My list of problems I see in the game

Strevi

Corruption
- if balanced to protect too much will reduce the sense of danger
- if not balanced to protect, will not create a sense of community within the node as close players will fight each-other for resources
- when nodes fall, the communities will break apart and players will have a reason to leave the game
- even guild members will have difficulties staying close together if rent in nodes increases exponentially as players join
- bounty hunters will be useless
- mayoral and quest driven caravans might be a chore. Possibly the castle siege caravans too
- personal caravans might not happen
- monthly castle siege events might not happen often enough
- animal husbandry makes no sense if mounts do not die permanently
- crafting new gear may also be replaced by repairing existing gear
- maps designed for 10K players might end up with 2k players
- mayors may cause more harm than good for their nodes
- nobody will want to live in small nodes
- animosity when nodes become vassal nodes
- new players have no way to enjoy PvP as soon as they start paying the monthly subscription
- I hate the mentorship concept which feels as an artificial mechanic to patch a game design error

ClintHardwood

That sure is a lot of problems you see in the game. I'll be sure to verify them when I get access myself.

Ludullu

A good chunk of those is definitely solvable through a few design choices that don't veer too much from the core principles of the game. A few will just be hard lines cutting off some players who won't be ready for the game's design.

Valid list but we have so little info on most of those things (and have done 0 testing on all of them) to really say how they will all end up on release.

Atama

@Strevi I can't really argue with anything on your list, but I would just make the caveat that I see those all as potential problems if not handled properly, not necessarily something that will be expected to cause problems.

Taleof2Cities

Atama wrote: »

@Strevi I can't really argue with anything on your list, but I would just make the caveat that I see those all as potential problems if not handled properly, not necessarily something that will be expected to cause problems.

Agreed, getting in to Alpha 2 should answer a lot of these potential problems (for good or bad).

But, only when Intrepid is ready for Alpha 2 ... not any sooner.

Noaani

There are some things in that list I dont consider problems, but rather essential design requirements of the game.

Yes, mayors could be shit, but that is the point. It is kind of like saying "PvP is great, but sometimes players will lose and that would suck".

Having (and being) a good mayor should be and feel great. This will only be the case if it is possible to have a really, really bad mayor.

The same can be said of animosity if your node becomes a vassal node. You are probably going to be a bit pissed off - but on the other hand if you are in a race with a neighboring node and you win, it will feel that much better knowing that you could have lost, and that would have actual consequences.

Basically, for these two points, it is a case of the good feels some players feel outweighs the bad feelings other players feel.

Players not being able to PvP right out of the gate after getting a subscription is also not an issue.

Ashes is not a lobby game, it is an MMORPG. Players should expect to need to get their character ready for literally any task. If a player does not expect to need to do that coming in to the game, then they are in the wrong game genre.

This isnt an issue, it is kind of the point of the genre.

I agree with you that corruption will he an issue if it is not balanced well. Same with caravans. However, I dont see caravans really becoming a chore.

I absolutely can see some players specifically wanting to live in smaller nodes. This is more generally people that are harvesting as their primary activity in the game than anyone else, but there will still be hundreds of players like this on each server. I can also see some processors and maybe even some crafters living out in the middle of nowhere, away from sieges and other disruptions.

I can also see people that just dont want to be bothered living in smaller nodes.

Animal husbandry could make sense without mounts at all, let alone without mounts that die permanently.

I can see a possibility where bounty hunters are pointless, but it isnt a certainty.

I agree that the game needs a way to take gear out of the economy.

Blip

NiKr wrote: »

Valid list but we have so little info on most of those things (and have done 0 testing on all of them) to really say how they will all end up on release.

That is the problem now is it not, no testing at all...

Strevi

Noaani wrote: »

Players not being able to PvP right out of the gate after getting a subscription is also not an issue.

Ashes is not a lobby game, it is an MMORPG. Players should expect to need to get their character ready for literally any task. If a player does not expect to need to do that coming in to the game, then they are in the wrong game genre.

I want an open world game where players do not waste their time in arenas. I don't care about the lobby associated with the arenas but the arenas themselves.
Yet the game will have arenas
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Arenas

I see no problem if players of close level duel naked near taverns and by doing so, they train some skills.

Kilion

Sounds to me like a significant portion of the things you are mentioning are things that could happen... but only if Intrepid doesn't take their Alpha and Beta phases seriously.

