I'm fucking loling. Lmaoing. Hell, I'm pretty much KEKWing right now.
Amazon is trying to remove owpvp, implement pve dungeons and want to remove autoplay in a game that's, at its core, is built around hardcore grind (though that is apparently changing too, considering the last update).
Amazon actually know what a lot of MMO players want - which is not a sentience I thought I would ever type.
What they don't seem to know is that the game needs to start development with that goal in mind, not be changed near release in such a major way.
If Amazon found a studio that had the passion Intrepid have, but were building on a PvE focused game with a long grind and solid gameplay loops both while leveling as well as at the level cap for a wide variety of players, they would destroy the current MMO market.
Trying to take a game with PvP elements at it's core and making it a PvE game though, that isn't going to go well.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think Throne and Liberty is going to be better for me than Ashes of Creation.
I might still have issues with permanent zones that are FFA PvP 24/7, but…
Seems like most of the map is like New World, where I can ignore PvP when I want to as I progress my character.
And I have much more control over choosing when to participate in PvP, like scheduled Sieges and scheduled Dungeons.
Amazon is the publisher for the US; not the developer.
Apparently, Amazon has determined that they're MMORPG audience prefers less PvP than T&L originally planned to offer.
Which is fairly typical of the MMORPG audience in the US.
Still find this questionable. I think its a pretty safe statement but I am not so sure its as certain as everyone thinks. Lets say someone only every has Vanilla Cake. Then one day someone brings you chocolate cake but they didn't add enough sugar and it tastes like garbage. Would you assume that everyone just loves Vanilla Cake because people tried Chocolate and it was terrible?
So far PVP since WoW has had next to no support in any fashion with the assumption that people simply don't want it. I am a massive PVP player, always have been. I am currently not playing any PVP in any MMO, I am only playing PVE. Crowfall Launch destroyed the game, MO2 I don't like the weird FP combat. I don't even understand how its reasonable to say people only like PVE when there's no decent PVP MMO to speak of. Currently I would be considered a PVE statistic but its not true at all.
Even tried all those dumb half assed survival games like Ark and Conan. People got all pissed at me for killing them all the time but those games were pretty empty unless you just wanted to build.
When a game comes out that delivers proper PVP and we notice it does poorly then maybe we can say it. Ashes has a TON of hype and if it delivers then it might just change the perception or prove that statement true but I just don't think there's anything substantial to base it off of. People are just too scared to make it a priority because of the assumed state of what players want.
Amazon is the publisher for the US; not the developer.
Apparently, Amazon has determined that they're MMORPG audience prefers less PvP than T&L originally planned to offer.
Which is fairly typical of the MMORPG audience in the US.
The failure of New World is (partly) linked to the fact that Amazon turned the game from a PvP game into a PvE game with some PvP mechanics.
Then they realized they'd betrayed the community, so they reinstated PvP. But PvE players didn't like it.
In the end, nobody was happy and the game died. So I'm not too confident in Amazon's ability to meet the needs of its audience. Of course there were other factors (bugs, cheats, gold sellers, etc.). But the game was already dead in the water.
There are still 15 k concurent players.
Do you think PvE players will like AoC and keep playing it 2 years after release?
AoC is doing a much better job of threading the needle between PVE and PVP. T&L, at least in Korea will be the successor to L2. Steven has said it before they don't really want unconsenual PVP, its why there are soooo many penalties for doing it. Saying AoC is similar to L2 or T&L is equivalent to saying its close to World of Warcraft because they both have raids and dungeons.
Is Amazon really turning again a PvP game into a PvE game ? It wasn't enought for them after New World failure.
Lose translating some of the details (personal comments in brackets):
Zones will be PvE by default, but every 2 to 3 days the outpost of a zone will be under siege, turning the area temporarily into a PvP zone. These events will be announced beforehand. There will be world bosses and other open world events with default PvP, but in all cases these areas will be marked as "PvP zones" on map and in game. Despite that there will be full PvE world events. It follows a quote that indicates that it will be possible to avoid 100% of the PvP in the game. The initially planned feature of unrestricted PvP at night (I think this was also hailed as a great idea by some in this forum) will now be abolished, however there will be dungeons that will only be accessible at night and in these dungeons people will automatically be flagged for PvP. (Along with what has been said before that would probably mean one can avoid all PvP in T&L but will miss out on some of the content.) Amazon is currently "testing" PvE only dungeons but they have yet to confirm those as a feature. The castle siege - as of now there is only one - will take place every 2 weeks.
Despite that Amazon thinks this will be a PvP Game. (I guess it will be if there is not enough or no interesting content outside of PvP to play - but if PvP is fully avoidable, why make a "PvP game" to begin with?)
Guilds can take control of the castle, which will enable the owner guild to raise taxes from the outposts. The taxes will basically be put into a caravan and can be attacked by other players.
Furthermore, during the tech tests the autoplay feature will initially be deactivated but they will see how well received that actually is (if they don't adjust their proficiency progression that basically made autoplay necessary before, then of course players will want the autoplay "back", same goes for any other game aspect e.g. drop rates for materials)
- Presumably all P2W items will be removed from the "western" shops.
