Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Sub price, cosmetic shop and alternative rules server.
Vindor
Member
I mean i was paying 15$ a month + box 20 years ago, considering inflation and no box cost i wouldnt mind paying 30 or 40$ a month to play in a world without cosmetic shop.
Could Intrepid possibly offer servers with no cosmetic shop for an additonal fee ?
Could Intrepid possibly offer servers with no cosmetic shop for an additonal fee ?
0
Comments
The notion of a server with a different ruleset - any different ruleset - has been completely shut down by Steven. They have no interest at all in that. I personally would happily pay more to play on a server with no cosmetics at all - but that is simply not going to happen.
Ditto...
I still don't understand the dislike of a cos-play shop - don't use it.
Yeah, I know you have been selling BigMacs for decades pretty cheap. I would be willing to pay double or triple the price if you would just get rid of those Happy Meals. Even though I don't have any kids, I feel they are wrong. I see children playing with the toys happily, and I realize, they have no control over their desires. We must protect the chilluns! Their small, tiny brains cause them to want things that I believe have no value or fun. So, please stop selling Happy Meals.
"Thank you sir, come again. If you do not want to order, I suggest going down the street to Arby's. Sure, the food tastes like shit, but they don't have Happy Meals. Enjoy!"
some people have no self control and buy absolutely everything they see i guess.
This monetization model of free or cheap to play/cash shop(p2w or not) appeals to masses. Hopefully it will die out one day. But that would require some pretty massive shifts in thinking and intelligence in the customer base. Don't hold your breath.
In the meantime, it's not really a big deal. While I would pay more to play on a non cash shop server, I agree with Intrepid's decision not to implement that. Segmenting the player base would be the bigger evil.
I recognize there might be a few people who would pay extra for this as a service, but it boils down to the same reason they haven't developed the game for Console, Mac, or Linux. Not enough people are interested. I would love a Linux build. I hate Windows and if it weren't for Ashes and a couple other games I'd never use Windows again if I could help it. But that's not feasible right now, and so I am stuck.
Maybe one day down the road Linux or another Operating System other than Windows will become viable for gaming. Maybe one day there will be enough interest in separate rule set servers, or launching separate servers and maintaining them will become dirt cheap. Who knows? Ashes will have a long, ever changing history, and I can't wait to see where it and Intrepid Studios go.
There are many other threads on this topic, @Vindor, if you just do a simple forums search.
Almost of all them explain why this is a bad idea.
TL;DR: Cosmetics are totally optional ... there's no obligation on your part to participate. That's why there's no box cost for Ashes.
If it’s just the fact it exists I feel the most logical conclusion is just don’t use it as others suggested, and enjoy the fact that whales make your gaming experience cheaper.
If it’s that many games produce super gaudy cosmetic options, then shouldn’t the argument be for cosmetic items that aren’t gaudy and then enjoy the fact that whales make your gaming experience cheaper?
Even if I can't tell the exact weapon or armor pieces you have on, I feel I should be able to look at your character and know if you are going to attack me with a two handed sword, or a bow and arrow. I should know if you are wearing plate armor or a robe.
Cosmetics prevent me from being able to tell this.
Being as that may, Steven has said no alternative ruleset servers. So, no alternative ruleset servers.
You want to threat assess 10 people at the same time without hovering your mouse over them. There are so many issues with this, its not even funny. Now imagine a horde of people come in front of you:
- You are looking at their description and not at what they are doing.
- There is a flood of information which not even 1% of players are equipped to process in the required timeframe.
- You want the information bubble to overlap or not? Overlap then you cant read description of people standing side by side. Not overlap then your screen is filled with information bubbles. So there are gonna be complaints either way.
- Imagine going into a village or metropolis which would be packed with players.
To be honest I dont see the point of this "threat assessment" of 10 people coming at me BECAUSE if 10 people are coming at me and I am alone then all I would have is time to click on them and look at stuff as I would be dead. On the contrary, if you are hidden then you have ample time to threat assess them by clicking on them.
Lastly, you can say that this feature should be toggleable. But then AoC is open world PvP, you would have to choose to keep it on or off all the time for it to serve its intended purpose except when in metropolis/village.
PS: Plate/cloth doesnt matter as much. Why? As AoC isnt going to balance 1v1 then lets say Rogues have inherent advantage against Bards. So I see 2-3 people coming at me and one of them is a bard, I jump on them irrespective of gear. Why not spend 10 seconds to threat assess? Initiative gives advantage. As it is already 1 vs many, I would like to have that advantage on my side.
Its called nameplate and not character description for a reason. I hope it does with it is titled as.
However, Steven has already outright said no to that.
Are we sure that is the case for skins? I know that costumes will cover up anything and have no restrictions. But skins are reliant on the kind of item you apply it to. If you have a skin for a gliding mount, for example, and you try to put it on a horse, it won't work because that skin is for a different mount tier. Steven certainly implies that skins will be reliant on the kind of item you apply it to:
He's not saying explicitly that cloth skins can only go on cloth items, and so on. But there seems to be an implication of that. Do you have a more definitive statement from Steven to share about this?
