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
*BLEEP* the Casuals.
Vissox
Member
We keep seeing these "protect the causals" posts, frankly I'm sick of them. Here's a list of reasons why altering gameplay for the sake of people who aren't invested in the game is bad (if that isn't reason enough already):
1) Removing features because SOME people can't handle them is wrong. The goal of AoC shouldn't be to pander to as large of a group as possible, simplifying things to the most mediocre levels, it should be to make a good game and receive a following based on a good design.
2) Easy =/= Good. If I play a video game that requires me to learn absolutely nothing from it mechanically, chances are I can play an exact copy of the game somewhere else. Casual players don't want to learn anything new, they want to play the same game presented in a different format, till the end of time. I expect to be bad at something in this game, and I will overcome it, because I'm not a quitter and I want to be challenged. Will a casual player?
3) "WHAA! I have responsibility's now!" And so your new job/family/situation should effect the outcome of a game enjoyed by a potential million +/- player game? I'm sorry you don't have as much time on your hands as you used to, but frankly that's just a "not my problem" moment. It's also a really stupid argument, because If you don't have time to do basic "casual" things like leveling or grinding, I don't want you in my raid group, because if I give you gear I'll never see you again.
4) When a new game comes out, the casuals leave, and all the shitty choices made for their sake stick around.
Do I want people to not play because they are casual? Of course not. Do I mind lowering the skill floor if it doesn't forsake the nature of the game? Of course not. Do I think that these players should have a dramatic impact upon a game that they play 1 hour a day for 1 month and then quit?
Of. Course. Not.
1) Removing features because SOME people can't handle them is wrong. The goal of AoC shouldn't be to pander to as large of a group as possible, simplifying things to the most mediocre levels, it should be to make a good game and receive a following based on a good design.
2) Easy =/= Good. If I play a video game that requires me to learn absolutely nothing from it mechanically, chances are I can play an exact copy of the game somewhere else. Casual players don't want to learn anything new, they want to play the same game presented in a different format, till the end of time. I expect to be bad at something in this game, and I will overcome it, because I'm not a quitter and I want to be challenged. Will a casual player?
3) "WHAA! I have responsibility's now!" And so your new job/family/situation should effect the outcome of a game enjoyed by a potential million +/- player game? I'm sorry you don't have as much time on your hands as you used to, but frankly that's just a "not my problem" moment. It's also a really stupid argument, because If you don't have time to do basic "casual" things like leveling or grinding, I don't want you in my raid group, because if I give you gear I'll never see you again.
4) When a new game comes out, the casuals leave, and all the shitty choices made for their sake stick around.
Do I want people to not play because they are casual? Of course not. Do I mind lowering the skill floor if it doesn't forsake the nature of the game? Of course not. Do I think that these players should have a dramatic impact upon a game that they play 1 hour a day for 1 month and then quit?
Of. Course. Not.
6
Comments
Some casual stuff i think would be good for the game are:
1. We don't need extremly long, large and complex rotations for most classes.
2. There is nothing wrong with a class that is a little bit easier to also be good.
3. Some level of catch up mechanic is necessary for new players to join 6-12 months down the line.
4. Vertical progression, does not need to be everything.
5. It is entirely possible to make a game that is fun for the 5,10,20,40,80-hours a week players.
- I don't think ashes should remove any features. And I don't think will either. It's more likely they will modify/balance something to be in its best form (we would hope).
- I don't think you can just say that casual players don't want to learn anything new. What's your definition of a casual player for the sake of the people you are targeting? Is it just people who have less time to play? Or people that aren't out to min/max? The game should be challenging and whether you have 5 hours or 50 hours a week, it would just be a case that having less time means you will need more time to reach the levels of your longer-playtime peers. I am pretty sure that Steven is pretty firm when it comes to the design of the game, especially given that it is self published.
- I don't get your point #3. It's not something I have really seen in the community so I don't know what your concern here is.
- Every new game release has a huge initial boom and a sharp drop until it stabilises, so I guess that's normal?
If your only issue is that you don't want the game developers to compromise on the core qualities of the game - then I don't think you have anything to worry about.
There is one main thread in these forums anyway which was created to discuss reducing the power gap between "casuals" and people with more time, but I don't think that the representation of "casual supporters" is nearly as high as you think.
As someone who would probably fit your definition of casual, I support some of your sentiment and want the game to retain its challenge and I don't expect to be hitting elite content - but you also need to curb some of your elitism which is bleeding through your post with a lot of your bitterness towards "casuals".
I'm not bitter towards casuals perse (except towards certain entitled attitudes that I reference in my 3rd point) , I'm bitter towards people who consider the uneducated/uninformed feedback that these types of players give as gospel based on slight majority over good design. Whether I like it or not, MMOs NEED casuals to thrive, but based on what I have read from others, I see myself in stark contrast in thinking that systems and mechanics meant to preserve them should not exist, because they almost always come at a price to gameplay.