- Crossplay is said to be possible.
- items not only have a rarity class but also an optional upgrade; uncommon up to +6, rare (and possibly above) up to +12 (this sounds to me like these gatcha gambling mechanics that make autofarming necessary to get the best in slot item)
- release is planned to be in 2024
To be honest it sounds to me that the game will be quite hollow, as people can avoid its core mechanics. But I'd be lying if I said that I seriously followed this project, I've heard too many things that made it sound meh while not hearing anything interesting about the story for example. But ultimately as soon as I hear "korean game" and "grind" I'm basically out the door anyways.
Now this response is interesting, so if you don't mind...
When I analyzed this data, I found it to be 'not much different from what they were originally offering'. Three 'real' changes occurred.
1. Probably more 'Field' type zones which have no PvP in default conditions.
2. No unrestricted PvP at night, this was moved to Dungeons which only open at night, making it clearer
3. Supposedly no P2W
Your note was the game will be quite hollow because people can avoid its core mechanics. But this isn't Ashes, so there's less open world gathering for example, and no 'Node exp' that we know of, so the driving meaningful factors of open world unrestricted PvP aren't even there (I've read both the public datamine and the other one, so just trust me on the gathering part).
So I wish to understand which core mechanics they're avoiding? I see the reason that Ashes needs open world PvP + Corruption from the design perspective (not the preference one) to be that the world's dynamism and node progression are tied to it.
A game without Nodes or strong dynamism could easily have a PvP model that TL has and most people will be happy, so, any thoughts on it as a whole? This is what I expect to see from most MMOs going forward, because I don't expect most to have any 'Nodes'. And similarly I expect all the other 'Node' style ones that have either gathering or 'Node Progression' to have the 'Corruption' style owPvP.
Also @Dygz what say you? I think this works better for you, right? Or are the Night Dungeons a concern? I can't be sure because you could theoretically, since they're very targeted locations, get a group together to 'explore' them (I see this as different from the Open Sea, so I ask).
They literally said themselves "this is a PvP game" that makes it kind of makes PvP a core mechanic in my mind. Like I said in the last paragraph, I'm not highly invested in T&L so I don't know too much of it, but if the highest employees of a game tell me "this is PvP" only to go on and say "and it can be completely avoided" then that raises questions. Also since you now added that they will not have the open world gathering I kind of wonder what is the core mechanic of T&L if it is nt PvP and the crafting loop doesn't seem to be the focus either?
Amazon is the publisher for the US; not the developer.
Apparently, Amazon has determined that they're MMORPG audience prefers less PvP than T&L originally planned to offer.
Which is fairly typical of the MMORPG audience in the US.
The failure of New World is (partly) linked to the fact that Amazon turned the game from a PvP game into a PvE game with some PvP mechanics.
Then they realized they'd betrayed the community, so they reinstated PvP. But PvE players didn't like it.
In the end, nobody was happy and the game died. So I'm not too confident in Amazon's ability to meet the needs of its audience. Of course there were other factors (bugs, cheats, gold sellers, etc.). But the game was already dead in the water.
There are still 15 k concurent players.
Do you think PvE players will like AoC and keep playing it 2 years after release?
AoC is doing a much better job of threading the needle between PVE and PVP. T&L, at least in Korea will be the successor to L2. Steven has said it before they don't really want unconsenual PVP, its why there are soooo many penalties for doing it. Saying AoC is similar to L2 or T&L is equivalent to saying its close to World of Warcraft because they both have raids and dungeons.
You assume what you want to have or what you are afraid of.
I have no idea if the penalties for unconsenual PVP are really high.
Can happen that players will become corrupt and also clean the corruption before they logout in a 4 hour game session.
Even tried all those dumb half assed survival games like Ark and Conan. People got all pissed at me for killing them all the time but those games were pretty empty unless you just wanted to build.
"AoC doing a much better job of threading the needle between PVE and PVP" will not prevent them to be pissed at you.
Also PvPers who hate some PvE elements might stay away from AoC.
Yet the game also penalizes open world PvP too much for people that DO want that amount of PvP.
Honestly, this games base design is kind of stupid when you think about it.
It only penalizes the WoW-style of pvp. That is, PKing. Any "normal" player will just be in a guild and that guild will most likely have a war with another guild. And you'll have a shitton of enjoyable consensual pvp. Just as it was in L2.
I do hope we learn more about their plans for guild wars, cause we don't really have that many details about warring details and requirements.
There's also node wars, but we'll have to see how hard/expensive it is to declare a war on another node. Node wars will also be way less consensual for the majority of citizens, so we'll also have to see how those people respond.
The rules are meant for the middle part of the pvx spectrum. Pvers will be attacked by other players and pvpers won't be able to kill everyone they want for free.
The rules are meant for the middle part of the pvx spectrum. Pvers will be attacked by other players and pvpers won't be able to kill everyone they want for free.
In other words, not overly well suited to either group.
PvE players still have the thing they don't want. PvP players still have the thing they don't want.
