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
You can say new mmos are shit and not mean tab target gameplay. They are going for hybrid so that should give you an idea they are clearing going for not the same old combat as older mmorpgs. Your bias is making you relate things too strongly in the wrong way without clearly seeing the direction they are aiming for.
This game isn't trying to reserve what new games do gameplay wise with combat. There has been no showing of that....hybrid is against the point you are trying to make as hybrid is new. You are so stuck on tab target only in your mind set or tab target is the best way you are tryign to pull any information that makes it seem like that is what they are saying. They are trying to make a great game that doesn't follow the mistakes of games in their perspective, while acknowledging some good traits in modern games. They are trying to create a modern mmorpg no create a carbon copy of a old mmo, but leaning on the good traits about them. Stats being an example which everyone loves and having that form of customization, classes and races.
Again they are not trying to reserve the whole direction of mmorpgs they are trying to make a good one but not follow steps other developers have done that they felt were wrong. They have action combat in the from of hybrid, their character creator is akin to bdo as that created the baseline for character customization.
They literally had "maga" hats saying "make mmos great again". If that is not just yelling "our TA is older mmo players" to you, I'd call you crazy. And, obviously, as Noaani said, those things don't mean that newer players won't be interested in the game or that Intrepid isn't just trying to make a good game. But the main TA is people who played those old games, loved their design and then saw the genre go to utter shite. Everyone else who likes the game are just people interested in new mmos or in some particular features that Ashes will have. But when you literally tell people "we're gonna do things that new mmos don't, but older ones did" - you're targeting mmo boomers.
If anything, I'd say that your combat bias is the thing that's clouding your judgment here.
No p2w. U forgot the main one.
Well aware of the points above, and what proof is there that people below 40 are not interested in all those traits? Because if those are the points to paly ashes and you are saying its designed for people 40+ then there has to be a reason why someone would not be interested in playing the game if they are below 40 for those reasons. Else the target audience as far as age does not hold up to that argument.
So tis going to fast pace combat isn't good because something things 40+ are the majority of players. To 40+ is the target audience because of the system chosen in the game. Yet these same systems people played these games when they were not 40.
This whole discussion is flaws you really want to fight on this hill for tab vrs action combat over age with mmorpgs now without any actual data being based on this?
Keep in mind, to Intrepid, an AoE that you place is an action ability. With this in mind, some classes in EQ2 were 25%+ action combat. Who said they wouldn't be?
Seriously, show me where literally ANYONE said anything at all to make you think this.
A target audience - once again - is not the only audience expected to consume a product. It is simply the main audience for whom that product is, well, targeted at. If others that are not in that audience find the product appealing, great.
This seems to just be another example of you not reading properly, and thinking your initial interpretation (that the game is somehow only for people that played early MMO's) is the only applicable one.
You really need to get used to the notion that you are wrong, as you seem to be wrong very often.
This research from 2004 supposes an average age of ~26 for mmo players. Even if we assume that several million young teens got hooked onto WoW, they'll be at least 30 by the time Ashes comes out. And the chances are, a ton of them will be closer to or over 40. And there's even higher chances that the ones the most interested in Ashes would be over 40, because they would've had to be later in their teens to love pre-mid WoW mmos.
And I don't think anyone's here saying that younger people can't be interested in Ashes. But the point is, they're not the Target Audience. And the fact that Intrepid went for hybrid (with full tab as backup) combat is only more proof that they're not targeting all the young people who prefer full action and want to show off their twitch skills.
Wouldn't it make more sense for them to work toward drawing in the younger audiences later though? That's a large part of the marketing of certain other genres, and MMOs are in the very positive position of being able to constantly have a point of reference due to their space in media.
New World didn't do well because for some reason Amazon didn't seem to understand this (or weren't really trying) and burned themselves early.
My point is that they are probably targeting 'the youth' but they have to target them differently, possibly 'later', possibly 'as a subsection of something else'. It's hard to build a community for an MMO by 'starting with a glut of combat content', I feel.
Starting the game by targeting the people who will definitely throw some money at it (older folk) and then appealing to younger players to save the game from falling off a cliff definitely seems like the best way to go.
I can share one anecdotal point though, and hope it doesn't offend too many people.
MOST players of MMOs, young and old, have relatively poorer twitch and quick-tactic skills. We hear from the vocal minorities that are capable of keeping up and therefore continue playing, but the majority of gamers are just not particularly good at games.
Therefore I can't imagine that this is really about age other than in the sense that Old MMOs were not trying to be flash-in-the-pan experiences to grab money, and the people who have experience with those games are older. In short, I don't think it has a direct connection to 'twitch skills'. Sure there are lots of vocal players of many ages who HAVE such skills and talk about enjoying these games, but there are a huge amount of them who are similarly aware that they just 'don't have what it takes to play these games at high levels'.