And yes, making a social game means there is a risk of people with antisocial tendencies trying to spoil the fun for the broader community of that server. I personally suspect that this will however be a challenge for the GMs to address. There is no way to vet your players beforehand. I personally think that it would make a lot of sense to move players (and their characters) who have shown antisocial tendencies (by being reported repeatedly and proven to not conduct themselves anywhere close to acceptable) on a single server and block them from creating characters on other servers. You know, the Australia method.

Let's go through the list

• Corruption balance - Alpha & Beta testing, community code of conduct and patches will address this
• When Nodes fall communities break apart - Yes, but it will only be a reason to leave the game if the player from these Nodes didn't made any connections beyond their city. Which would be an unnecessary cut down of potential this game has in itself.
• Rents could be too high for guild members - this might the intention: Come in early, buy property in a up an coming city instead of renting in downtown Manhattan when its done. It also could mean that guilds would work together to afford rent for their players OR.... not everyone is supposed to have housing in the first place °-°
• Bounty hunter will be useless - Wild speculation, why would they? We know almost nothing about them, but the things we do know suggests some pretty useful features to hunt corrupted players. And becoming corrupt in various cases can be a good deal, if you do it as a "dark guild" member, where you charge big amounts of money for taking on the disadvantages and risks of dying. It connects back to the corruption system being balanced. And the general sentiment of players on that server. More organized, "peaceful", PvE oriented servers will have fewer bounty hunters, sure.
• caravans could be perceived as chores - Yeah, but if that's the case the disinterest in them will slow down the economy, that will force prices higher and increase the reward put forth by players to get people to do it. That's how economy works: Through incentives or disincentives to do something.
• Personal caravans might not happen - Not sure why, it enables a player to immediately move larger amounts of goods around and might be the only option for them in the first place; there are viable reasons to use this option
• Castle sieges might not happen often enough - "enough" according to whom? If players don't want to siege a castle, why would they be required to?
• Husbandry is useless without mount perma death - Could be but according to the wiki, a pet that dies too often will receive a debuff that needs to be cured (probably by animal husbandry) before it resurrects again; call it a "disable" and "repair" mechanic if you will (source; see "Mounted combat")
• repairing might be better than creating new gear - Not sure what that's supposed to mean. A maxed out player might only need repairs at some point, sure. But new characters will need new gear and since making the best high level gear requires components from lower level gear, the lower level gear gradually vanishes, possibly even for its maintenance.
• 10k map might only have 2k players - they have server merger policies already in mind; see here
• mayors can be dicks - Yeah, they can. And then you can vote them out. But you bring something up that would be interesting: If I could give an account or character a personal "reputation" score, for me to remember "oh this dude has been bad news in the past, I better stay clear of him". Ultimately it is just a journal mechanic really.
• life in small Nodes sucks - Don't agree. Small Nodes are a great target for smaller guilds to establish themselves and in a level 4 Town they can be the sole patron guild, also small Nodes are running a lower risk of being attacked from the perspective of not getting as much attention in the first place and having fewer possible spoils of war that make sieging the city worthwhile in the first place.
• animosity when nodes become vassal nodes - Yeah, almost like that's intended to happen
• new players have no way to enjoy PvP as soon as they start paying the monthly subscription - That's just not true at all, you could enroll in a node siege and operate the siege or defense equipment which stats are completely separate from the characters, there is also nothing stopping low level players to do PvP amongst themselves. Or when they are moving to a bigger city due to character progression they may create a caravan to get all the stuff they stocked up in the old town to the next one; additionally contesting the lower level content of dungeons and points of interests also sparks PvP.
• I hate the mentorship concept - Cheers to your feelings. I'm getting the same vibe from this as when Asmogold said that players having agency over each others experience it is a bad design choice. I think rewarding social gameplay is actually a good thing, so... I dunno what else to say about that

CONCLUSION >>> Yes, there are risks in some of the things you mentioned but tbh honest at this point I don't see them nearly as severe.

George_Black

ESO is that way. Go give it a try.

The "problems" as you call them are the results of conflict of interests and player driven story.
Nobody likes to lose, but if nobody loses, nobody wins.

"PvP right out the door". This isnt an fps or a moba or Tekken. It's an mmo.
Progress through time investment is a testiment to team effort, organization skills, talent that you bring in the table.
The more seasoned you are, the better your chances.

