Would you consider a 1 year wipe cycle?

I think this would be good for the game's longevity as they seem committed to allowing players to take stuff from each other. It allows for a power reset that prevents long established groups from dominating and continuing to grow forever.

Every time a group defeats another group the winner gets bigger. Eventually there will only be a few on one large group/s that control huge chunks of the map and wipe out every seed that is a fresh group due to the massive disparity in power. There isn't always a bigger fish and the longer and longer it goes on the fewer and fewer tadpoles pop up. The massive whale just crushes them as soon as they pop up and without even really knowing they are there at all.

This is very common in my experience in rust where clan members go around at day 5-7 foundation wiping wood starter 2x1s with c4 due to just having a ridiculous amount of resources at their disposal. It's not a planned raid or anything c4 just becomes part of the load out and everything that isn't part of the clan evaporates. Or much rarer but still happens, walling off entire monuments and setting auto turrets all over the beach spawn locations. Effectively making the server unplayable. I can see this happening very easily with just a small group from t6s obliterating t3s as they start to gain traction. Assuming they don't install puppet governments.

It allows for groups that have been fractured to take a break, reset, and come back. Rust, Tarkov, and most minecraft pvp servers operate in a similar way with different time tables based on how long progression takes. It takes about 3 hours to get most of everything in Rust but wipes every week. It takes a few weeks/months to get most of everything in Tarkov and wipes every 6 months or so. Minecraft servers usually wipe based on map size and population and the state of 0,0.

However it's an mmo and continuity is very important. If you already have advancement in systems that don't have power implications like dancing, emotes, music, skins for mounts, pets, gear, etc. Those would be continuous through each wipe so you have something to work towards that you know you will have forever. It also removes the mentality of "I just died and lost all my stuff so i'm just going to quit forever" As you know the random stuff you get you won't have forever anyway, its less painful and less of a quit moment.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Scarbeus

No. The idea that everything I have worked for on my character would just be gone at some point takes away too much enthusiasm to play the game from me.

arsnn

I think the first weeks into a fresh mmo server is the most exciting time.
I would have loved if aoc would have gone for some kind of cyclical system, especially bc of how the nodes shape the world in the early stages.

But reseting or fresh servers are usually not healthy for the game and it’s population.
Maybe they could have gone for a similar route like crowfall did it with their eternal realms, essentially carrying over some progress to a parellel/eternal world and also taking some items with you for the next season.

I dont think their current ideas would mesh well with any kind of reset mechanism though.

Strevi

I would not mind a yearly wipe.
But the way the game is now, isn't it supposed to be a similar process? Nodes rise and fall, you have to move to a different node...

Caww

This is a drastic move for a problem that does not yet exist, let the AoC team do their balance thing first.

Gandalfthegrape

Scarbeus wrote: »

No. The idea that everything I have worked for on my character would just be gone at some point takes away too much enthusiasm to play the game from me.

Oh no I mention in the post the major things you achieve like skins, dances or whatever like non power systems would all remain. Having a wipe is essentially the same thing as having a new raid come out, everything you worked towards would be made irrelevant and you would only be able to play the new content for power gains. I'm suggesting we replay the early stages instead of replaying the same raid over and over again at endgame.

Gandalfthegrape

Caww wrote: »

This is a drastic move for a problem that does not yet exist, let the AoC team do their balance thing first.

It exists in a lot of games that have similar systems tho. There a solution for it. Would make sense to implement that solution or come up with an alternative before it becomes an issue that needs to be triaged when the game is live.

Gandalfthegrape

Strevi wrote: »

I would not mind a yearly wipe.
But the way the game is now, isn't it supposed to be a similar process? Nodes rise and fall, you have to move to a different node...

Yes and no. When a node falls there will be a certain percentage of people that will quit the game. I don't know if that's .01% or 1% or 10%. Most of the players will just start again but eventually a significant chunk of the players that aren't part of that t6 system will leave. In those other games its completely fine that they leave as in the time span that the game gets stale, the wipe will happen and the players will come back because they can then recompete with those same players on the same footing. Rather than a massively skewed disadvantage. I think Steven said it would take a couple of months to hit level cap so I just said 1 year as a similar ratio as to other games I play that have similar systems but it could be shorter or longer.

Gandalfthegrape

arsnn wrote: »

I think the first weeks into a fresh mmo server is the most exciting time.
I would have loved if aoc would have gone for some kind of cyclical system, especially bc of how the nodes shape the world in the early stages.

But reseting or fresh servers are usually not healthy for the game and it’s population.
Maybe they could have gone for a similar route like crowfall did it with their eternal realms, essentially carrying over some progress to a parellel/eternal world and also taking some items with you for the next season.

I dont think their current ideas would mesh well with any kind of reset mechanism though.