As to node and guild wars, I wouldn't expect to see them happen more than once a month for any given guild or node. Smaller guilds probably wouldn't want to get in to guild wars at all.
I mean, guild wars in Archeage were infrequent enough, and that was without there being any real risk involved - and with them only lasting 90 minutes (iirc - it wasn't long).
In other words, not overly well suited to either group.
PvE players still have the thing they don't want. PvP players still have the thing they don't want.
How many people are at such extreme ends of that spectrum that they wouldn't play the game if they saw this kind of system though? I feel like it's not as many people as there are closer to the middle.
As to node and guild wars, I wouldn't expect to see them happen more than once a month for any given guild or node. Smaller guilds probably wouldn't want to get in to guild wars at all.
I mean, guild wars in Archeage were infrequent enough, and that was without there being any real risk involved - and with them only lasting 90 minutes (iirc - it wasn't long).
And this is why I wanna know more about the rules/requirements for both of those systems.
They'll supposedly be more goal-oriented than L2's wars were, so probably closer to AA's stuff, but the goals might be hard enough that people just have days-long wars.
Though I would definitely find it funny if you end up being right and there's gonna be no wars in the game (once-a-month thing is literally nothing, even if it's a 3-4h thing).
At that point L2's influence will be pretty much gone, there's gonna be 0 owpvp (well, outside of ships, but that's an insane investment to just have some random fun) and I'll definitely feel a bit bad about the money I'm still planning on putting into the game.
In other words, not overly well suited to either group.
PvE players still have the thing they don't want. PvP players still have the thing they don't want.
How many people are at such extreme ends of that spectrum that they wouldn't play the game if they saw this kind of system though? I feel like it's not as many people as there are closer to the middle.
That portion of the spectrum is only extreme on the PvP end.
It is excluding the bulk of players on the other end.
In my experience (20+ years in about 2 dozen MMO's in total, including the games you know I've talked at length on), most players don't play an MMO to get an adrenaline hit - most people play to chill out after work or study. There are obviously groups of people that are the exception to this, and if you spend most of your time in PvP focused games you would likely see more of these exceptions than anything else. However, the unwashed masses of MMO players in the west prefer to play an MMO to just chill, and then maybe go off and do something challenging from that base.
This is why games like WoW are so popular in relation to basically all other MMO's - same with ESO and FFXIV. Players can just log in to those games and just chill. They don't need to be concerned with other players attacking them, even if it is unlikely (there will be more corruption based PvP in Ashes than you seem to be assuming, there has to be enough to make the Bounty Hunter path viable).
In my experience (20+ years in about 2 dozen MMO's in total, including the games you know I've talked at length on), most players don't play an MMO to get an adrenaline hit - most people play to chill out after work or study. There are obviously groups of people that are the exception to this, and if you spend most of your time in PvP focused games you would likely see more of these exceptions than anything else. However, the unwashed masses of MMO players in the west prefer to play an MMO to just chill, and then maybe go off and do something challenging from that base.
This is why games like WoW are so popular in relation to basically all other MMO's - same with ESO and FFXIV. Players can just log in to those games and just chill. They don't need to be concerned with other players attacking them, even if it is unlikely
And that's the other extreme then. They wouldn't play a game because of pvp.
there will be more corruption based PvP in Ashes than you seem to be assuming, there has to be enough to make the Bounty Hunter path viable.
I'm currently not even sure that system still exists. We'll have to see how corruption is tuned, but so far it definitely seems that it'll be way too harsh for people to attempt going there. Do think that people will make alts to go around that system (which is why I want PK count to be account-wide), but that's still a real minority of players.
And that's the other extreme then. They wouldn't play a game because of pvp.
ESO shows us all that many players are happy to PvP.
No, PvP existing is not the problem. The problem is how it exists. I'm not saying a zone to host a PvP minigame is the answer, but neither is putting basic economic progression behind PvP (caravans).
Even if open world PvP didn't exist, the caravan system by itself has millions of players (not an exaggeration) nopeing out of the game.
Same with the naval aspect.
I'm not saying Ashes should change to acclimate these players - I feel I've been ear for years that the game needs to stick to what it claimed to be. What I am saying is that what it is trying to be only appeal to a very small segment of the MMO player base - a fact I thought we all understood.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
They literally said themselves "this is a PvP game" that makes it kind of makes PvP a core mechanic in my mind. Like I said in the last paragraph, I'm not highly invested in T&L so I don't know too much of it, but if the highest employees of a game tell me "this is PvP" only to go on and say "and it can be completely avoided" then that raises questions. Also since you now added that they will not have the open world gathering I kind of wonder what is the core mechanic of T&L if it is nt PvP and the crafting loop doesn't seem to be the focus either?
"Great PvP experiences are always welcome but it looks like NCSoft will be putting most of its eggs in the PvE basket. The developers revealed that the vast majority of players prefer PvE content and the game will focus on creating challenging content that hardcore players enjoy in the endgame.
