Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
A point about the subscription-only model
GreatThodric
Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
This post is to give praise for the decision to go with a subscription-only model and outline one notable reason why it's such a good idea.
A big problem with MMO's who use box prices is the separation of content locked behind the investment and effort of the players.
Many players today, as seen in other MMO's, treat MMO worlds as single-player RPG's like Skyrim. As if you're supposed to experience all the content. They feel like they're entitled to experience all the content just because they've paid for the game with a box price and therefore pressure the developers into helping them do so. This is how pay-to-win systems become a thing. Because few players can actually put in the time and effort to naturally progress to all the content the MMO provides. But all the content is seldom designed to be seen by a single player. There's just too much of it.
And this is why the lack of a box price is such a good idea. Because no player now owns the game world. They're not entitled to experience all the content, and should hopefully not feel the same FOMO that kills other MMO's.
The issues I'm talking about are clearly seen in World of Warcraft where each update introduces several new catch-up mechanics so that each casual player gets to experience all that they paid for, and at the same time making perfectly good old content irrelevant and skippable through level-boosts. But through Ashes subscription-only model, I hope players can relax their FOMO and give the developers the freedom to make a good game for the invested players instead of a game for everyone.
But those are just my thoughts. What do you think? Feel free to dissect this topic. Keep it civil!
A big problem with MMO's who use box prices is the separation of content locked behind the investment and effort of the players.
Many players today, as seen in other MMO's, treat MMO worlds as single-player RPG's like Skyrim. As if you're supposed to experience all the content. They feel like they're entitled to experience all the content just because they've paid for the game with a box price and therefore pressure the developers into helping them do so. This is how pay-to-win systems become a thing. Because few players can actually put in the time and effort to naturally progress to all the content the MMO provides. But all the content is seldom designed to be seen by a single player. There's just too much of it.
And this is why the lack of a box price is such a good idea. Because no player now owns the game world. They're not entitled to experience all the content, and should hopefully not feel the same FOMO that kills other MMO's.
The issues I'm talking about are clearly seen in World of Warcraft where each update introduces several new catch-up mechanics so that each casual player gets to experience all that they paid for, and at the same time making perfectly good old content irrelevant and skippable through level-boosts. But through Ashes subscription-only model, I hope players can relax their FOMO and give the developers the freedom to make a good game for the invested players instead of a game for everyone.
But those are just my thoughts. What do you think? Feel free to dissect this topic. Keep it civil!
3
Comments
You get what you pay for. The last time I saw an in depth mmo with meaningful gameplay it was L2 and I was glad to pay for all of the above.
Since then I have seen nothing but optional content, parallel channels (separating players because the server cant handle too many players on a simple area: bdo tera eso and many more), singleplayer gameplay, daily gameplay, cosmetics getting out of hand and most of all p2w.
All because there was no other way to reduce costs and make profit.
If L2 had 30 something official western servers at full capacity during w0ws peak years, there is no excuse to deny that the costs of playing were justified. People had families back then etc etc etc etc. We have become very spoiled and demanding consumers.
The problem I see with non-sub games is that there MUST be some form of cash flow apart from the box price. So we are talking ingame shops.
Those are always a slippery slope. If a game can pull them off without becoming p2w by only adding cosmetic stuff, that is only making me puke once a day, not every hour, but why I consider ALL ingame shops inherently evil (especially in a game with visual armor/weapons) is not for this topic.
Without cash flow, there is no content added apart from paid dlcs, which splits the player community into the "dlc haves" and "dlc have nots". No problem, if there is no PvP where potentially more powerful items from DLC A could shift the balance of power. Or dungeons that cannot be entered since you don't have the dlc...
I don't think that the catch-up mechanics are the base problem. People who WANT to see the game in full (if they have the time on their hands), will do it. Others -- even if those mechanics did not exist -- would zoom thru the content by following a guide "how to level 1-xx in yy hours". Same difference.
No.
Ask for new servers. What you seek dumps down the game for new players to the point where thet dont find joy in it.
No.
In order to be relevant for any period of time, an MMO needs to attract new players to their existing servers at roughly the same pace as players leave them.
Those new players do not become an active part of that server until they are appropriately progressed.
If a game adds new progression every year for even just a few years, a new player coming to the game will see an insurmountable task ahead of them if there are no catch up mechanics involved, and they will simply not bother.
Catch up mechanics are a necessary evil. It is that simple.