The corruption system doesnt need balance. It's from L2. "...it needs to be tested" of a phrase consumed by those unwilling to learn about ancient history.


Guild leaders/node rent.....

There is bo stronger bond than guild members (other than inrl friends). Real, competitive guilds will stay in one node and maybe go to the next. No issue there are well.
Social guilds, in which members do whatever, whenever, such as trying to find a place to rent, shouldnt be
within the development.
Also, people should should not be restricted from attack fellow node citizens.


Castle siege caravan (tax caravans actually) a chore...? Ok then...
You throw many statements. Im not going to take them as facts. Nor will the devs.

Voxtrium

pretty much what Noanni said to the T

Mag7spy

Kilion wrote: »

Sounds to me like a significant portion of the things you are mentioning are things that could happen... but only if Intrepid doesn't take their Alpha and Beta phases seriously.

And yes, making a social game means there is a risk of people with antisocial tendencies trying to spoil the fun for the broader community of that server. I personally suspect that this will however be a challenge for the GMs to address. There is no way to vet your players beforehand. I personally think that it would make a lot of sense to move players (and their characters) who have shown antisocial tendencies (by being reported repeatedly and proven to not conduct themselves anywhere close to acceptable) on a single server and block them from creating characters on other servers. You know, the Australia method.

Let's go through the list

• Corruption balance - Alpha & Beta testing, community code of conduct and patches will address this
• When Nodes fall communities break apart - Yes, but it will only be a reason to leave the game if the player from these Nodes didn't made any connections beyond their city. Which would be an unnecessary cut down of potential this game has in itself.
• Rents could be too high for guild members - this might the intention: Come in early, buy property in a up an coming city instead of renting in downtown Manhattan when its done. It also could mean that guilds would work together to afford rent for their players OR.... not everyone is supposed to have housing in the first place °-°
• Bounty hunter will be useless - Wild speculation, why would they? We know almost nothing about them, but the things we do know suggests some pretty useful features to hunt corrupted players. And becoming corrupt in various cases can be a good deal, if you do it as a "dark guild" member, where you charge big amounts of money for taking on the disadvantages and risks of dying. It connects back to the corruption system being balanced. And the general sentiment of players on that server. More organized, "peaceful", PvE oriented servers will have fewer bounty hunters, sure.
• caravans could be perceived as chores - Yeah, but if that's the case the disinterest in them will slow down the economy, that will force prices higher and increase the reward put forth by players to get people to do it. That's how economy works: Through incentives or disincentives to do something.
• Personal caravans might not happen - Not sure why, it enables a player to immediately move larger amounts of goods around and might be the only option for them in the first place; there are viable reasons to use this option
• Castle sieges might not happen often enough - "enough" according to whom? If players don't want to siege a castle, why would they be required to?
• Husbandry is useless without mount perma death - Could be but according to the wiki, a pet that dies too often will receive a debuff that needs to be cured (probably by animal husbandry) before it resurrects again; call it a "disable" and "repair" mechanic if you will (source; see "Mounted combat")
• repairing might be better than creating new gear - Not sure what that's supposed to mean. A maxed out player might only need repairs at some point, sure. But new characters will need new gear and since making the best high level gear requires components from lower level gear, the lower level gear gradually vanishes, possibly even for its maintenance.
• 10k map might only have 2k players - they have server merger policies already in mind; see here
• mayors can be dicks - Yeah, they can. And then you can vote them out. But you bring something up that would be interesting: If I could give an account or character a personal "reputation" score, for me to remember "oh this dude has been bad news in the past, I better stay clear of him". Ultimately it is just a journal mechanic really.
• life in small Nodes sucks - Don't agree. Small Nodes are a great target for smaller guilds to establish themselves and in a level 4 Town they can be the sole patron guild, also small Nodes are running a lower risk of being attacked from the perspective of not getting as much attention in the first place and having fewer possible spoils of war that make sieging the city worthwhile in the first place.
• animosity when nodes become vassal nodes - Yeah, almost like that's intended to happen
• new players have no way to enjoy PvP as soon as they start paying the monthly subscription - That's just not true at all, you could enroll in a node siege and operate the siege or defense equipment which stats are completely separate from the characters, there is also nothing stopping low level players to do PvP amongst themselves. Or when they are moving to a bigger city due to character progression they may create a caravan to get all the stuff they stocked up in the old town to the next one; additionally contesting the lower level content of dungeons and points of interests also sparks PvP.
• I hate the mentorship concept - Cheers to your feelings. I'm getting the same vibe from this as when Asmogold said that players having agency over each others experience it is a bad design choice. I think rewarding social gameplay is actually a good thing, so... I dunno what else to say about that

CONCLUSION >>> Yes, there are risks in some of the things you mentioned but tbh honest at this point I don't see them nearly as severe.