I don't think you should lose everything. I think you should keep things like cosmetics and non power systems, maybe ever some profession progress similar to rust's blueprint system. I'm basing this on the stats for rust and my personal experience playing a lot of this style of game. The game is the most healthy and played at the beginning of the wipe and drops off all the way down till the day of the reset, then shoots back up again when people come back to play it. Quite often doubling the population size from the beginning to end of the wipe. It's been growing steadily for nearly 10 years now so I think the system has proven to be extremely well received in general and incredibly healthy. If a system like this isn't implemented it going to fall into the same problem wow has where your progress is essentially wiped every patch anyway. You're going to end up with 100 raids in 15 years in that 5 people run for mount content because there aren't any relevant rewards for them, and the only thing you can really play is the current patch. This also nerfs the value of the rewards for that raid because you are over geared and can 1 shot the bosses. So it's essentially the same system but with less content. I think this a better option for an mmo than say morhau, csgo, holdfast, etc. Where classes and weapons are essentially all balanced around each other so there is no progression system really.

https://steamcharts.com/app/252490#3m

Mag7spy

No, this isn't a survival game.

Ryozo

Nerror

Big no. It works for Tarkov and The Cycle and those shooter, looter, extract games because the game is built around it. A traditional MMORPG is where you progress your characters over the years, both main and alts for many people. They would have to change the gameplay systems in major ways, and not for the better IMO.

Nova_terra

I don't think this would work. It would be a turn off for what I would expect to be a large portion of the player base, and I don't specifically think this game is going to work out where 1 guild/group is holding down an entire server. I just don't think that the ecosystem IS is gunning for would be sustainable if that was the case. And similar to what others have said, I just don't think wipes would work with the infrastructure of this game.

Strevi

Gandalfthegrape wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

I would not mind a yearly wipe.
But the way the game is now, isn't it supposed to be a similar process? Nodes rise and fall, you have to move to a different node...

Yes and no. When a node falls there will be a certain percentage of people that will quit the game. I don't know if that's .01% or 1% or 10%. Most of the players will just start again but eventually a significant chunk of the players that aren't part of that t6 system will leave. In those other games its completely fine that they leave as in the time span that the game gets stale, the wipe will happen and the players will come back because they can then recompete with those same players on the same footing. Rather than a massively skewed disadvantage. I think Steven said it would take a couple of months to hit level cap so I just said 1 year as a similar ratio as to other games I play that have similar systems but it could be shorter or longer.

Good point. I thought about this before but not long enough.
I think is a double effect. People would quit not only because they lose materials but also because when the node falls, the community will spread.
But unlike in other MMOs, the social bonds can also prevent them to leave. That is what AoC tries to achieve, to create such bonds, beyond what guilds offer and to include into them the non-guild players too.

It can be that players will migrate together to new nodes but renting apartments will be expensive so they'll go to level 3-4 nodes and seek revenge.
It might be some chaos after a few sieges.

I looked some time ago on the old node simulation and the first sieges happened quite some time after the start. Could be that a server reset each year would prevent node wars. For a 1 year reset cycle, leveling must be increased. Then again, players who like fast cycles, the game has the castles: they level them up in one month and prepare for siege.

Hard to say how is better.
For me is important to have sieges and loss associated with them in order to make the community in a node cooperate. If they cannot, then they fall. If that is indeed the reason, then maybe the game failed to create those social bonds.

Azherae

I would be okay with 'standing up a new server once per year'.

Maybe repurpose some of those at-launch servers that will DEFINITELY not be as necessary two months in.

This isn't at all related to 'resetting progress for anyone on their current server'.

I don't think that the sort of 'power' that Ashes is likely to reward, would be disrupted or affected much by a server reset. It would 'annoy' a properly established group for a bit, but it would also probably push them to play more, or even 'ally with enemies to get back to their previous positions so they could resume their rivalries'.

The Politics Is Too Strong.

Nova_terra

Azherae wrote: »

I would be okay with 'standing up a new server once per year'.

Maybe repurpose some of those at-launch servers that will DEFINITELY not be as necessary two months in.

This isn't at all related to 'resetting progress for anyone on their current server'.

I don't think that the sort of 'power' that Ashes is likely to reward, would be disrupted or affected much by a server reset. It would 'annoy' a properly established group for a bit, but it would also probably push them to play more, or even 'ally with enemies to get back to their previous positions so they could resume their rivalries'.

The Politics Is Too Strong.

It's also a case that the ones "in power" got there through 17+ hours a day, or having the bonds you mentioned so what will happen is they will just "do it again". Wipes doesn't fix that but the idea of "Fresh Start" servers every so often would be an interesting idea.

tautau

Hard NO.

I love character progression and making my toons into something. Wipes like this would ruin things for me.

Also, the winners should not be punished for winning.

But you, OP, are totally free to delete and recreate your character every year.

Mastru

No.

Wipes are not necessary in a game where social drama will create and destroy alliances and change power structures.