The trick is to find a balance where the time taken to get to the desired point in progression is about the same as the time taken to get to the level cap with the games original release.
This applies to any form of progression in the game.
Yeah, I heard a rumor that the only catch up mechanics that are left for developers to use are things being sold in cash shops.
Things like slight increases in experience gain for killing or quest completion, slight adjustments to the materials requirement of gear, or to the frequency of those materials dropping, alterations to lower level group content to reflect a later stage of a game where there are fewer people of that level to group with, these are all tools taht are no longer available to developers as catch up mechanics.
It is all just cash shop boosts now.
I would argue that there are plenty of ways to solve the player population level gap problem that don't rely on catch up mechanics and Ashes should therefore stay away from this content rotting concept.
Things that are proven to work:
Challenging content at all levels. Make the game for more than just the top content.
Level synching systems. Let people play at the same level as their newer friends or alts. This has the side effect of keeping general and high quality crafted lower level gear in demand.
Level capped instanced bosses and dungeons that require pop items from mob drops are also good ways to deliver novel, challenging experiences to keep things fresh and create niches for various lower level specs. This has the side effect of creating demand for more specialized lower level gear that can be found from lower level miniboss mobs and said instanced bosses. It gives people long term objectives to adventure for with the newer players to perfect their lower level load outs.
Has IS announced any of these things as a possibility? Not really. Do they work with enough careful consideration of balance and gameplay loops? Yep. Turns out treating the various level gaps in your player base like opportunities for implementing gameplay ecosystems rather than trying to keep everyone in one large group has the side benefit of older content staying relevant.
SE managed to solve this problem nearly 20 years ago and no one took away those pretty obvious lessons. Various parts of FFXI started dying and losing player base once they started leaning too heavily into the end game only model.
While some of what you are talking about above would work 20 years ago, they wouldn't work 10 years ago, and didn't work 5 years ago.
Content can be challenging at what ever level, people will still play at the level cap, because they like to make use of their progression. No point in leveling up to level 50, just to run level 20 content.
The same can be said of level syncing systems. If this is added to a game, it is almost exclusively used to power-level the lower level character.
Level caps on content that has items that are required later on will just see people roll alts, gear them up as high as possible and run that content. They won't take actual new players along with them, as that slows things down. You are correct in it generating a demand for lower level gear, but that is a temporary thing.
Essentially, all of the above come down to little more than giving players at the level cap an artificial reason to run lower level content, and cross your fingers that while they do that, they accidently assist new players to the game.
If you are an actual new player to an MMO and have no friends in the game (or started playing with friends), none of the above are going to be of any use to you at all.
Archeage is a fantastic example of how these things simply no longer work, due to the way people play games now. That game has lower level dungeons that have a somewhat worthwhile randomized daily quest to finish at lower levels. Getting the quest in question requires you to take a lower level character through the dungeon and kill the boss - a great idea in theory, and basically fits in with all of the above things you say are "proven to work".
In practice, people would either take a friend on a level appropriate alt, or drag a level appropriate new player in to the instance and tell them to sit and wait at the zone in point while they clear the instance, call the new player to the last boss and kill it with said new player nearby. Eventually, people just started creating alts of the appropriate level and charging gold, since people with the quest needed someone that was level appropriate.
Basically, it had the exact opposite effect that the developers wanted. Instead of giving new players an introduction to group content, it created a situation where new players outright could not find groups at all to properly run that content.
Interestingly, level syncing systems in a number of games are considered a catch up mechanic - though as they are only suited to people with existing established friends on the server, they are unsuitable as the only such mechanic.
Ashes entire m.o. is 'hey let's design a game older mmo player's would be able to relate to with some new takes on the genre to make it relevant'. So that in itself is a reason this argument is flawed. The system was proven to work and good design that worked for over a decade only showing signs of problems 7 years ago and that is easily traced to them shifting to the end game only model and heavily bending towards catch up mechanics over time. Not because the model was flawed. 12 years of a functional system is a pretty good track record! I don't know what games you are referring to where it failed, however, I could reflect this same logic at L2's corruption. Yet I don't see you making this argument relative to it's corruption system despite L2 being about as old. So let's move on.
You are missing the point of the level gap ecosystem approach here. It's to lower the barrier to bringing in new friends/alt accounts and to make it easier to have older players team up with newer ones by making the experience enjoyable and not a slog. Yes people want to use their progression, but people want to have FUN first and foremost. If you make something enjoyable and challenging and give people small incentives to keep perfecting their ability, they'll replay it and they will be much more willing to join a pick up group to do it if they are in the mood for it but for whatever reason their usual people aren't around.
