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
Exactly as cheap as Intrepid's Economy Designer wants it to be.
Remember that there are people who spend literally all their time learning how to control the economic/play behaviours of massive numbers of people at a time. Sure, we note that there are exceptions and they're often bad (outside of MMOs where apparently it is the norm and they're REALLY bad), but those people aren't Intrepid.
But as noted, I was being snarky, the implication of my snark was probably 'shopping is the way to do this'.
I agree with and support the following concepts from your suggestion:
1. A player can convert dropped/crafted gear to gear that they intend to donate to their Social Org or Node.
2. That player gains rep or something substantial that they want other than raw $$, from this.
3. Other players can work for that gear or buy it from that Social Org or Node, and it will sit there until someone does.
Note that first aspect, because I play games with these systems too (it's not as useful in FFXI but you can donate gear to your nation and it does act as a sink when things start to get silly).
But it's intentionally not as useful in those games because as soon as you make it useful, someone games said system for their own benefit, that's why point #1 even has that 'convert dropped gear' part. You can't offer a benefit of real value to TopPlayerA for 'donating gear' and still also have them able to buy that gear to donate it.
I was even reluctant, after just the initial design iteration passes that happen in my head automatically (does this come off as bragging? I never know, it's not quite complaining... oh well) to add 'crafted' to that. The economic incentives and behaviours in this case would just get twisty SO fast. Players unable to find new gear to buy because a rich person who wants Social Org points just keeps buying it up and donating it, FORCING them to go through the 'tower'. Players running the tower to get the gear just so they can sell it back to the same sort of person who wants the points for cash and have it just be re-donated...
My 'internal alarms' rang about 3 more times but I don't have the wish to go investigate what I'm 'sensing'. Yes, these things are 'fixable', but 'fighting with the nature of your economic actors' never goes well. You almost always lose.
As for that kind of exploit, I think I mentioned diminishing returns on donating the same gear. Maybe it was in the additional explanation on this idea that I wrote for Crow. Another obvious solution would be to put markers on the gear that has gone through the system or just make it bounded to the recipient and only meant for deconstruction later on. But yeah, I'm sure there's at least a few other exploits that I've missed in the overall system, just cause it was the first pass on it. And, same as you, I'm sure that if even I was able to come up with a semi-ok system to address some potential difficulties in casuals' lives, then Intrepid definitely could do the same thing and better.
There's only one problem with that kind of logic though. There's been countless games where the solution to whichever problems seems so damn obvious that the devs would have to either be stupid or explicitly malicious in their design choices to have those issues still in the game. There's of course the chance that the problem is not as easily solvable as it seems on the surface, but the sheer existence of the problem, update after update, at least hints at some underlying issue with the devs/studio. Now I hope Intrepid can avoid that kind of stuff, but they've had a few problems in their development already so I'd rather first let them prove themselves through good decisions, rather than blindly believe that all their designs will be better than even smth I could come up with. But only time will tell what the situation will be at release.
I mean... you're the one that bought it up, not me.
If it doesn't matter, why would you say I do agree that it doesn't matter, but you are the one that bought it up, not me. If you know it doesn't matter, why did you bring it up?
And also, you'll note that I specifically didn't say only EQ2. If you read it that way, you read it wrong.
I have the same feeling as you, I'm also here to kick and scream about every such thing I perceive as an error, at least until a justification is provided.
Fortunately, I don't have to yell at Intrepid, I can yell at other people who have such ideas and IF Intrepid also happens to have overlooked the same thing, they can quietly change it and act like they never did that.
So in this case it's not optimism, it's definitely arrogance and in some cases experience (if I talk a lot about something, if not, I'll summon someone I know who has it).
If they start doing silly-seeming things relative to PvP incentives, be 'warned', I'm summoning you.