Glad someone did it.

ClintHardwood

The only major issue I think needs dealing with now is the lack of proper gear/mount trashing mechanics.

Mag7spy

I want to see the game in alpha 2 before I'm overly judgmental on content in viewing things as a problem for a game. But we need some amount of game before we can start listing off problems.

Strevi

Kilion wrote: »

[*] 10k map might only have 2k players - they have server merger policies already in mind; see here

Yes if there are servers to merge with.
But can happen that PvE players will choose to play other more PvE focused games rather than this PvX one.
And PvP players might have their own issues with the game too.
Then the game can end with just a few servers, one for each region.

Kilion wrote: »

Corruption balance - Alpha & Beta testing, community code of conduct and patches will address this

balance can make it more PvP or more PvE. Cannot make it both unless the game shifts to a different concept. The middle value will attract only certain players. Who do you bet will come in higher number?

Voxtrium

pretty much with Noanni said to the T

Strevi wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

[*] 10k map might only have 2k players - they have server merger policies already in mind; see here

Yes if there are servers to merge with.
But can happen that PvE players will choose to play other more PvE focused games rather than this PvX one.
And PvP players might have their own issues with the game too.
Then the game can end with just a few servers, one for each region.

Kilion wrote: »

Corruption balance - Alpha & Beta testing, community code of conduct and patches will address this

balance can make it more PvP or more PvE. Cannot make it both unless the game shifts to a different concept. The middle value will attract only certain players. Who do you bet will come in higher number?

So basically the game might just fail. Congratulations you have incredible forsight!

Also PvE + PVP is the number 1 reason I am so interested in this game and I know most are like me in that regard.

Kilion

Strevi wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

[*] 10k map might only have 2k players - they have server merger policies already in mind; see here

Yes if there are servers to merge with.
But can happen that PvE players will choose to play other more PvE focused games rather than this PvX one.
And PvP players might have their own issues with the game too.
Then the game can end with just a few servers, one for each region.

Kilion wrote: »

Corruption balance - Alpha & Beta testing, community code of conduct and patches will address this

balance can make it more PvP or more PvE. Cannot make it both unless the game shifts to a different concept. The middle value will attract only certain players. Who do you bet will come in higher number?

I'm honestly surprised to learn that you think that Intrepids concept for this game is inherently false regarding their goal to make a PvX game and will instead either be a PvE or a PvP game. But if that is what you think I quite don't see the point of discussing anything beyond that. I personally don't see how the proposed dichotomy would be accurate, nor a solid reason to doubt that Ashes' concept is not what can make a PvX game.

Strevi

Kilion wrote: »

Bounty hunter will be useless - Wild speculation, why would they? We know almost nothing about them, but the things we do know suggests some pretty useful features to hunt corrupted players. And becoming corrupt in various cases can be a good deal, if you do it as a "dark guild" member, where you charge big amounts of money for taking on the disadvantages and risks of dying. It connects back to the corruption system being balanced. And the general sentiment of players on that server. More organized, "peaceful", PvE oriented servers will have fewer bounty hunters, sure.

BH could be useful if the game allows and even encourages players to become corrupted, to be hunted by bounty hunters.
But then how will you retain players who let themselves killed?
Or how you encourage the ones who become corrupted to enter that state?
Remember, Steven hopes to have over 1 million players at release.

Strevi

Kilion wrote: »

Castle sieges might not happen often enough - "enough" according to whom? If players don't want to siege a castle, why would they be required to?

The game restricts this event to once per month.
What if players want to do it more often?

Strevi

Kilion wrote: »

repairing might be better than creating new gear - Not sure what that's supposed to mean. A maxed out player might only need repairs at some point, sure. But new characters will need new gear and since making the best high level gear requires components from lower level gear, the lower level gear gradually vanishes, possibly even for its maintenance.