The developers have reiterated multiple times that Throne and Liberty is meant for players who want to make it their lifestyle game. Skill expression is also something the developers are trying to focus on. Raids, dungeons, and other PVE content will focus heavily on allowing players to show off their PvE skills through well-timed abilities, coordination, and build crafting."
Amazon is the publisher for the US; not the developer.
Apparently, Amazon has determined that they're MMORPG audience prefers less PvP than T&L originally planned to offer.
Which is fairly typical of the MMORPG audience in the US.
The failure of New World is (partly) linked to the fact that Amazon turned the game from a PvP game into a PvE game with some PvP mechanics.
Then they realized they'd betrayed the community, so they reinstated PvP. But PvE players didn't like it.
In the end, nobody was happy and the game died. So I'm not too confident in Amazon's ability to meet the needs of its audience. Of course there were other factors (bugs, cheats, gold sellers, etc.). But the game was already dead in the water.
There are still 15 k concurent players.
Do you think PvE players will like AoC and keep playing it 2 years after release?
AoC is doing a much better job of threading the needle between PVE and PVP. T&L, at least in Korea will be the successor to L2. Steven has said it before they don't really want unconsenual PVP, its why there are soooo many penalties for doing it. Saying AoC is similar to L2 or T&L is equivalent to saying its close to World of Warcraft because they both have raids and dungeons.
ow pvp or just pvp inst the only aspect of the game.
aoc is really really similar to l2. even the stat system and even how you capture castles is the same xDD
I'm not saying Ashes should change to acclimate these players - I feel I've been ear for years that the game needs to stick to what it claimed to be. What I am saying is that what it is trying to be only appeal to a very small segment of the MMO player base - a fact I thought we all understood.
Yeah, that is what I expect, but I do think that there's enough people in the middle of the spectrum that are just waiting for a good game to come out that is placed in that middle. So far we either have pve games with arena-like locations for pvp or full-on murderhobo games with unpunished PKing.
If anything, popularity of Albion kinda hints at me being at least somewhat correct. It's obviously closer to the pve side of the spectrum cause it has non-pvp locations (iirc?), but I think that pvp locations also relate to economy, so it's somewhat similar to Ashes in that respect.
And Albion is obviously niche in its style (well, when compared to other mmos, that is), so we'll have to see if Ashes can appeal to more people cause of its much more basic style.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yeah, that is what I expect, but I do think that there's enough people in the middle of the spectrum that are just waiting for a good game to come out that is placed in that middle. So far we either have pve games with arena-like locations for pvp or full-on murderhobo games with unpunished PKing.
And Albion is obviously niche in its style (well, when compared to other mmos, that is), so we'll have to see if Ashes can appeal to more people cause of its much more basic style.
I think we can expect Ashes to hit it's audience - players who loved L2 and hate P2W.
People just waiting for a good game to come out will be playing other games.
The main problem is that there are a bunch of other MMORPGs now in development offering similar stuff that were not around when Ashes was due to launch befor 2020.
I'm not saying Ashes should change to acclimate these players - I feel I've been ear for years that the game needs to stick to what it claimed to be. What I am saying is that what it is trying to be only appeal to a very small segment of the MMO player base - a fact I thought we all understood.
Yeah, that is what I expect, but I do think that there's enough people in the middle of the spectrum that are just waiting for a good game to come out that is placed in that middle. So far we either have pve games with arena-like locations for pvp or full-on murderhobo games with unpunished PKing.
If anything, popularity of Albion kinda hints at me being at least somewhat correct. It's obviously closer to the pve side of the spectrum cause it has non-pvp locations (iirc?), but I think that pvp locations also relate to economy, so it's somewhat similar to Ashes in that respect.
And Albion is obviously niche in its style (well, when compared to other mmos, that is), so we'll have to see if Ashes can appeal to more people cause of its much more basic style.
You believe this because you have the mentality of pushing when games are hard and you aren't succeeding.
As a person with access to three (two and a half, I guess?) separate internal datasets of sample size > 8000, I say that your belief is incorrect.
Also, Albion is, in some weird ways, closer to TL's design than what we've been told so far for Ashes.
I'll hope that Ashes isn't going on the 'gut feeling' of players like me or you, because I've spent years learning all the ways in which those gut feelings are wrong. The only reason I don't agree with you is because I've been 'taught by reality' not to.
We're wrong. Because so-called PvP players who 'would enjoy a game with both' are usually not happy PvP players. A happy PvP player enjoys the game even when they are not winning as long as they can express themselves or grow. Or they find some low-stakes casual interaction where they get to 'mess around'.
Give them a game where there is no 'casual mode' in the PvP aspect and they generally love the idea of it, they love talking about it, they love showing off and 'teaching' new players who they know they won't get stomped by. But do they like competing? Nah.
Ashes is too hardcore for most 'PvP players'. I actually expect them to quit before the PvE-first players.
As a person with access to three (two and a half, I guess?) separate internal datasets of sample size > 8000, I say that your belief is incorrect.
Yeah, probably.