And I'm ready to complain and argue, in order to stand up against the rising tide of unneeded or unreasonable changes to Intrepid's core designs. Now I don't personally think that Steven will crumble under the pressure from people as easily as Amazon did, mainly due to his alleged freedom from the corporate shackles, but in case he does, I'll at least do the most and to the best of my abilities to prevent those changes.
p.s. here's the scene I was quoting, if anyone's interested (it's the last 10 secs)
I was there in Modern Warfare days, religiously as a bolt action sniper and refica dual pistol as sub (those subs slaughtering people only a millisecond slower than shotgun and the best close range sub machine gun).
I would not change my playstyle ie to kill the most people, I was an MVP murderer and always doing unorthodox or different things and was mostly defensive minded (and on MW2, an FPS legend via its large and tactical maps, this was great).
You've not taken into account poor matchmaking + non existant measures to punish players that ruin their last or recent games being heavily countered by methods you're highlighting as guarenteed winners.
Yes, most players do have predictable tendencies once you know what they're after, in any PvP game but then it's exactly the same thought process exists for your opponent and that's where the "Chess" game happens which is VASTLY superior to any AI or script. PvE's only answer to this is to "cock block" you and put literal barriers down, ie you need x people to defeat monster, this monster has 100% debuff land rate regardless of PvP limitations, this monster becomes invincible at certain stages, you will not damage this monster optimally if you don't have at least x P/M atk (ie significantly higher than player achieved defense) and the most common one, this mob cannot be CC'd, at all.
Increasing your monster pool via progressing through the system is an achievement check box, it is NEVER a subsitute for mental satisfaction and challenge that can occur beating another players strategy or objectives.
(unless ofc the gear game sucks to the point of where the 16 year old with more game time than you can knock you out without much effort).
~sigh~ Called it.
Literally everything about you could have been predicted from your behavioural model, and I hate that so much.
So, my dear 'Defensive Bolt Action Sniper' (I'm sure you are very good and could play with any weapon in whatever style you feel is best), I don't suppose I can try to convince you or explain that the experiences you are describing are not only not the requirement (in terms of PvE bosses) but the effect on enjoyment is not the same for everyone?
I have not been THIS sad to have the predictive models work in a long time. Because it leaves me with only the thought that I hope Intrepid basically ignores your perspective, and I don't like that. Do you have any interest in trying to see the perspectives of others from the position that maybe because of your playstyle and experiences you don't have the full picture?
Or is it always going to be 'this will NEVER be as good as what I consider to be good'?
Also NishUK: Defensive Bolt Action Sniper.
The irony is palpable.
Cool youtube format comment bro
Any personal merit to share or you've just come in for the kidney punch and out?
There's a lot to unravel there from your bias toward PvP, I'm not even against PvE but I'm very much against PvE being the highlight attraction that is the focus of most if not at content updates in a supposedly massive multiplayer title.
Anyway, I'm not going to entertain or bore you with my predictable dribble, I'll just step in when I feel like unless the conversation holds some merit and then I'll talk more (or unless coaxed better).
Snipers have a particular role in group combat, that changes the shape of the game and makes it more tactical in terms of how situations can viably occur. We used to play Paladins, in the past, and I played as Strix. As our team's sniper, my job was to take control of certain paths through the map by finding a spot with the right lines of sight and making it difficult for enemies to hold or use these positions or routes of travel. From my perch on high, I have the ability to change the shape of the environment for my team, and limit or define the enemy's available tactics. My role in this position is slow, cautious, tactical. I decide what I am going to focus on, and wait for and defeat threats that follow those paths. My adaptation to the match is based on the shifting tactics and positions of the teams as a whole, and the rest is largely about who is in my space. This is different for a front-liner. Their reactions are based on speed, mobility, and immediate-term tactical reactions. They have to focus on positioning in terms of seconds, and the positions of other teammates and enemy players. To them the game is quick and reactive, and the tactics involved are a combination of overall team strategy, and micro-scale "can I aim properly on reaction at this moving target that just appeared?" "will I defeat this threat before they can take me down or do I need to retreat, and to what position? where will they go and what allies will be under threat if I do?". For such people, the game is linear, because there are less good tactics. There's much more twitchy speed. Just being surprised by randomness can be a real answer.
