities - there are no classes.
In Valheim, I often feel like a Hunter as I Sneak around an backstab.
I don't feel like any RPG class in New World - but that's OK because I'm not expecting NW to feel like an RPG.
The mechanics feel great for a non-RPG.
Rambling. Just incoherent rambling on a keyboard.
New world is not a survival game unless you consider you are trying not to die? Great mechanics for a non rpg? What does that even mean?
New world has classes but they don't call them classes. You pick a fire staff, you are a mage. Stacking int and all. Want to tank? Sword and shield while stacking constitution and STR. Just because a game doesn't specifically list out "classes", doesn't mean it doesn't have classes. General chat is filled with LFG dps/healer/tanks.
New world has a lot going for it...but it has WAY MORE tearing it apart.
Those aren't Classes. A Class is a choice with a consequence.
NW is about not having consequences, that's why they don't have "Female" nor "Male" characters. Don't want to offend the wokes, they might boycott amazon diapers.
The number one lesson from new world imo is to make sure you have a launch plan. I understand you can't always account for how many players buy the game at launch instead of Pre ordering it but Amazon should have suspended sales until they had enough servers to handle the playerbase. They should have also did what FF14 does and cut off people from making new characters until a servers population got under control.
The reason there are 10k long queues is everyone is packed onto the first few servers. I was at work when the servers went live and luckily for me my guild chose to reroll on a fresh server. The server we're on has zero queue at all.
This is where the head starts for Ashes can make Intrepid's life easier. If specific servers become overpopulated during the head start cut suspend new accounts until the population dies down. I know this would keep some people from playing with their friends but Intrepid could always allow free server transfers once the active population becomes more stable. Better to not be able to play with your friends for a few days than sit in 6 hours queues.
I'm no fan of NW but the simple truth is no MMO launch is going to be perfect.
MMOs have been launching with server issues for the 15+ years I have been playing them. I still have sleepless nights over the launch of Warhammer Online and the trials that game went through to stabilise server numbers.
I also recall the launch of Wildstar and how my guild got split up and how arguments ensued as to which server we stayed on. Some were already well levelled and wouldn't move. Others didn't want to queue and hour or more to play, or maybe couldn't even join the server.
I have seen guildies talk about the queues for NW and I have heard the solutions. NW have server clusters and my guild have rolled on both their preferred server and another in the same cluster. They can the get a free transfer to any server in the same cluster when things calm down.
Many guilds naturally want to navigate towards the busiest servers so that there is population for PvP and other events.
Many games now have systems that allow players on different servers to still group.
I very much doubt Ashes will have a perfect launch either.
The dev team that solves the issue of MMO launches and associated server issues will be hailed geniuses.
I just logged off NW.
Hahah it was funny.
The char creation.. the combat... the pop up UI, the gatherables ruining the feeling of being in the nature...
Man, this is what millions of ppl have been waiting for?
I disagree. I don't think the game was ruined because of player feedback. The development team is responsible for most of the poor design choices, not player feedback.
Remember that NW was originally a sandbox survival game, a fantasy Rust if you may. They tried to port the game into an MMORPG, and the survival aspects of the game are great, while the theme park aspects are awful.
The people responsible for many systems and design choices are definitely not MMO enthusiasts, they lack a @Steven Sharif .
Oh there was definitely some bad player feedback in there that was listened to. Of course the buck ultimately stops with the devs. And they made more than enough bad decisions on their own.
I can't imagine why they thought a faction game with no faction population balance mechanics was a good idea.
New World sucks, but it shows MANY lessons to be learned.
If New World had a big launch, imagine how much bigger Ashes' will be, especially if it launches on Steam too. I don't know what's the best way to deal with the early game influx of players, but I think 12 hour queues are not good for the image of game.
I read that New World has a server cap of 2000 players. Isn't that awfully small numbers of players for a server compared to usual MMORPG:s? Or am I wrong?
I'm not sure if it's a small number or not. For instance, OSRS only has one server, divided by multiple 2k clusters or shards, if you will, because of the map size. I'm not sure what's the server size, but maybe if you put 10k people in one server it would be worse than having queues because of map size and/or resources.
Either way, I don't know how to fix this issue, I just think it's quite relevant
Systems dev is hard. If you make a game without consistency in your systems dev and their choices, you encounter trouble. It is ridiculously hard to change core systems after alpha. This is why the Ashes community shouldn't take a wait and see approach when they see something off or a possible core design issue. New World is a good example of feedback being taken far too late. The concept they were told to shift to wasn't flawed, but it is going to take a lot more time to fix it as a result of previous inconsistent systems design.
Hmmm... I was just about to download it. I guess I wont.