(Again, excluding costumes, which we know will just cover up anything else you have regardless of what it is, though costumes don't affect weapons.)
However, skins are (as far as I can see) mostly to be found in game, while costumes are to be found on the store. As such, it is the costume aspect of cosmetics that are the issue here.
That's just untrue. Every month, there is one costume and one skin for sale. There are the same number of costumes as there are skins.
For example, this month we have the Badland Scavenger Handwraps, which is a glove skin, and the Desolation Outlander costume. I've bought more skins than costumes from the shop, because I like the idea of piecing a unique appearance together from different cosmetic pieces than getting one costume covering my body. (Though I do have a few costumes that I thought looked really cool.)
Intrepid have stated that costumes (note; costumes, not cosmetics) are available from the store - and have not said they are available in game. They have also talked about the flexibility of in game cosmetics over store bought costumes, and how in game cosmetics can be mixed and matched while store bought are all or nothing.
What is up for sale now is unlikely to be an exact representation of what will be on the store when the game launches.
The only way to interpret what Intrepid have said that I can see, is that when the game launches, you will be able to find individual slot cosmetics in game, and buy costumes that cover all slots from the store. While there may be the occasional situation that breaks this rule, this does seem to be what they are generally aiming at.
If you have a different interpretation of the various comments made, cool.
I do have a different interpretation. Steven has said, "I want to make sure that equitable cosmetics both from a quantity and quality standpoint are achievable through in-game achievements." If you then can only acquire costumes from the store and they can't be achieved in-game, then that belies his statements.
Steven has stated that "skins" are available from the store in Discord. Note he didn't call them "costumes".
https://discord.com/channels/256164085366915072/257283936756039680/389614941067280385
Margaret confirmed the difference between "costume" and "accessory" cosmetics.
https://discord.com/channels/256164085366915072/257283936756039680/664646300112912435
There is no information posted anywhere that has stated that costumes will only be found in the store, and there is no information stating that accessory cosmetics (which cover only parts of a character, like cloaks, belts, hats, gloves, boots) will not be available in the store.
Now, what we've never seen in the store, and I would suspect might only be available in-game, are skins that cover other parts of the body. Specifically, the torso and legs (front, obviously a cloak might cover your entire back). If that is what you are referring to, I would say I agree with you. But there is nothing indicating that the only character cosmetics we'll get in the store are costumes, and that you won't be able to get those in-game.
I also haven't seen any weapon skins. I do recall weapon effects from Kickstarter (though I have no idea what they'll look like, I sure hope they are cool).
I disagree.
If the store sells full costumes, and you are able to earn individual pieces in game that can be mixed and matched, as well as recolored, these are equitable notions.
Some people would far prefer the premade outfit. Less hassle, less time, you know what it will look like.
Some people would far prefer the piecemeal approach, more customization to get exactly the look they want.
Equitable does not mean the same. It means of equal value. If some people value single piece more and others value piecemeal more, then these are equitable.
What I will say is that there isn't enough solid info on this yet - and it may be that Intrepid have jot made a decision one way or the other.
This is why I said both "as far as I can see", and also that you may have a different interpretation.
What I can say for sure though, is that I have not seen anything at all to suggest Intrepid won't do as per my interpretation.
I expect that we will be able to turn off headgear via some form of transmog.
I hope we will also be able to turn off chest pieces, so we can see tattoos and scarification.
Since we can already cover gear with a full costume, it doesn’t make much sense to restrict gear skins such that a cloth skin must be placed over cloth gear, rather than over leather or plate gear.
We’re supposed to have some other indicator which informs us what type of gear people are truly wearing.
Costumes, unlike individual pieces, can be worn without restriction over anything. There is no other cosmetic that can do that. If you can’t get costumes in-game, Steven lied. I’d rather believe Steven over your baseless speculation.
You can't acquire individual pieces in the same colors as the store versions, AFAIK.
There are also individual pieces of cosmetic gear for sale each month (accessory cosmetics) that you can mix and match. Hats, rings, gloves, boots, belts, cloaks, masks, a huge variety. A couple months ago there was even a little telescope that I believe could hang from a belt or something.
You are thinking equal, not equitable.
Equitable basically means fair and even.
Sure, costumes may have that advantage over piecemeal, but piecemeal allows for more customization.
You may prefer one of these over the other, but others would prefer the other.
Thus, fair and even. Not equal by any means, but equitable.
That’s nonsense.
Costumes have an objective advantage that no other cosmetic provides. If you can’t get them in game, then there is no equity. You’re trying to counter that with a subjective, “But some people might like piecemeal items more.” That argument fails.
Face it Noaani, you have nothing but wishful thinking, and it contradicts developer statements. You’re proven wrong. You can make up whatever you want, but there is evidence that invalidates your imagination.