If you treat level gaps as separate ecosystems there are plenty of unique niche activities and experiences at each gap that can make someone go 'yeah I'm in the mood for that let's find a newbie party to go do that with' or 'let's help out the new guildie with x.'
As for your other point here, the reason power leveling happens is because of catch up mechanics. Not solely due to skill increases. If you are level synched to the lowest level member to make xp gain more optimal relative to lower level targets, it is the same as if you were in a party year 1 at the same level as that person unless something about the game ITSELF changing. You reopen that content loop to people and keep it relevant to more people for longer. The only way this 'speeds people through the content artificially outside of what happened in the original play throughs of the oldest members' is if the devs implement catch up mechanics or there are flaws and exploits in PvE zone design that need to be fixed.
1. There isn't a problem with it increasing alt accounts. That stimulates the economy of lower level content and makes lower level gear more accessible to newer players for longer.
2. It's only temporary if the game is dying and not generating new subs.
3. You are misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I was saying. I was pointing out that you could have gear that is slightly better for gear capped content and make that the reward. I was NOT saying 'hey this should give you mats for higher level gear unrelated to the content.' Plenty of traditional gameplay loops in mmo's use this incentive structure. People want goals to go along with their skill perfection process.
Lowering friction in helping lower level players and making lower level content enjoyable for everyone can only be a good thing. I personally am the type of person who would 'help a newbie with this content' on purpose if it wasn't grindy which games other than FFXI tend to be with their lower level content. Not everyone is as self centered as you seem to be assuming. And even if it results in 'accidental helping' so what. That's better than no one having a real reason to help in the first place and relying on catch up mechanics that rot content. On top of all that 'accidents' can sometimes result in later friendships/connections.
tl;dr if the content is enjoyable your more likely to get older players to help newer ones.
A lot of your argument on this point boils down to a lack of a holistic ecosystem focused approach. Even your cited example has this flaw, ie the instanced content in question not forcing a level cap/synch to the 'mentors'. Of course players are going to sit around for 30 mins waiting for the much higher level player to clear stuff if you don't restrict the level so that they both are the same level and therefore it'd be more efficient to complete the content together.
In fact the reason why I'm so confident your example is an argument FOR level synching and level capping is because everyone who's played archeage and complains about the mentee quest system was that it worked at first but then they couldn't FIND ANYONE TO DO IT WITH a year and a half or so later because of arbitrary level requirements! People started making mentee accounts BECAUSE they started having new sub problems and restricted it away from people being able to just do the content whenever they wanted as long as they had the relevant pop items.
There were a lot of flaws with the mentee system, but it was definitely not the instanced content part of the puzzle. It was the way the pop items were generated (you didn't really have to interact with the pve content outside this one instance) the lack of level capping on the instance leading to a relatively boring experience, and the incentive structure for the task lead to much higher demand than made sense. This is a clear example of a LACK of an level gap ecosystem based approach.
I was totally asking myself "How do we avoid catchup mechanics?" this week!
Love these ideas.
One of the big problems I see with "mentor/mentee" systems is that the mentor usually tells the mentee the most efficient way to do everything - which is great for accelerating catch-up, but completely robs the mentee of the chance to explore the game. Any thoughts on how to encourage a little of both?
(To be more specific, my instincts tell me that we need a way for "endgame" player objectives to cross paths with "newby" exploration objectives in a way that encourages brief interaction between the two).
In a game like Ashes, there may not be a need for that.
You can't change your primary Archetype and you don't even get a secondary until level 20-something.
If a new player chooses Fighter and has X build and can't change it too easily, the Mentor might not know 'the most efficient thing'.
They might have to adapt and learn themselves. Now obviously there will always be people out there that will instead go 'you should play with the build and in the way that I understand'. And there will always be people who, due to their social experiences, will go along with this.
But that's a question of the mentor sucking. If there isn't a 'one correct way', then it shifts. And if there is one correct way, unfortunately for many, 'exploring the game' doesn't have a LOT of value.
One can hope that Ashes won't be a 'one correct way' game, even at lower levels.
I can't think of a nicer way to put it than this.
Archeage was absolutely full of ex-L2 players. The game was viewed as L2's spiritual successor. It is these ex-L2 players - the people you seem to think better of - that are the ones that will put progression above all else. It is these people that force others to put progression above all else, or risk falling behind - and falling behind in a game like Ashes is never a good idea.