Sometimes you need to play it for yourself to see if you like it. I understand the fact its a lot to ask since you have to pay to play. I was thinking about playing it too, but I will wait and see. I am watching a few of the views of others playing, that might help you to see if it's for you or not better. Until then, I will keep waiting on AOE for my fantasy fix. lol
New World sucks, but it shows MANY lessons to be learned.
If New World had a big launch, imagine how much bigger Ashes' will be, especially if it launches on Steam too. I don't know what's the best way to deal with the early game influx of players, but I think 12 hour queues are not good for the image of game.
I read that New World has a server cap of 2000 players. Isn't that awfully small numbers of players for a server compared to usual MMORPG:s? Or am I wrong?
I'm not sure if it's a small number or not. For instance, OSRS only has one server, divided by multiple 2k clusters or shards, if you will, because of the map size. I'm not sure what's the server size, but maybe if you put 10k people in one server it would be worse than having queues because of map size and/or resources.
Either way, I don't know how to fix this issue, I just think it's quite relevant
There are guilds with more than 2k members.
An MMO that doesn't let your whole guild log on to the same server barely counts as an MMO, imo.
I tried the beta and it's not for me the combat system with x hair was horrid as a caster may be because i'm old but you cant beat the simple tab target..
New World's dark souls like action combat definitely isn't for everyone especially in the MMORPG playerbase, i also disliked it to its core, i really dislike its dependency on autoattacks because of the limitation of skills avaliable[3 skills on skill bar per weapon (2 weapons)] and their long cooldowns.
As for the quests i just found them average/standard, nothing to praise it about, nothing to trash it about.
Those are problems i simply don't see Ashes having.
New World's dark souls like action combat definitely isn't for everyone especially in the MMORPG playerbase, i also disliked it to its core, i really dislike its dependency on autoattacks because of the limitation of skills avaliable[3 skills on skill bar per weapon (2 weapons)] and their long cooldowns.
As for the quests i just found them average/standard, nothing to praise it about, nothing to trash it about.
Those are problems i simply don't see Ashes having.
sounds like a "git gud" case
It's really not in most cases. The combat is scuffed dark souls at best. I think the only reason siege battles work is because aoeing down enemies is fun for some people. Outside of that you have lifestaff spamming aoe heals on the point, shield/sword tanks holding right click on the point, and everyone else is waddling around through slow effects trying to catch someone not standing inside of the lifestaff aoes.
Generally though i feel that once combat goes past 1v1 it feels clunky and lame. That goes for pve too.
New World's dark souls like action combat definitely isn't for everyone especially in the MMORPG playerbase, i also disliked it to its core, i really dislike its dependency on autoattacks because of the limitation of skills avaliable[3 skills on skill bar per weapon (2 weapons)] and their long cooldowns.
As for the quests i just found them average/standard, nothing to praise it about, nothing to trash it about.
Those are problems i simply don't see Ashes having.
sounds like a "git gud" case
Haha not sure about that mate, i'm very used to the dark souls combat, it's just that NW's approach to that type of combat (basically bootleg DS combat) and the way it felt unreasonable and out of place in a MMORPG.
Comments
Yes, the features do allow you to use essentially any combat build with weapons etc. I would definitely agree Valheim is more true to the survival definition but it's definitely more sandbox. Truer survival games allow you to die from things such as starvation. NW just allows you to craft more and for bonuses. Valheims food just reflects health bonuses/regen with stamina etc. I dont think one could die from starvation though it makes you die easier having a shallower health pool.
I would say it's more of a crafting MMORPG with survival-like features in it. I did read it was first intentionally supposed to be more hardcore PvP game as well be turned into what it is now.
It is more common with modern games to have features from many genre's and sub-genre's as games become more advanced. The spectrum of game genre's are blending to different degrees. Many shared features versus true spectrum definitions within genre's. The tangential branches of genre's are becoming vast to the point where they are just feature-like elements in the games.
So what makes it a survival game? being able to build your class how you want? that's more sandbox with freedom of choices. Does crafting things make it survival? not unless you have to craft in order to stay alive with features involving hunger/starvation/dehydration etc.
Sandbox is more freedom to what you want, like playing in a sand box, it's up to your imagination with resources provided from gathering, crafting, building, free from class defining restrictions etc
Survival would imply that you have to do certain things in order to stay alive from features such as, well hunger/thirst etc. Horde survival is another feature.
Crafting is just that, crafting. It's a feature. How deep that crafting is and meaningful to the game depends on the genre it is tagged onto and game design.
I believe RP is becoming more of a style of how to play games for fantasy immersion. I could RP in an RTS for whatever reason if one wanted to.