This is what they experience in PvE, too. This is the part of PvE that they think about. Their experiences are very different from ours. Neither better or worse, but the games have a very different shape from their position. From where I'm sitting, and with the styles I play, if I hadn't put specific effort into understanding how their experiences work, I could very easily have gotten the impression that those things simply weren't what the game was about. It would look like things were about tactics, planning, and a type of awareness and decision-making that, while they experience it, is only one part of a larger whole.
Even when we experience these situations ourselves, when someone finally makes it through your team and gets to your perch, the situation has already changed. Because I am the one in charge of the lines, if I've chosen a good position, the opponent must be unpredictable to get through. My presence and position force my opponent to adapt, and sometimes those adaptations must be crazy. For a front-liner, that's not what's happening. Front-liners are just trying to do their most effective offensive tactic better than the other person, and without failing, because that is the most effective way to do it. If someone manages to get up to me, past my sight and space control, and through my team, I'm not expecting to take down the assassin or fighter threatening me with my pistol unless I've been playing the game for a while, and both knew what to expect, and had developed the skills to confront it by being able to be calm and respond appropriately. Random deaths before I've developed this skill and experience don't even register as memorable, because they aren't, and I know that this will come down to tactics and knowledge of possible opponent adaptations (which I will of course have lots of time to think about).
PvE content is about cooperation, and as such has as much - if not more - of a place in an MMO.
You're allowed to not like PvE as much as PvP, and that's fine. However, this stance here is just objectively wrong.
If one feels more like a mmorpg for PvP or PvE it has to be looked at as a per game bias. Older mmos would feel less mmorpg compared to new ones because of the types of content and world events, but it all depends again what happens exactly on a per mmorpg bias.
Welp that'll do it for me for the day. I'll be here all week.
This forum is turning into a lul fest. Starting to just come here to harvest luls lol
Honestly I'm a hardcore pvpers but it comes down to people not understand both sides be it the pvp side or pve side and having assumptions.
The thing is I've been playing mmos longer then most people here as well as different mmorpgs. I've done plenty of PvE as well lmao.
But PvE content is also about competition.
In fact, the game that had the most competition that I have played is still EQ2 - a game with no PvP.
This is why there were literally no guides at all to top end content, and indeed most top end content still has no guides.
The notion that you need to be able to kill another player character in order to compete with them is just false.
Yeah definitely a lot of that going on, on both sides. There is a good bit of common ground that can be found. Some of the differences between the two camps are irreconcilable though unfortunately.
This is an point I agree with you on, especially in regards to design.
A game in the L2 family of games will always see PvP content as more important. That is just how the games are designed. Players that have mostly played (or originally played) games from this family would naturally have this opinion.
Games from the EQ family of games will have PvE as the more important. That is just how the games are designed. Players that have mostly played (or originally played) games from this family would naturally have this opinion.
Players that are able to step out of their own perspective and experiences will see that both are right in their own way, and thus neither is more or less important, it is just how each game is developed.
Since Ashes seems to me to be trying to bridge the gap between those two families of games, it would stand to reason that PvE and PvP are equally as important as each other.
Yeah I know. Pvers compete for world firsts, speed runs, efficiency, whatever else, I'm sure you can list more. I agree, those are all valid things to compete over. Who can do pve best basically, that's 100% a competition and it doesn't require killing each other.
I dunno, there's just simple, undeniable facts that people on both sides refuse to acknowledge for the other side, unless it benefits their viewpoint. People do it to you, you do it to them. I'm 1000% sure I've done it before, I try not to though. Just luls at this point reading this forum. Seems worse since the weather update.
I don't even really see myself in the PvP camp, does nto mean im in the Pve camp of course lol. I am simply in the Ashes of creation camp and PvX camp. Simply want them to make Ashes as the inteded design has been talked about. I don't want it to turn into a PvE game or a PvP game with no pve content. I just want people to want the game for what is it being designed to be and give it a chance. PvX will feel as a true mmorpg and they have good design ideas Steven always is talking about and why so many people have backed it.