I said this a few years back at this point, but Ashes will be the last check for me to see if my preferences are shared by enough people to warrant a game like this successfully existing. If Ashes completely fails - I'll just know for sure that the time for me to play mmos has past. I'll still play the soloable stuff, just to experience the story and world, but I won't invest myself as much as I'd like to invest myself into Ashes.
As a person with access to three (two and a half, I guess?) separate internal datasets of sample size > 8000, I say that your belief is incorrect.
Yeah, probably.
I said this a few years back at this point, but Ashes will be the last check for me to see if my preferences are shared by enough people to warrant a game like this successfully existing. If Ashes completely fails - I'll just know for sure that the time for me to play mmos has past. I'll still play the soloable stuff, just to experience the story and world, but I won't invest myself as much as I'd like to invest myself into Ashes.
But there's no reason Ashes would completely fail, that isn't really the pivot so far of this thread, so I wouldn't worry about it.
If you want to consider 'will TL be more popular than Ashes', answer is 'maybe'. Ashes doesn't have a 'core premise' problem at all, it only has an 'execution' or 'shortcoming' problem, if even that.
Or, if relevant... I personally think Steven is right and Dygz is wrong. Based on my experience in competitive gaming communities I expect Ashes to do 10x as well as Dygz seems to expect (this can't really be put to 'numbers' so don't focus on this part).
But I also expect Ashes to tilt more toward the thing that most other games will be and its competitive advantage in an MMO market will be its points of additional depth. If they do not deliver on that depth, then people will play other games.
I'm just saying that the 'PvE vs PvP' spectrum is not the thing that matters to this at all, not even the Corruption aspects. The Open Seas thing for example, comes entirely down to if the Open Seas loot is the best or nearly the best.
For a game that had Naval content as a stretch goal to begin with, this is a huge wildcard anyway. This is the reason I didn't understand a certain prior point in the thread and had to ask about it. There seems to be a big gap between 'people who like to have consequential PvP in games' and 'people who don't want other people to be able to avoid PvP'. Designing games for the first group is easy. Designing games for the second group is ... an interesting exercise.
I'm not saying Ashes should change to acclimate these players - I feel I've been ear for years that the game needs to stick to what it claimed to be. What I am saying is that what it is trying to be only appeal to a very small segment of the MMO player base - a fact I thought we all understood.
Yeah, that is what I expect, but I do think that there's enough people in the middle of the spectrum that are just waiting for a good game to come out that is placed in that middle.
I'm not saying Ashes should change to acclimate these players - I feel I've been ear for years that the game needs to stick to what it claimed to be. What I am saying is that what it is trying to be only appeal to a very small segment of the MMO player base - a fact I thought we all understood.
Yeah, that is what I expect, but I do think that there's enough people in the middle of the spectrum that are just waiting for a good game to come out that is placed in that middle. So far we either have pve games with arena-like locations for pvp or full-on murderhobo games with unpunished PKing.
If anything, popularity of Albion kinda hints at me being at least somewhat correct. It's obviously closer to the pve side of the spectrum cause it has non-pvp locations (iirc?), but I think that pvp locations also relate to economy, so it's somewhat similar to Ashes in that respect.
And Albion is obviously niche in its style (well, when compared to other mmos, that is), so we'll have to see if Ashes can appeal to more people cause of its much more basic style.
I was going to ask Did Albion had subscription model?
How many servers it had?
But I see searching the internet that population increased 2 y after release when they went free to play.
According to that article, while the number of players increased to more than 100k, the concurrent players was 8k. Maybe it was still increasing?
The fact that was closer to the pve side of the spectrum plays an important role.
People here on forum say PvX means you have to be ready to PvP anytime and you agree when you start the game.
That means some days many players will start another mmo. And might stay there longer, if that one offers PvP as well.
People here on forum say PvX means you have to be ready to PvP anytime and you agree when you start the game.
That means some days many players will start another mmo. And might stay there longer, if that one offers PvP as well.
Yes, there will be people like that. And yes, they might be the majority. But there could still be enough people out there who'd play Ashes for exactly what it is. Which is why I'm trying my best to be as close to Steven's vision in my feedback as possible.
If he ultimately decides to make Ashes into, pretty much, TL with a much bigger pve-lean than what the current design would indicate - so be it, even if I would dislike that turn of events.
Yeah, that is what I expect, but I do think that there's enough people in the middle of the spectrum that are just waiting for a good game to come out that is placed in that middle. So far we either have pve games with arena-like locations for pvp or full-on murderhobo games with unpunished PKing.
And Albion is obviously niche in its style (well, when compared to other mmos, that is), so we'll have to see if Ashes can appeal to more people cause of its much more basic style.
I think we can expect Ashes to hit it's audience - players who loved L2 and hate P2W.
People just waiting for a good game to come out will be playing other games.
The main problem is that there are a bunch of other MMORPGs now in development offering similar stuff that were not around when Ashes was due to launch before 2020.
Having a bunch of other MMORPGs now in development sounds good to me. The only problem I have right now is looking at the cool cosmetics and wondering if I should continue buying them. Especially freehold cosmetics.