Obviously there are true genre's based on design but the gaming world is evolving. It's not so black and white anymore with definitions which is really cool.
If New World had a big launch, imagine how much bigger Ashes' will be, especially if it launches on Steam too. I don't know what's the best way to deal with the early game influx of players, but I think 12 hour queues are not good for the image of game.
I considred it but I've been quite busy these days and the whole hypocrisy of ''we got p2w for the sake of the players'' just turned me off.
I have observed tho and I think there are a lot of lessons to learn
- One bad PR episode and the good will of hundreds of thousands of people flies out the window (yes the whole ''we got p2w for the sake of the players'' thing, among others).
- Don't reveal your whole bloody game before it even launches. Your game is already solves and to many boring, before it even comes out.
- No risks no rewards. New World is just another standard mmo-rpg, pretty good quality, but nothing new. No real risks were taken no real reward will be found.
among many others
Unless we're comparing US Football to Football in the rest of the world, but let's not go down that contradicting path haha.
Genre's Vs Features on the spectrum. So many tags being thrown on video games for marketing purposes because of features rather than true genre defining reasons but it's understandable because of how loose those colloquial terms are used now as the industry evolved.
AoC genre would be PvX MMORPG, its features would include... etc
anyways, definitely veering away from OP and Topic lol
There are, by my count, six different sports that are called "football" in different parts of the world.
You have NFL in North America, you have Rugby in New Zealand, Rugby League in Sydney, Australia, AFL in Melbourne, Australia, and Gaelic football in parts of Ireland - as well as what the rest of the world calls football.
These games share very little in common with each other (one is even played on a very large oval shaped field), but claiming that only one of them is football, or that any one of them is not football, would be incorrect.
Just because YOU have a definition of what an RPG is, that doesn't mean others don't have a totally different, completely valid definition of what an RPG is.
The gathering/crafting systems and combat systems for NW are designed as a Survival game.
Amazon is now trying to turn it into more of an RPG by adding quests.
Typically, the devs of a game will not just throw any label on the genre of game they are designing. Even for marketing purposes.
Which is why Crowfall calls itself an MMO Throne War Simulator. NW calls itself an open world MMO and does not include RPG...that's because it was not originally trying to be an RPG.
Gamers might use all kinds of labels.
For instance, if the reason they're asking if the game is a RPG is because they really love games that have character customization and stats, and so you say "yes", because it has all of the elements that RPGs tend to normally have, except that you don't really customize your character and the stats don't really matter, but you're certainly playing a game, and you're doing a lot of role-playing, then your answer didn't solve the questioner's "disguised query". See https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4FcxgdvdQP45D6Skg/disguised-queries for more info here.
For new world:
Can you role play (in the imagination sense)? Yeah
Can you specialize at tanking, healing, and dpsing at both a character-skill and player-skill level? Yeah
Are you dropped into an immersive world with a bunch of lore to read / absorb? Yeah
Do you get to make choices about which players to ally with, which town to try to make your home, where to set up your shop, how to earn your money, etc? Yeah
Do you get to make choices about how to progress your character and tailor your own experience? Yeah
Do you have stats and weapon/armor perks and character builds that influence how effective your character is at combat? Yeah
Does your character have "character levels", "gear levels", "weapon skill levels", and "trade skill levels" that all need to be progressed? Yes to all of those.
Is the combat turn-based? No
Is the combat inspired by turn-based games like D&D in the same way that everquest and WoW were? No. Closer to dark souls.
Is there any RNG in the combat? No
Does that help anyone who is asking "Is New World a RPG?" but really wondering about something else?
Questing, but absolutely generic.
Classes
Races
Crafting. They offered a new element in that everything seems to be harvestable. Does that make Crafting have more depth, or was it simply a left over from its Survival game origins?
Most survival games focus heavily on gathering of junk material. You'll notice in NW that bushes are just that, bushes. Not hemlock, nor cypress, yew, dogwood, snakeweed, meyrtle, 'mountain berry', not even Generic Forest Bush 002, nope just: Bushes.
Generic resource for mass gathering of shelter building mats?
Story
Remember that the RPG elements were pasted over a failed survival mmo game.
Rambling. Just incoherent rambling on a keyboard.
New world is not a survival game unless you consider you are trying not to die? Great mechanics for a non rpg? What does that even mean?
New world has classes but they don't call them classes. You pick a fire staff, you are a mage. Stacking int and all. Want to tank? Sword and shield while stacking constitution and STR. Just because a game doesn't specifically list out "classes", doesn't mean it doesn't have classes. General chat is filled with LFG dps/healer/tanks.
New world has a lot going for it...but it has WAY MORE tearing it apart.