You are optimistic to think that there will be a constant influx of new players to give veterans reasons to make them gear. And were would those new players get money for these veterans?

Strevi

Kilion wrote: »

mayors can be dicks - Yeah, they can. And then you can vote them out. But you bring something up that would be interesting: If I could give an account or character a personal "reputation" score, for me to remember "oh this dude has been bad news in the past, I better stay clear of him". Ultimately it is just a journal mechanic really.

You cannot always vote. Depends on node type.
Then once voted, they might bring the node down.

Kilion

Dude, I mean no offense but your arguments for or against something in other threads were much more consistent and sensible than here.

You are optimistic to think that there will be a constant influx of new players

No. I said "new characters". Same account, same player, new character.

give veterans reasons to make them gear

No, because new characters as well as new players have both incentives to pick up a job themselves and make their own gear. If anything, they have more incentives to make more gear because high level characters can use the components from that gear to make higher level gear. Meaning money would flow "down" not "up"

Strevi

Kilion wrote: »

new players have no way to enjoy PvP as soon as they start paying the monthly subscription - That's just not true at all, you could enroll in a node siege and operate the siege or defense equipment which stats are completely separate from the characters, there is also nothing stopping low level players to do PvP amongst themselves. Or when they are moving to a bigger city due to character progression they may create a caravan to get all the stuff they stocked up in the old town to the next one; additionally contesting the lower level content of dungeons and points of interests also sparks PvP.

I don't consider that a good enough option.
I want to see clearly stated that players can also level up some skills through PvP. And not by operating war engines to feel useful in the big battle.
Steven knows that low level players are vulnerable and tries to patch that problem with mentorship, to place a high player near them. You think new players will enjoy this? And veterans ready to do that too?

Strevi

Kilion wrote: »

Sounds to me like a significant portion of the things you are mentioning are things that could happen... but only if Intrepid doesn't take their Alpha and Beta phases seriously.
...
CONCLUSION >>> Yes, there are risks in some of the things you mentioned but tbh honest at this point I don't see them nearly as severe.

Steven should think on them.
Or ignore them if he wants so.
It is his game after all.

Ludullu

Strevi wrote: »

Remember, Steven hopes to have over 1 million players at release.

He will definitely get over a million players on release. The question is how many of those stay in the game for future months. If the game is good enough I think a few hundred thousand will stay and enjoy the game for what it is, corruption and all.

Strevi

Kilion wrote: »

Dude, I mean no offense but your arguments for or against something in other threads were much more consistent and sensible than here.

Yes, I am in a bad mood seeing STOP_THE_ASH_MONEY creating an alt account as a coward to start that thread and certain discussions.

Also after thinking yesterday that things are not clear but @Vaknar said that I should not ask 2 questions at the same time. Then next month I asked one, he sent me to the wiki. Next month I asked 2nd question, he said it was selected to answered but was no time and ask again. Then 2 months later he sent me to wiki again.

I'll try to forget that I was here.

Azherae

Eh, I think Steven is right about a specific thing that will really contribute to Ashes' success.

One of the biggest 'sells' in the current 'Live Service' games market is just to be able to say 'they listened to the community and took action'.

Sentiment analysis (treat this as anecdotal, though) seems to support this. Live service models seem to be heavily based on 'taking action' based on the consumer feedback. Whether that leads to a good thing or not relies on the initial design of the game, I think, and the type of player it manages to retain (basically if the game initially attracts a lot of instant gratification people, and then takes action based on feedback, it'll get more like that).

Intrepid's 'whole thing' is 'We are listening and adjusting based on feedback' which I would expect to ramp up heavily in Alpha phases. The only thing I want from them is to define their audience more clearly so they can get a less varied initial group, or the feedback will be all over the place.

This game's design screams that it needs a specific type of player dedication to work, the FF14 model of 'come and play it when something interesting is happening' ain't gonna fly here, obviously. So your list of problems can all be viewed through one lens.

"Are the dedicated playerbases (solos, 'consistent' casuals, avengers, and glory seekers) going to fall off because of flaws?"

I don't see any reason that Intrepid won't get that data from Alphas.

Ludullu

Is that "(banned)" a self-imposed status/nickname or did Strevi just get banned?

Azherae

Move Along, Nothing To See Here.

Ludullu

Damn

Azherae

Mistakes Were Made.