That is why you don't understand me lol. Me being against pve servers is because i want ashes as ashes. PvX
It is true for the vast majority of PvPer Ashes fans that they are against PvE servers because they want Ashes to stick to the core dev goal of being PvX.
So, what I don't understand is what you consider the PvP camp to be.
Me having played shadowbane being hardcore pvp, and even age of conan on a PvP server. I'd want PvX where it is fair because that is the best way for game to grow and be successful. This needs to be the last mmorpg i play i don't trust any other games in the future. Maybe a sci-fi mmorpg would be cool though.
The problem is the scope.
I played Ultima Online strictly PvE and different crafting, gear sets and tailoring your 720 skill points towards PvE was very enjoyable and deep experience, then if you go to the PvP shard to get better scrolls from bosses with this setup you have to be careful and give full respect to PvP build opposing players invading, which usually involves getting out with your life.
A scenerio like this needed co-operation, ie PvE strong players teaming up with however many PvP builds to have a decent chance of doing the champion spawn 100%. UO's "class system" was literally extreme, be all out in PvE skill build, be somewhat of a 50/50 freak or go full out in PvP skill build and I'm not sure if we'll see something like this again due to the faults of:
>> "Why am I strong as hell vs a dragon or a humanoid monster and weak vs a fellow human? I don't understand themematically nor do I enjoy it...I would like to compete on most if not all levels!"
>> Generally creating an "us vs them" scenerio, these kind of game designs is what leads to "toxicity" of which all companies need to take note of.
I don't know if you truly want Ashe's to be a PvX game but for the most part you bang on about EQ2 like it's the poster child for exceptional PvE co-op content which appears to me like you are either scared of the general attitude of the general forums being more PvP orientated and want to be the "PvE is great!" towncryer OR you genuinely want Ashe's to be the PvE and PvP dream.
The PvE + PvP at an exceptional level imo a fools stance, unless ofc you're forcing the world into an instanced affair, you're not wanting to gel the audiences, you're happy with them doing their own thing.
Whatever your stance is, I don't think I'll ever agree with it, I think with the amount of posts you've done it's correct to assume you only think of mmorpg's as a co-op PvE/Raid experience with the world and its systems always 2nd.
For a PvX game, Intrepid giving in to all your suggestions is going to cripple them into the exact same competitive road and appeal as FF14/WoW and while focusing on open world aspects this development is going to take so many more years, and at what risk is that huge development cycle going to have.
Riot's MMO might come out before Ashe's...if it wasn't for FF14 riding on WoW's failings, Square Enix would of perhaps crippled themselves under the weight of bad selling and appeal FF's after 10 and ofc 15 which was cooking for roughly 10 years (and ofc they had to push the FF7 remake button to save themselves!)...
I want this genre evolved, screw your huge focus PvE narrative.
It is clear from everything that Intrepid have shown us that they are going for exceptional.
As such, when I talk about content in this game, I talk about it in relation to how I believe it should be based on the notion that both PvE and PvP will be exceptional. I also expect the economy to be exceptional as well (for reference, I consider Archages economy to be "good", not great, let alone exceptional)
I would personally rather they aim for that and miss, than aim to be ESO2 and succeed.
Based on the above idea, there is literally no reason at all why a game can't have exceptions PvE (including some instanced encounters), yet still have a fantastic PvP system.
Sure, that PvP system won't be a thing in those instances, but assuming there are not too many of them - and that those that exist have mechanics to prevent them from being used as an escape from PvP, then there really shouldn't be an issue from literally any reasonable person.
Assuming the idea is exceptional PvE, PvP and economy, and assuming the absolute basic notion of preventing instances from being an escape from PvP are in place, literally the only argument people could possibly have about instanced content in a game like Ashes is that there will be a small number of encounters where they can't troll raids.
That really is it.
I actually did have a macro for a few years that started up the game, two combat trackers, opened up a browser with two specific pages, and opened up the guild voice chat.
Efficiency really is king.