I disagree. I don't think the game was ruined because of player feedback. The development team is responsible for most of the poor design choices, not player feedback.
Remember that NW was originally a sandbox survival game, a fantasy Rust if you may. They tried to port the game into an MMORPG, and the survival aspects of the game are great, while the theme park aspects are awful.
The people responsible for many systems and design choices are definitely not MMO enthusiasts, they lack a @Steven Sharif .
Saying it was ruined by player feedback is almost insane imo. There are many things that the community asked for on their forums which were quite popular but have had no response at all. They deleted the forums both from the closed beta and the open beta, taking them down and opening them back up cleaned and empty on release. They took all that feedback and either didn't read it or were straight up against any of the suggestions. Either way they got their feedback and didn't do anything with it. In my opinion they gave it the good ol blizzard treatment. Keep denying that a feature is garbage for months until numbers tank and they decide to add it in as "new content".
True. What they did was sell out their vision for the game for profits. It's the Amazon way. What happened was that business types were installed as the project leads, and they were directed to do whatever was necessary to make the game a financial success. AGS was desperate for just one success, because they failed countless projects and cost Amazon a lot of money. Knowing this, they knew that they would need a successful launch, so they catered the game to attracting a big audience and allowed the game to optionally be played as a single player game. Then they knew they needed to have enough content to keep everyone occupied before hitting max level, but anything after that isn't very relevant to their overall profits.
The goal for New World is a successful launch and a short term profit. The game and its business model isn't designed for long term success. They were successful, because the game already made more than its development costs.
Makes you wonder if they will patch and update past a year. Most players will have left from boredom and not care by then. The game is so shallow and the end game ... what end game? Its a video game of Risk, but without a win state.
Those aren't Classes. A Class is a choice with a consequence.
NW is about not having consequences, that's why they don't have "Female" nor "Male" characters. Don't want to offend the wokes, they might boycott amazon diapers.
I'm no fan of NW but the simple truth is no MMO launch is going to be perfect.
MMOs have been launching with server issues for the 15+ years I have been playing them. I still have sleepless nights over the launch of Warhammer Online and the trials that game went through to stabilise server numbers.
I also recall the launch of Wildstar and how my guild got split up and how arguments ensued as to which server we stayed on. Some were already well levelled and wouldn't move. Others didn't want to queue and hour or more to play, or maybe couldn't even join the server.
I have seen guildies talk about the queues for NW and I have heard the solutions. NW have server clusters and my guild have rolled on both their preferred server and another in the same cluster. They can the get a free transfer to any server in the same cluster when things calm down.
Many guilds naturally want to navigate towards the busiest servers so that there is population for PvP and other events.
Many games now have systems that allow players on different servers to still group.
I very much doubt Ashes will have a perfect launch either.
The dev team that solves the issue of MMO launches and associated server issues will be hailed geniuses.
Hahah it was funny.
The char creation.. the combat... the pop up UI, the gatherables ruining the feeling of being in the nature...
Man, this is what millions of ppl have been waiting for?
Ill play a bit more tomorrow
Oh there was definitely some bad player feedback in there that was listened to. Of course the buck ultimately stops with the devs. And they made more than enough bad decisions on their own.
I can't imagine why they thought a faction game with no faction population balance mechanics was a good idea.
I'm not sure if it's a small number or not. For instance, OSRS only has one server, divided by multiple 2k clusters or shards, if you will, because of the map size. I'm not sure what's the server size, but maybe if you put 10k people in one server it would be worse than having queues because of map size and/or resources.
Either way, I don't know how to fix this issue, I just think it's quite relevant
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Sometimes you need to play it for yourself to see if you like it. I understand the fact its a lot to ask since you have to pay to play. I was thinking about playing it too, but I will wait and see. I am watching a few of the views of others playing, that might help you to see if it's for you or not better. Until then, I will keep waiting on AOE for my fantasy fix. lol
There are guilds with more than 2k members.
An MMO that doesn't let your whole guild log on to the same server barely counts as an MMO, imo.
sounds like a "git gud" case
It's really not in most cases. The combat is scuffed dark souls at best. I think the only reason siege battles work is because aoeing down enemies is fun for some people. Outside of that you have lifestaff spamming aoe heals on the point, shield/sword tanks holding right click on the point, and everyone else is waddling around through slow effects trying to catch someone not standing inside of the lifestaff aoes.
Generally though i feel that once combat goes past 1v1 it feels clunky and lame. That goes for pve too.
Haha not sure about that mate, i'm very used to the dark souls combat, it's just that NW's approach to that type of combat (basically bootleg DS combat) and the way it felt unreasonable and out of place in a MMORPG.
Aren't we all sinners?