When targeting combat design, going for 'recent, familiar, and not particularly hard' is a strong option, with some people that will say 'I'm pretty good' until they meet someone who is 'quite good'. Casual players often lack the understanding required to even get through main stuff, and I think this has always been somewhat true, because 'casual' normally means 'does not consume any additional data outside the game that would lead to understanding the mechanics better'.
Games are easier now because they need to sell more to make up for all the additional money it takes to make them, and competitive games suffer because there is no 'retreat' point. There is no 'well I will just forget about that no-lifer weirdo and go play the part of the game that I'm good at/play it the way the Devs intended'. Groupfinder games and MOBAs have the 'blame your weakest teammate' option, at least.
'Fun' for all ages.
Target audience isn't 40+ people, it's not dictated by age and using weird math of peoples ages in 2004 to what they will be in the future doesn't make sense.
1. First off you are assuming more people won't play the genre and it will stay on a static decline
2. You are assuming those people of older ages still play mmorpgs or games in general
3. Making profit to such a select group of people that are on a decline would be doubt be not the best practice even more so on a very ambitious project that will clearly cost a large sum of money
4. Akin to point one you are assuming the age range moves and are not taking in account the reasonings for the age range and average player numbers. If you are you are free to show the information why that age range moves on a higher level percent and that lower age range of players are not playing mmorpgs compared to older ones.
https://financesonline.com/video-game-demographic-statistics/
We can have a long pointless argument on this thread for whatever reason about data and it will get no where but really more head cannon and people thinking more than they know.
Saying this mmo is built on some ideas from mmorpgs in the past, literally has nothing to do with age. People of all ages play games, and they play good games. The only reason I would even somewhat agree is if combat was akin to Pantheon very slow, not flashy at all, boring looking, etc. AoC doesn't give me that vibe. Starting giant arguments on AoC is designed for 40+ people is actually reaching and honestly isn't really positive discussion on the game, nor really relates to the original comment on age should be a limiting feature to combat in the game.
There is also Resurrection.
The TA for Ashes is both Tab Target players and Action Combat players.
And within those PC users, there's a high chance that only some part is even interested in mmos, let alone older ones.
But I see that it's utterly pointless trying to discuss this, so I'll just leave. We'll see how many young people will be at all interested in Ashes when it comes out.
Sure, Ashes looks better/faster, but it plays slower - from what we have seen.
Let's wait a few more months to see how the rest of it will look like, then we'll get back onto it. Right now there's no point arguing about anything really. It's just one person trying to argue and change people's minds and opinions on certain combat systems and how they feel to play...
Again, just how someone might prefer vanilla ice-cream, someone else might prefer chocolate ice-cream. One isn't better than another, if chocolate tastes better than vanilla to me, then I'll prefer having chocolate over vanilla, and vice-versa. Now I might prefer chocolate, but sometimes it might not taste great, and vanilla might taste much better, depending on the quality and how well it was made.
You are so diluted, I can't even. What was shown is literately a basic attack and you are trying to judge speed of combat which looks far faster than EQ2. New world combat is faster than EQ2 combat, there is less you need to worry about with EQ2 you are just tabbing your skills....
Wrong? That is pretty subjective even more so when points are mostly head cannon and you didn't play bdo enough to understand combat?
Its funny i could just say the same as other people if you don't like action combat the door is there. Instead I'm trying to bring up actual points with examples. And not saying things like the vast majority of people are 40+ so action combat is bad without any actually evidence to back it up....
I'm diluted? No, you've spent most of this thread basically making shit up.
You keep providing what you think are examples, but all they are is short clips of how a game looks, not how it plays.
It's almost like you would rather watch a cut scene than play a game, you are so focused on how things look.
You are very diluted we could go through the entire thread and see what was said. I bring examples to my points and try to show it with footage and explain my reasoning. You again and again refused to bring any examples to the conversations. You were asked multiple times ontop of it but instead wanted to debate with head cannon over actual gameplay and have a logical conversion over elements of games tab vrs action. Your only example was tanking and that fell apart.
Again action vrs tab playing is different in the way how it looks for tab is not important. Vrs how it looks in action actually effects combat (you already admitted to hit boxes) yet you will ignore any points that even prove you are wrong since you are too deep in bias.
Either I am really confused, or your intelligence is showing.
You bring "examples" of how things look, when I have made it very clear that I am talking about how a game plays.
You have not provided one example of how a game plays - and it is very unlikely you would be able to do so (which - by the way - is why I have not asked you for any examples).
The reason I have not given any examples is the same - there are likely no videos at all out there of a tab target game that actually shows how the game plays - they only show how it looks. Since I am not talking about how the game looks, such examples are pointless in this discussion.