TL's "combat adjustments" are still unknown, but what I saw in the preview was just bad. That said, I bet Amazon is going to pay off a bunch of streamers to build hype when the time comes and it will do all right.
I'm not worried about there being less PvP in it. Murder-time (night) was just a bad idea, as it left the PvE crowd unhappy at night, and the PvP-gankers unhappy during the day. As long as there are always multiple PvP world events going on in a level range that will work out for the most number of people.
Being able to avoid PvP through the entire game will likely come with a the note that you won't get to experience all of the content. Completionists beware. Any game that combines PvP and PvE needs to have good answers to these questions, every time people log in:
I want to PvP tonight, what's going on?
I want to relax and PvE tonight, what's going on?
(and a bunch more related to crafting, char improvement, etc)
These games also need to find ways to encourage the PvE'rs to try PvP and encourage the PvP'rs to try high end PvE. Both of these need to be setup so that the "newbies" don't get stomped immediately.
Amazon was not wrong about NW. NW is doing better than Shadowbane and Crowfall.
The $200 million+ budget New World with it's 15k player base is doing better than a point and click mmo released in 2003 and mmo that raised $1,766,204 via Kickstarter in 2015 ?
On a side note, I was an early tester in New World alpha. It was heading to a great place we felt till this wave of more theme park testers arrived. I knew change was coming when I saw testers saying they would never buy from amazon again if this game released as is. Too bad as it had good potential. Be interesting to see if New World stays supported as long as Shadowbane did (six years+).
RIP Play to Crush...so many great memories with friends and foes alike from Death Server at SB release.
The Dünir Hold Mithril Warhammers,Thanes of the Keelhaul, Dünir scourge of the oceans, Warhammer First Fleet Command of The Dünzenkell Nation, friends to the Dünir Dwarves of the Dünhold.Hammers High!
People here on forum say PvX means you have to be ready to PvP anytime and you agree when you start the game.
That means some days many players will start another mmo. And might stay there longer, if that one offers PvP as well.
Yes, there will be people like that. And yes, they might be the majority. But there could still be enough people out there who'd play Ashes for exactly what it is. Which is why I'm trying my best to be as close to Steven's vision in my feedback as possible.
If he ultimately decides to make Ashes into, pretty much, TL with a much bigger pve-lean than what the current design would indicate - so be it, even if I would dislike that turn of events.
Years ago people would have said the same thing about Dark souls game is to niche and will never hit main stream. If the game is good and right things can connect anything can grow.
The issue is most games are meh, which is the root of the issue. With the right things, marketing, and AoC being a top tier game it has every chance to grow and change mmorpgs.
At this point it is as "easy" as simply just making a good game. There is less competition and people consume far more than ever.
Comments
Amazon actually know what a lot of MMO players want - which is not a sentience I thought I would ever type.
What they don't seem to know is that the game needs to start development with that goal in mind, not be changed near release in such a major way.
If Amazon found a studio that had the passion Intrepid have, but were building on a PvE focused game with a long grind and solid gameplay loops both while leveling as well as at the level cap for a wide variety of players, they would destroy the current MMO market.
Trying to take a game with PvP elements at it's core and making it a PvE game though, that isn't going to go well.
I might still have issues with permanent zones that are FFA PvP 24/7, but…
Seems like most of the map is like New World, where I can ignore PvP when I want to as I progress my character.
And I have much more control over choosing when to participate in PvP, like scheduled Sieges and scheduled Dungeons.
Still find this questionable. I think its a pretty safe statement but I am not so sure its as certain as everyone thinks. Lets say someone only every has Vanilla Cake. Then one day someone brings you chocolate cake but they didn't add enough sugar and it tastes like garbage. Would you assume that everyone just loves Vanilla Cake because people tried Chocolate and it was terrible?
So far PVP since WoW has had next to no support in any fashion with the assumption that people simply don't want it. I am a massive PVP player, always have been. I am currently not playing any PVP in any MMO, I am only playing PVE. Crowfall Launch destroyed the game, MO2 I don't like the weird FP combat. I don't even understand how its reasonable to say people only like PVE when there's no decent PVP MMO to speak of. Currently I would be considered a PVE statistic but its not true at all.
Even tried all those dumb half assed survival games like Ark and Conan. People got all pissed at me for killing them all the time but those games were pretty empty unless you just wanted to build.
When a game comes out that delivers proper PVP and we notice it does poorly then maybe we can say it. Ashes has a TON of hype and if it delivers then it might just change the perception or prove that statement true but I just don't think there's anything substantial to base it off of. People are just too scared to make it a priority because of the assumed state of what players want.
AoC is doing a much better job of threading the needle between PVE and PVP. T&L, at least in Korea will be the successor to L2. Steven has said it before they don't really want unconsenual PVP, its why there are soooo many penalties for doing it. Saying AoC is similar to L2 or T&L is equivalent to saying its close to World of Warcraft because they both have raids and dungeons.