Ludullu

I could maaaybe see some type of yearly cataclysm just obliterating the lands, destroying all the nodes and leaving the players homeless but with all their gear and blueprints intact.

The new gear (cataclysms would have to come with expansions and new stuff) and new mobs would be stronger than the previous stuff, but the last t5 would be the new t2, so that the newest players would still be a bit behind, while the OGs would just need to keep farming stuff to progress.

Though even this kind of setup would only work if the power scaling of gear is quite tight, so that someone in t2 gear could beat someone in t4, especially if their class had the upper hand through the RPS balancing.

But I'm definitely against taking away all the power from the players every year. Veteran players should stay that way and be known for what they've done in the past.

Gandalfthegrape

NiKr wrote: »

I could maaaybe see some type of yearly cataclysm just obliterating the lands, destroying all the nodes and leaving the players homeless but with all their gear and blueprints intact.

The new gear (cataclysms would have to come with expansions and new stuff) and new mobs would be stronger than the previous stuff, but the last t5 would be the new t2, so that the newest players would still be a bit behind, while the OGs would just need to keep farming stuff to progress.

Though even this kind of setup would only work if the power scaling of gear is quite tight, so that someone in t2 gear could beat someone in t4, especially if their class had the upper hand through the RPS balancing.

But I'm definitely against taking away all the power from the players every year. Veteran players should stay that way and be known for what they've done in the past.

Strevi wrote: »

Gandalfthegrape wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

I would not mind a yearly wipe.
But the way the game is now, isn't it supposed to be a similar process? Nodes rise and fall, you have to move to a different node...

Yes and no. When a node falls there will be a certain percentage of people that will quit the game. I don't know if that's .01% or 1% or 10%. Most of the players will just start again but eventually a significant chunk of the players that aren't part of that t6 system will leave. In those other games its completely fine that they leave as in the time span that the game gets stale, the wipe will happen and the players will come back because they can then recompete with those same players on the same footing. Rather than a massively skewed disadvantage. I think Steven said it would take a couple of months to hit level cap so I just said 1 year as a similar ratio as to other games I play that have similar systems but it could be shorter or longer.

Good point. I thought about this before but not long enough.
I think is a double effect. People would quit not only because they lose materials but also because when the node falls, the community will spread.
But unlike in other MMOs, the social bonds can also prevent them to leave. That is what AoC tries to achieve, to create such bonds, beyond what guilds offer and to include into them the non-guild players too.

It can be that players will migrate together to new nodes but renting apartments will be expensive so they'll go to level 3-4 nodes and seek revenge.
It might be some chaos after a few sieges.

I looked some time ago on the old node simulation and the first sieges happened quite some time after the start. Could be that a server reset each year would prevent node wars. For a 1 year reset cycle, leveling must be increased. Then again, players who like fast cycles, the game has the castles: they level them up in one month and prepare for siege.

Hard to say how is better.
For me is important to have sieges and loss associated with them in order to make the community in a node cooperate. If they cannot, then they fall. If that is indeed the reason, then maybe the game failed to create those social bonds.

I really hope they make it so sieges happen frequently its honestly the thing I'm looking forwards too the most. I love large scale combat in every game i'v played. It's so epic. I wish I could get into eve lol. My only concern about the limited information we have right now is that too many people will get mad and give up. It can be really punishing to see the work you spend hours and hours trying to achieve get steamrolled especially when you feel like you're at a disadvantage. I can't imagine what it will be like losing hundreds of hours. I hope they come up with ways to bring people back, or someway for people to bounce back if they don't do wipes. Maybe have a coup mechanic to break off of t6/5 nodes if they don't fulfill protection obligations? I'm not too sure.

In my opinion having a new tier set (raiding not nodes) is kind of the the same thing as a wipe, all the gear you worked towards becomes obsolete and you need to re farm everything. And personally the most fun I ever had in wow, short of wargames, was leveling in classic wow. Id take that every time over end game raid progression. I guess it kind of depends on the game tho. Some games getting an end game set takes longer than the leveling and vice versa. I hope they lean into the node system more than the raiding system and don't have a new gear set that's more powerful than the old raiding sets. I think it's fine to have throw away gear while leveling but if you just keep adding layers of power you end up with a lot of long term problems, and I think those problems might be enhanced by the necessity for pvp for node control. Maybe have gear for different purposes if they go down that path. Adding different kinds of resistances for raiding in a similar way to how Pokemon works, like one raid gives you fire damage and another gives you nature damage and you need gear from one raid to do well in another raid, so it's more of a countering meta for pve rather than a scaling meta that disproportionately affects pvp.

Ya that's a good point, it would probably have to be faster progression. I hope it's not just t5 and t6 nodes that actively combat each other. Would be nice if t1s could fight other t1s, t2s fight other t2s.

Dygz

Pretty sure I would hate a wipe cycle.

Child Item