Yes, they want fun, but in a game like this fun comes from winning, winning comes from progression, so fun comes from progression. People are not going to step away from progression if it will mean they will fall behind.
Let's be clear here.
You are suggesting a system where there is a reason for level capped players to run lower level content, and bevlevel synced to it in some manner - and that having this will see people group up with new players.
You seem to think that players would accept this slow down on their progression when an obvious faster and easier alternative is readily apparent.
Imagine you and I are friends in game. We both want to make use of this progression path. We can attempt to find a new player and group up with them, or we can both roll alts to the appropriate level, and run each other through the content at will. We can keep things among ourselves, doing it when it suits us, without needing to find someone of the right level, at the right time, who happens to want to do this content.
95% of the current MMO population - including your L2 compatriots - would take the easier, better option. There is literally no reason to not do that, as it is more progression, more content (we can do it together twice this way), and it is more fun as it is just two friends running content together.
There is literally no reason for us to involve that random lower level player. There is no benefit to us, either tangible or intangible.
Now sure, we may use a system like this to assist ourselves in leveling up alts, or friends of ours coming to the game - but this is not an activity that needs assistance. Those characters will be leveled regardless - it is the people without that pre-existing support network of established players that need catch up mechanics.
The idea seems very out of touch with the core values of this game. It's definitely not a necessary evil and I have faith that many many interesting options would be explored by the team before even considering such a thing..
It will be a necessary evil when the game has been live for 3 years.
There is obviously no need for catch up mechanics any earlier than that.
If people want Catch Up mechanics so they can skip the game, that means you did a trash job game designing because people want to skip the game you made.
There should be no Catch Up mechanics.
The game should be fun so when people come back they're like ''ohh man this is awesome, I got 3 years of fun content to go through now, this will be some great time'' and not like ''ohh man I got to gring through 3 years of stuff to get to the actual game''.
With the enchanting system, as well as a few other things that are likely, Ashes will not really have a cap on progression that players are going to reach. This is key.
If we assume 50 hours of gameplay to the level cap, and then assume 5 hours of progression a week in gear improvements, that means a player that is new to the game two years in is faced with 570 hours of progression in order to catch up to where players are now.
Add to that the fact that players are still going to be spending that 5 hours a week progressing further while this new player tries to catch up, and it would take this new player 114 weeks to catch up to where players are if they spend 10 hours a week on pure progression.
That means a person that joins the game when it is two years old doesn't become a viable part of the community until the game is four years old.
This is what you are arguing for here.
To your last point about someone coming back to the game thinking they have three years worth of content to play - no they don't.
They have the content that the current node layout has opened up for them, and absolutely nothing more than that. They also have a three year progression gap they need to try and resolve while in a situation of having limited people around their progression level, and many people around them that are significantly better geared that are able to hamper progression.
A lot of those 2 years I imagine was waiting for content (for an expansion or patches).
It didn't mean the players needed 2 years to go through said content
The players could have gotten through the content in months even if the content is difficult.
I meant, they will have all the content that was available in the original launch game plus the content that was added in all the other patches and expansions that followed.
They're free to join any server they want with any type of content-unlock combinations they want either way.
If they make ''previous expansion/version of the game'' content relevant as they promissed they will then players that have been in the game from the start will still be interested in doing old content along newcommers needing the progresion.
And if the progression is fun, then the fact they got a lot to catch up with is fun.
Literally no one ever "got through" the content.
There is a theoretical limit to progression with systems like this, but it is not one that players are likely to reach. As such, in practice, there is no limit on progression. I think you have mis-understood what has been said in this regard.
Stevens comments in this regard have all been more directed at the fact that players will still be in all areas of the world and so not leave starting areas abandoned, and that lower level materials will be needed for higher level crafts (because this is working well for New World), meaning higher level people may want to harvest in lower level areas.
There has never been a suggestion that level capped players would want to run lower level content for any personal gain, and in fact that suggestion has been discussed and somewhat dismissed by Intrepid (it doesn't seem like an overly good idea to give level 50 players a reason to be in an area with level 30 players in a game where that level 50 can just kill those level 30 players in order to achieve their goals faster).
Well, by content I didn't necesarelly mean ''having the top level gear and mounts and stuff'' (although it was part of what I meant, I admit, and I stand corrected if things stand as you put them, I admit I'm not faimilar with Archage or the system in question).