They literally said themselves "this is a PvP game" that makes it kind of makes PvP a core mechanic in my mind. Like I said in the last paragraph, I'm not highly invested in T&L so I don't know too much of it, but if the highest employees of a game tell me "this is PvP" only to go on and say "and it can be completely avoided" then that raises questions. Also since you now added that they will not have the open world gathering I kind of wonder what is the core mechanic of T&L if it is nt PvP and the crafting loop doesn't seem to be the focus either?
You assume what you want to have or what you are afraid of.
I have no idea if the penalties for unconsenual PVP are really high.
Can happen that players will become corrupt and also clean the corruption before they logout in a 4 hour game session.
"AoC doing a much better job of threading the needle between PVE and PVP" will not prevent them to be pissed at you.
Also PvPers who hate some PvE elements might stay away from AoC.
You can't progress far in Ashes without a heavy amount of PvP, meaning the game won't appeal to anyone that doesn't want a heavy amount of PvP.
Yet the game also penalizes open world PvP too much for people that DO want that amount of PvP.
Honestly, this games base design is kind of stupid when you think about it.
I do hope we learn more about their plans for guild wars, cause we don't really have that many details about warring details and requirements.
There's also node wars, but we'll have to see how hard/expensive it is to declare a war on another node. Node wars will also be way less consensual for the majority of citizens, so we'll also have to see how those people respond.
The rules are meant for the middle part of the pvx spectrum. Pvers will be attacked by other players and pvpers won't be able to kill everyone they want for free.
In other words, not overly well suited to either group.
PvE players still have the thing they don't want. PvP players still have the thing they don't want.
As to node and guild wars, I wouldn't expect to see them happen more than once a month for any given guild or node. Smaller guilds probably wouldn't want to get in to guild wars at all.
I mean, guild wars in Archeage were infrequent enough, and that was without there being any real risk involved - and with them only lasting 90 minutes (iirc - it wasn't long).
And this is why I wanna know more about the rules/requirements for both of those systems.
They'll supposedly be more goal-oriented than L2's wars were, so probably closer to AA's stuff, but the goals might be hard enough that people just have days-long wars.
Though I would definitely find it funny if you end up being right and there's gonna be no wars in the game (once-a-month thing is literally nothing, even if it's a 3-4h thing).
At that point L2's influence will be pretty much gone, there's gonna be 0 owpvp (well, outside of ships, but that's an insane investment to just have some random fun) and I'll definitely feel a bit bad about the money I'm still planning on putting into the game.
It is excluding the bulk of players on the other end.
In my experience (20+ years in about 2 dozen MMO's in total, including the games you know I've talked at length on), most players don't play an MMO to get an adrenaline hit - most people play to chill out after work or study. There are obviously groups of people that are the exception to this, and if you spend most of your time in PvP focused games you would likely see more of these exceptions than anything else. However, the unwashed masses of MMO players in the west prefer to play an MMO to just chill, and then maybe go off and do something challenging from that base.
This is why games like WoW are so popular in relation to basically all other MMO's - same with ESO and FFXIV. Players can just log in to those games and just chill. They don't need to be concerned with other players attacking them, even if it is unlikely (there will be more corruption based PvP in Ashes than you seem to be assuming, there has to be enough to make the Bounty Hunter path viable).
I'm currently not even sure that system still exists. We'll have to see how corruption is tuned, but so far it definitely seems that it'll be way too harsh for people to attempt going there. Do think that people will make alts to go around that system (which is why I want PK count to be account-wide), but that's still a real minority of players.
No, PvP existing is not the problem. The problem is how it exists. I'm not saying a zone to host a PvP minigame is the answer, but neither is putting basic economic progression behind PvP (caravans).
Even if open world PvP didn't exist, the caravan system by itself has millions of players (not an exaggeration) nopeing out of the game.
Same with the naval aspect.
I'm not saying Ashes should change to acclimate these players - I feel I've been ear for years that the game needs to stick to what it claimed to be. What I am saying is that what it is trying to be only appeal to a very small segment of the MMO player base - a fact I thought we all understood.
"Great PvP experiences are always welcome but it looks like NCSoft will be putting most of its eggs in the PvE basket. The developers revealed that the vast majority of players prefer PvE content and the game will focus on creating challenging content that hardcore players enjoy in the endgame.
The developers have reiterated multiple times that Throne and Liberty is meant for players who want to make it their lifestyle game. Skill expression is also something the developers are trying to focus on. Raids, dungeons, and other PVE content will focus heavily on allowing players to show off their PvE skills through well-timed abilities, coordination, and build crafting."
ow pvp or just pvp inst the only aspect of the game.
aoc is really really similar to l2. even the stat system and even how you capture castles is the same xDD
If anything, popularity of Albion kinda hints at me being at least somewhat correct. It's obviously closer to the pve side of the spectrum cause it has non-pvp locations (iirc?), but I think that pvp locations also relate to economy, so it's somewhat similar to Ashes in that respect.
And Albion is obviously niche in its style (well, when compared to other mmos, that is), so we'll have to see if Ashes can appeal to more people cause of its much more basic style.
People just waiting for a good game to come out will be playing other games.
The main problem is that there are a bunch of other MMORPGs now in development offering similar stuff that were not around when Ashes was due to launch befor 2020.
