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.
Comments
Noaani advocates for Combat Trackers, and hardcore raids, so yeah, I would say preference is of a more themepark game
Not at all.
You should pay more attention to the detail of what I'd like to see, rather than just assuming what I want is aspects of games you have seen.
Ashes will fail if it is a theme park. Ashes will also fail if it doesn't give players content to run - which is why Intrepid are making it a themebox (or sand park) MMO, as opposed to a sandbox or theme park.
Besides all of that, neither raids nor combat trackers dictate a game be a theme park.
Has it? Which page was the second time we started debating what the difference between a theme park, sandbox, themebox and sand park MMO was?
I mean, if the thread has looped, we must have talked about this before, right?
That's what happens when Noaani and I are having a perfectly civilized conversation about the OP and I say sandpark which triggers @CROW3, @Dygz, and @Azherae to start an entire argument about how sandpark and themebox are two different things when in fact they are the same exact thing.
Edit: word
Not even close. If they are so different, please explain the difference.
I can easily explain the difference between primary archetype and class because they are indeed different. Primary archetype is the character/role/job (whatever you want to call it) choice that you make when you first create your character, while class is the combination between your primary and secondary archetype. Please explain the difference between themebox and sandpark.
Discussion is discussion.
Sometimes things move a little bit away from the original topic. But that is good - that is what stops threads just looping back on themselves.
Well that is a fairly poor argument.
Do you know why there are so few chess grandmasters? Because it takes a lot of time and effort to get good enough.
You made an argument that chess would suck if the result were largely a function of how much time you have invested, all while ignoring the fact that chess success is largely dictated by how much time you have invested.
In both chess and MMO's, skill comes in to play in relation to people that have invested a similar amount of time as you. However, there is virtually no competitive activity in which you could expect to do well in the situation you outlined above where you are just starting out and are going up against people that have spent 40 hours a week for months on said activity.
30% of power from gear is ridiculous low, the 70% is what? if only lvl no one will gonna play for 20 strength bonus for a lengendary item.
obs: there's a link to a interview with steven by asmongold they talk about that (is in the wiki about) https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Weapons#cite_note-interview-19-July-2020-53:59-16
With that said - I do hope they implement a ranked PvP arena so that casuals can still enjoy PvP against similar geared players and hardcore players can flex their top ranks with unique titles/banners/cosmetics, etc.
My experience with WOW was that causal players really excelled at questing, while raiders excelled at dungeons, and PVPers excelled at PVP combat.
So if I'm understanding correctly, if all three types of gamers are equally vested in their respective interests, there shouldn't be a significant disadvantage when engaging each other in PVP combat.
If however, I'm not understanding, and a highly vested player decides to fight a new player, then I think it's obvious the new player won't have a chance of survival, unless some mechanic is built into the game, and I think that's the corruption system? it doesn't go without consequences for the Ganker, but yes the new player should die, suffer, but karma should be a bitch for the ganker too.
I really hope the "pvp" crowd of WoW is not catered to in AoC and that arena matches are never the driving force in pvp balancing. Ashes should have most of its pvp in the open world with arenas being a niche thing for those who can't hack it in FPS pvp and thus come to other games trying to turn them into a crappy version of an arena shooter.
I completely agree with this. Gear is important and time spent in game is also important. If I spent 30+ hrs trying to get a boss level gear set and I finally obtain it, I don't want to be at the same level as someone who only spent 2 hrs playing and has average green level armor.
PVP in arenas is an easy fix for evening out hardcore and casuals since the whole point of PVP is testing skills against each other. You can easily set a default and/or max level for players fighting against each other. For example, lets say a casual has a gs of 320 and a hardcore player has one of 560. You can default the casual up to 400 and max the gs of someone above at 500 so when they play, the difference is only 100 vs 240. Anybody at a gs inbetween those levels stays the same. That way, even at a difference of 100gs, a casual can overcome the difference with enough skill. I'm picking these numbers randomly to prove a point. The developers would have to determine what gs difference would be acceptable to overcome to make the fight skill based.
On another note, In the open world, if I'm a casual with a gs of 320 and I encounter someone who is much higher, I don't want to have the ability to put up a fight. They will slaughter me and I better run if I don't want that. In the early days, WoW did that well and I had a blast when I saw someone with a skull for lvls. That told me that I better get the heck out of there. And honestly, the rush of running for my life was quite the fun experience. Eventually I got to the point where I was the high level and I saw those with lower levels running for their lives. Higher levels also came to the rescue when a higher level of a different faction was spotted. It was fun and all players respected others enough not to make a miserable gaming experience for each other by continually killing lower leveled players. I would kill a few that tried to make a stand, to show my superiority
I guess my whole point is that casuals should be able to enjoy all parts of gameplay but it shouldn't be the same as how hardcores enjoy it. If someone spends 16 hrs a day to get the end level and they have the gear to support it, well, a casual spending much less time won't experience the same thing for a while. Thats the whole point of an MMORPG. You spend time leveling up your character, increasing stats, getting better gear, fighting tougher bosses. That is the reward for all the time spent. And I don't think someone who has lots of money should be able to get the same experience with a fraction of the time. If you dont' have the time to play an MMO, find another game or accept the fact that you'll experience the same content at a much slower pace.
Sorry for the novel.
but well written...
Just because you spent 30 hours dooesn't entitle you to the gear. Maybe you got unlucky on rolls, and the other person rolled a 100 on the first time the item dropped.
Maybe the person bought with gold, because they have a business and don't need to dwelve into dungeons.
Time doesn't mean anything. Wow classic is 15 years old and players still don't move out of red.
I think it was more a general truth statement not an exact or definitive one. There are always exceptions but overall, time spent in game playing usually pays off or rewards increasingly in correlation with the amount.
The gear someone is wearing won't tell you how much time that person has actually played.
The amount of time someone has played doesn't tell you id they are casual or hardcore.
That split in the definition you have made is only something you have made up - it isn't a split that anyone else recognizes.
Better players will always do better. Gear should give a slight advantage. But good decisions in combat should always trump good gear. If that becomes an impossibility, then it will ruin gameplay.
I do find it amusing how people assume good gear means not making the right decisions in combat.
Fun fact for you - people with better gear than you are probably better at the game than you. Gear is a scapegoat that many people use - they love to say "you only beat me because of your gear".
Should a bad decision in combat see you lose? Probably.
If two people both fail to make mistakes in combat, should gear be the deciding factor? obviously, yes.
Will people that lose in such a situation still blame their opponents gear? Without a doubt.