What I meant was more in the lines of ''there will be more levels, zones, instances, battlegrounds, node siege and caravan systems, classes, specs, etc to experience.''
Having to go through 30 extra levels for examples, through several extra zones, through several other instances and battlegrounds, in the context of world pvp and extra profession content... that's great.
People shouldn't want to skip those extra 30 levels, those extra dungeons and zones and .... yeah.
Hope things are more clear now.
Sorry if I was unclear so far.
I'm pretty sure Steven said that ''old raid content'' will be relevant because ''old raid content'' items will be able to be smelted/disenchanted for valuable mats.
So people would still get ''old players'' for old raids.
Or maybe I misunderstood this.
Either way, this is what I meant.
slow-down mechanics for those on the cutting edge?
When you say stuff like "sub-only" or "free to play", that refers to what's required to play the game. And since you only need an active subscription for AoC, it has a subscription model. The cash shop will be purely cosmetic and Steven has emphasized multiple times that in-game achievable stuff will be on-par. Hope that clarified things a bit!
Every MMO ever released (that I am aware of) has players spend more time progressing their gear than their character level. This is why most catch up mechanics are gear based, not level based.
The most basic of these are skipping steps towards higher end gear.
Imagine a game where you have a linear gear set progression. You get item 1, use it to make item 2, then item 3, 4, 5, and 6. Each step in that represents a weeks worth of effort per step, per item.
Players play the game for a year, and so have a mixture of 52 items upgraded to a higher step. Great, good for them. Then the developers introduce steps 7 and 8 to the game, each of which take 3 weeks of effort to get, well before anyone has managed to get all of their items to step 6.
However, because the developers want new players to have a reasonable chance at catching up, rather than requiring them to go through that whole process and take a year just to get to where current players are today (a year later, players will have progressed up to steps 7 and 8). So, what the developers do is they eliminate steps 2 and 4, meaning players can go 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and then 8. This cuts 2 weeks off the time it takes these new players to get items up to step 6, allowing them to catch up a little faster to where players are.
This is the basic outline of most catch up mechanics other than the "WoW" system. In WoW, all they do is slap on a few new levels, give quest gear at that new level cap that is almost as good as (or better than) top end gear from the previous level cap, and then new players need not even concern themselves with what happened before the level cap increase.
Being the "WoW" way, this is obviously something I am not overly in support of.
The players who get ahead will need to help newer players get established as the in game society dynamics will require it.
And new players should see veterans as something to aspire too.
It should not be required in a well designed game in needing to bubble wrap or hand hold the new player.
NO.
I am not sure what you explained. Except the concept of: what's in a name. To that I say: ok.
But when a game developer invests time and money to set up a cash shop and create content for it, and also makes it a subscription game, to my mind it is only a marketing ploy to frame the game as subscription only. But to me the developer is clearly double dipping like the rest of them (game publishers).
Not that I mind, but I still do not understand how anyone can call that a subscription only model.
Sandbox or themepark have no effect on the need for catch up mechanics.
The only thing that does have an effect is the presence or absence of post-launch progression. If they never add progression to the game, there is no need for catch up mechanics.
There are no social dynamic requirements that would see established players needing ro help new players several years after release.
There is some crossover. GW2 sort of made gear progression irrelevant and the way player level is scaled to the environment makes old content somewhat relevant. However i personally do not like world environment scaling. Instance/PVP scaling is fine.
But i can log out for GW2 for 2 years log back in an my old characters are still viable...
However to compare a expansion+$shop and a Sub+$shop.
Gw2 expansions often act as a platter for the cash shop offerings to expand. Each game expansion offers a new mechanic. Glider/glider skins. mounts/mount skins. More global crafting materials and items $inventory/bagspace...
GW2 is so full of item bloat and management I stopped playing. Ther's just too much too much. Character progression and power creep is 1 thing, But Item variety and stuff bloat is almost just as bad as a new player to "catch up" to.
I can't recall if intrepid is planning on level cap increase with expansions. Not sure i would with 64 player archetypes+augments. But i don;t think linear progression is a design element Ashes is leaning on. So catching up should not be a major concern. But a cosmetic only store with no convenience items gives me some hope that item and inventory bloat will not eventuate.
Time/reward. If you put in the effort then it should show. If a new player then gets a 'boost/catch up' how does that make the veterans efforts justified.
I suppose I came from the boomer oldschool mindset of winners and losers and not everyone got a participation reward.
A true sandbox like Minecraft has none of these issues.