For example, I have seen people request that dungeons should have the option to be instanced, which totally alienates PVP content in dungeons, because why would you go to a dungeon that has competition when you could just turn it off and focus on clearing?
I do agree like I said in my venting post that low skill floor classes have their place in any game, but I think any percentage of effort I apply should be visible in gameplay in some way if I were to play a "less easy" class.
More off topic: I'm not sure if the elitist comment was a jab, but I do embrace it. Elitism is a checks and balances system to me, lacking it I think society falls into a mediocre state where everything is fake and fine, too much and it becomes unbearably bureaucratic. I probably was a bit on the extreme side I'll admit, unfortunately it's where I innately lean.
Re; my comment on Elitism, I wouldn't say it was a jab as much as it was just my interpretation. I think that I would probably share alot of the "morales" of an elitist but the vocal side in terms of how it's delivered is probably where I draw the line! I think it's okay for people to have opinions and preferences, but a lot of your issues rather than targeting the design - not to say you didn't target design, but your motivation on this topic *was* with a good amount of fixation on casuals.
It's only my interpretation and it might mean nothing but just to clear up my choice of words!
I agree with most of your points except 3. Catch up mechanics are terrible.
The vast majority of players have a full time job. There has to be solo friendly content for those players. By the time they get home from work, get their real world responsibilities taken care of, and log on they won't always have the time to find a group to run challenging content. If the game ignored these players it would die a fast death.
Personally I fall kind of in the middle. I have a full time job, sometimes working up to 12 hours a day but I'm single with no kids so I have no real responsibilities. If I just work a standard 8 hour shift I can usually make time to play 4+ hours a night if I'm in the mood to play and then as long as I want on weekends. On those 12 hour work days though it'll be nice to be able to just log on and solo quest/gather/farm mobs for a hour or so before going to bed.
In a game with PVP if they don't have sometype of catchup mechanics new players wont stick around. Why bother even trying to play if you start 2 years after launch if there's no chance of catching up? If Steven sticks to the plan of gear not being soulbound the game already will have catchup mechanics built in right there though. when flashy new item level gear comes out the slightly lower item level gear will become obsolete and become affordable for newer and more casual players. the point of catchup mechanics isn't to get newer players on the same level but to put them in a position of possibly being competitive in a few months with effort instead of a few years.
Casual in time people are as dedicated to the game as you are they just don't have the privilege or value things like family and non-mmo friends. These people's opinion and place in the world should definitely be thoroughly considered and made enjoyable just as much as 'people with a lot of time's place in the world' should be. You see those threads come up relative to this type of casual because a PvP game with gear progression will ultimately make life for such people (as well as people new to a server) difficult without good design to keep things enjoyable for them.
Casual in play people are the ones you are actually 'upset' about in your post, but you seem to be bunching the two types of players together. Casual in time players do not usually want the game to be made easy for them. They just want the game to still be fun even if they have 'fallen behind due to time requirements'. A game with open world PvP presents a unique challenge to that. So obviously it will be a continued topic of discussion.
They are not 'the general masses' or casual in play style players which is what you seem to really be railing on here. Yes we get it you want the game to stay hard and fun for people at the top and basically NO casual in time player will ask for the game to be easier for you so that their game can stay fun. If you want to rail on both types of casual equally, I guess whatever people's response to you will say a lot about the state of the current community.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Catch up mechanics create a mass of people who don't know how to play. They're only around because games like WoW release an expansion and negate the content previously therefore the actual game is the new expansion so they catch people up. In ashes each servers new content comes from node fluctuation. You need people hitting the lower level content to build up lower level nodes. I think it's a ridiculous take to think that everyone is just not going to play because they have to grind. Which btw intrepid has said this game is being built to the grindier side of the scale.
Just a monthly sub! No box cost.
You invest time to learn and in exchange you get a great game and a deeper experience. Subconsciously, you respect something that takes the time to teach you, and despise easy things thrown at you just so you stay.
That's the reason why catering to casuals kills the interest.
"I paid my monthly 15$ so I should only have fun and win"
No.
There are certainly bound to be some activities that will be suitable/enjoyable to casuals - but the rest of the game shouldn't be dumbed-down nor lesser-engineered, specifically to suit them.
Am very much hoping to "no-life" Ashes when it comes out. I don't wanna find out only a couple hours into different activities that those couple of hours are purposefully the limit, out of fear that casuals will be put off by deeper, more-meaningful content.
The game should be made "for players" and let the community decide what they are going to do. We don't need to make special tasks or activities specifically for certain groups. You just make a bunch of content and let the players decide where to spend their time/resources.
If you choose to blow through all the content by doing 16 lines of cocaine and staying up for 2 weeks playing the game, that's your business, and I also don't think we should cater the game to you either.
Just make the game for players with a wide variety of content for a variety of players, And let them sort themselves out.
One bra size does not fit all.