Correct you are very confused because you have spent pretty much the entire with head cannon or it simply being what you think and not about logical facts related to gameplay. Its hard to have a logical or intelligent discussion when I'm working based on what you are thinking in your head with complete bias.
Says action combat can't do do large raids with the same level of mechanics
step 1. Talk crap
Step 2 doesn't bring any examples of their reasoning with gameplay to match
Step 3 ignore when NWO is brought up
Step 4 ignore every time the person talks about mechanics as examples and for them to be shown in tab target
Step 5 - repeat step one
Talk about mechanics action combat can't do please and use actual game examples so we can have a proper discussion and not head cannon or what you think. I understand you lack the experience of action combat, the skill, etc.
Has not really felt helpful I feel like there could have been good discussions and actual issues raised and points challenges like 15 pages ago. But its mostly head cannon debates since they won't give examples of tab target raid elements that they think can't be done in action combat.
I didn't bother addressing NWO because the game has literally one raid encounter, and the developers saw how bad raiding was and basically abandoned it. I mean, if you want to talk about that game, sure - it is a perfect example of why even a mild action combat game isn't overly well suited to large scale, top end raid content.
Much like FFXIV, many players refer to content with fewer than 10 people as "raid" content in NWO - and if you note, I have been saying this whole thread that I am talking about large scale raid content of 40 players - since that is the stated raid size for Ashes.
The thing is, I have been involved in threads in this topic in regards to this game since 2018. You haven't bought any new argument or point to the discussion at all - yet you fail to listen to reason or logic. I've had much smarter people, that are much more well spoken, attempt to convince me that action can indeed work in large scale raids, and all of them have left either agreeing with me that it doesn't work, or at the very least with an understanding that there is no current reason to assume it would work.
You don't. You aren't listening to logic, all you want to talk about is how action combat looks better than tab - and you are twisting and contorting arguments in all sorts of directions in order to not admit that you are wrong.
Your points are diluted with bias over the course of this giant discussion forgetting about he core concept we were talking about.. But it's true I could be using both words in this case.
Step 1-4 as usual. We can both sit here and question each others intelligence, seems all you can really do to be honest. You arguing head cannon with people and trying to convince them that way doesn't really matter to me. Bring actual mechanics and talk about them so we can have a proper discussion and ill have something to lsiten to, not head cannon on you thinking people can't do it.
So, a core aspect of action combat is movement. I assume you agree with this because why wouldn't you?
When you are talking large scale raid content with 40 people on one target, you can't move the target - which means the tank can't move.
Immediately, this does not bode well for action combat - the tank can't dodge.
Even without that, explain to me how - in a game with player collision - you can have 15+ melee DPS all jumping around a single target without making that target comically large.
So, we haven't even got in to a discussion on actual mechanics, and already action combat is having to make compromises - compromises that tab target does not need to make.
Then you get in to the fact that action combat does indeed require more mental action (even if not actual key presses) from the player, and you have yourself a situation where mobs need to be limited in their design to account for players needing to allocate more of their focus to that combat system.
By the time you account for all the compromises you have to make with action combat in relation to top end raid encounters, you are left with such a bad combat system that it just isn't worth making the sacrifices.
There is a reason there are many action games out there that have attempted raid content (NWO, BDO, Tera, Wildstar et al), and yet none of them has been able to do it successfully.
Your entire argument here is basically you saying that you think that you know something that all of the educated, experienced people that made the above games don't know. Essentially, you are arguing from a position of arrogance.
My argument is - as much as anything - an observation of games and their content. It is based on seeing developers attempt to get action combat working on large scale raids and finding that it is not as successful as they want - and so abandoning the idea.
Now, I'm still a little confused. You keep saying you have provided all these examples. I've seen a few examples of what action combat looks like in small scale combat, but have you provided a link to much in the way of action combat being used in a large scale (40+ people) raid against a single target?
I mean, even if I were to ignore the fact that your "examples" are all just in regards to how things look, I fail to see how anything other than examples from 40+ person combat are even relevant in a discussion that is about action combat in situations where 40+ people are taking on one encounter.
It’s 15 pages of something.
Lets get into mechanics and not try to skip it please.
If we are comparing BDO you had plenty of skills to get through people where body blocking was not a issue. Nor do raids need to be 40 people face tanking a single target, plenty of interesting ways to do it if you don't have as large a target.
I've already mentioned tank doesn't need to dodge all the time it depends on how the encounter is designed.
Your experience having difficulty does not equal to other people, we need examples before we can have a serious discussion on focus or its just head cannon.
Again lets get to the mechanics examples you have instead of trying dilute the conversation in another direction please. You are the one saying action combat can't do it, and that people will have to use tab target in AoC over action int he hybrid system. So if you are saying it can't be done and is impossible, bring up some gameplay mechanics that prove your points that are in relation to EQ 2 encounters you have experienced.