You believe this because you have the mentality of pushing when games are hard and you aren't succeeding.
As a person with access to three (two and a half, I guess?) separate internal datasets of sample size > 8000, I say that your belief is incorrect.
Also, Albion is, in some weird ways, closer to TL's design than what we've been told so far for Ashes.
I'll hope that Ashes isn't going on the 'gut feeling' of players like me or you, because I've spent years learning all the ways in which those gut feelings are wrong. The only reason I don't agree with you is because I've been 'taught by reality' not to.
We're wrong. Because so-called PvP players who 'would enjoy a game with both' are usually not happy PvP players. A happy PvP player enjoys the game even when they are not winning as long as they can express themselves or grow. Or they find some low-stakes casual interaction where they get to 'mess around'.
Give them a game where there is no 'casual mode' in the PvP aspect and they generally love the idea of it, they love talking about it, they love showing off and 'teaching' new players who they know they won't get stomped by. But do they like competing? Nah.
Ashes is too hardcore for most 'PvP players'. I actually expect them to quit before the PvE-first players.
I said this a few years back at this point, but Ashes will be the last check for me to see if my preferences are shared by enough people to warrant a game like this successfully existing. If Ashes completely fails - I'll just know for sure that the time for me to play mmos has past. I'll still play the soloable stuff, just to experience the story and world, but I won't invest myself as much as I'd like to invest myself into Ashes.
But there's no reason Ashes would completely fail, that isn't really the pivot so far of this thread, so I wouldn't worry about it.
If you want to consider 'will TL be more popular than Ashes', answer is 'maybe'. Ashes doesn't have a 'core premise' problem at all, it only has an 'execution' or 'shortcoming' problem, if even that.
Or, if relevant... I personally think Steven is right and Dygz is wrong. Based on my experience in competitive gaming communities I expect Ashes to do 10x as well as Dygz seems to expect (this can't really be put to 'numbers' so don't focus on this part).
But I also expect Ashes to tilt more toward the thing that most other games will be and its competitive advantage in an MMO market will be its points of additional depth. If they do not deliver on that depth, then people will play other games.
I'm just saying that the 'PvE vs PvP' spectrum is not the thing that matters to this at all, not even the Corruption aspects. The Open Seas thing for example, comes entirely down to if the Open Seas loot is the best or nearly the best.
For a game that had Naval content as a stretch goal to begin with, this is a huge wildcard anyway. This is the reason I didn't understand a certain prior point in the thread and had to ask about it. There seems to be a big gap between 'people who like to have consequential PvP in games' and 'people who don't want other people to be able to avoid PvP'. Designing games for the first group is easy. Designing games for the second group is ... an interesting exercise.
Enough for the game to survive, sure.
Not enough for the game to thrive.
Did Albion had subscription model?
How many servers it had?
But I see searching the internet that population increased 2 y after release when they went free to play.
According to that article, while the number of players increased to more than 100k, the concurrent players was 8k. Maybe it was still increasing?
The fact that was closer to the pve side of the spectrum plays an important role.
People here on forum say PvX means you have to be ready to PvP anytime and you agree when you start the game.
That means some days many players will start another mmo. And might stay there longer, if that one offers PvP as well.
If he ultimately decides to make Ashes into, pretty much, TL with a much bigger pve-lean than what the current design would indicate - so be it, even if I would dislike that turn of events.
I'm not worried about there being less PvP in it. Murder-time (night) was just a bad idea, as it left the PvE crowd unhappy at night, and the PvP-gankers unhappy during the day. As long as there are always multiple PvP world events going on in a level range that will work out for the most number of people.
Being able to avoid PvP through the entire game will likely come with a the note that you won't get to experience all of the content. Completionists beware. Any game that combines PvP and PvE needs to have good answers to these questions, every time people log in:
I want to PvP tonight, what's going on?
I want to relax and PvE tonight, what's going on?
(and a bunch more related to crafting, char improvement, etc)
These games also need to find ways to encourage the PvE'rs to try PvP and encourage the PvP'rs to try high end PvE. Both of these need to be setup so that the "newbies" don't get stomped immediately.
The $200 million+ budget New World with it's 15k player base is doing better than a point and click mmo released in 2003 and mmo that raised $1,766,204 via Kickstarter in 2015 ?
On a side note, I was an early tester in New World alpha. It was heading to a great place we felt till this wave of more theme park testers arrived. I knew change was coming when I saw testers saying they would never buy from amazon again if this game released as is. Too bad as it had good potential. Be interesting to see if New World stays supported as long as Shadowbane did (six years+).
RIP Play to Crush...so many great memories with friends and foes alike from Death Server at SB release.
Difficult to see. Clouded the vision is.
The issue is most games are meh, which is the root of the issue. With the right things, marketing, and AoC being a top tier game it has every chance to grow and change mmorpgs.
At this point it is as "easy" as simply just making a good game. There is less competition and people consume far more than ever.
servers don't need to be full...
and then everyone will have a freehold too, and be able to enjoy their cosmetic