Open world content without any challenge + catchup features + almost every content soloable, first step for bots to have a safe life in your mmorpg, and reproduce like rabbits
I am willing to say that.
If spending more time or having more skill (either works) provides some reward, then people who invest that time or skill have more of that reward than those who do not.
The question is only this: Is the reward meaningful? If it's not, it's not really a reward is it? If it is, then people who earned it (through whatever method) have something meaningful that others do not, and this will always make some of those others unhappy.
The only questions that truly matter therefore are:
1. Can you provide a reward that is only meaningful to the type of person who is both able and willing to invest in it, and not meaningful to others?
2. Do you want to reward people at all?
From there, it's just a question of "how much?", and that will always be subjective.
The simple problem is that "able to invest" is always going to be different between time-casual and time-hardcore, and between skill-casual and skill-hardcore players. You will always have "interested, willing, but unable to invest", regardless of what that investment is. And that player will always be unhappy.
What investments do you want to reward, and with what?
No matter what you choose, there will always be people who are unable to invest as much as others. If you want your game to contain rewards at all, this is something you have to accept.
I think the latter of having to gamble on loot/progress may be wrong if you really want to level out the playing field. If you allow people to choose the loot they want maybe one piece per run it would give casuals time to catch-up till the next content release comes out. However you would need a steady stream of new gear to be looted again. And that costs money+constant development. This might also push people towards pvp as alot of extreme players with insane play-time would be bored and choose to pvp and contribute in other areas such as economy. Not saying you couldnt do that it just seems alot of people are stuck on the dopamine, liking not knowing when and how your play time will be spent with a guaranteed gain. However beyond loot itself from dungeons or bosses systems like gathering it's almost impossible to make it fair in comparison again to the casual vs no-lifer. No matter what you do, as you said in a way, you can never please everyone.
You could tie this to social structures in the game so that players get better augments from their preferred social structures by investing their overtime into their future enemies. Make each gear piece have some arbitrary point value and set different point prices for different upgrades. Add some diminishing returns to repeatable donations, so that a player couldn't get 1k points for donating 1k t1 boots.
And on the side of the low lvl/casual players, have a tower-like solo instance where clearing floors would give them points that they need to combine with rewards for some open world quests, in order to buy the donated gear. This would give those time-casual people some constant content and a way to catch up faster. Add some reward scaling for clearing floors super fast and you'll have yourself a reward for all the hardcore-challenge casual-time players.
This system doesn't add gear into the overall market out of nowhere. It rewards everyone for doing things that they would've been doing either way and/or just like doing. It creates a soft equalization of gear on the whole server w/o creating direct systems that do so.
If you put some quantity limiters on the donation amounts per node (considering node's lvl) and add a caravan-like pvp event for transferring all the excess gear to another node - you have yourself an additional fun thing for the high lvl pvpers to do.
The instance tower thing could even go up to max lvl and give out some title/cosmetic rewards, akin to FF14's "The Necromancer" title.
I don't think this game will be completely for me. I will give it a try. But i don't think certain things should be changed, even though i don't like that. And i don't think Steven will chanve them. Steven has a vision for the game, and he should make that vision. If it works. One think is how things work in theory, another is in practice. If the game isn't for me, i'll just move along
I think they should go with degradation. Or maybe at least decrease in power and you'll have to power them back up with stuff that you can buy with points.
I saw donations be mainly tied to nodes. I even thought about them being tied to purely religion and divine nodes, but I feel like that would be an unneeded overcomplication of the system. You'd donate the gear through your preferred social structure, but the gear itself would go towards the node bank (which would also play into node sieges). The bank would have a limit on donations, at which point it get some overflow and you'll need to transfer that overflow in smth like a caravan. This would increase gear trade between nodes, increase pvp in the area and high lvl pvpers would be interested in attacking these caravans to get themselves some free upgrade points.
As for alts, you'd still have direct trading so it's not like you couldn't just give your alt the gear itself. The main point of this system (at least as I see it) is to help casuals catch up to the higher lvl people w/o implementing super direct catchup mechanics and w/o adding gear outside of the owpvp systems. All the gear within the donation system would still be acquired through the usual "farm - craft- sell/trade/donate" means. There'd still be pvp for the resources required for that gear. Caravans would still run between nodes, in order to provide the resources required for crafting.
And through the "catalyst" part of the Instance Tower thing, you could have any kind of content that you consider super important for a newbie/lowbie to experience. It could be small low lvl party bosses, pure traveling, social structure interactions, questing, node tasks, etc etc. The Tower itself would just be a way for high skill low time players to powerboost themselves faster (because imo they deserve to do so), while also giving some quick content for any low skill low time casual player who might not be in the mood to just cut grass or trees for their artisanal profession.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techspot.com/amp/news/80094-hardcore-casual-no-longer-adequate-defining-gamers-research.html
Just do it. Feels good to help other people with donations. That's all the reward that's needed.
Pay it forward.