Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!

For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.

You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.

AoC isn't as Niche as everyone thinks

13468913

Comments

  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Fiddlez wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Fantmx wrote: »
    I think it would be helpful to clarify if we are talking niche in the gaming community at large or the mmorpg community.

    According to the OP, we should ask Asmongold, or at least take Asmon's usual 'definition'.

    I would just add that I don't think Asmongold's opinion is the end all be all but in that it just seems to reflect the common notion that this game will have a smaller community. It was more to add weight to idea of the general populace feeling this way.

    I am super excited for AoC and I just don't think anyone should allow bad logic or cynicism to be their guide. Don't let others dampen it either. It might also be a disservice to the game because of how the development is being structured. Where feedback seems to have a larger roll then ever before.

    Yes, sorry if I oversimplified, I just have faith in the person I was addressing to know what I meant, but I probably shouldn't have done it that way.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • SweatycupSweatycup Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Im not so sure arguing either way, either aoc is niche or not may be the best way to tackle my viewpoint. I could argue either from what i know of the game so far. However i personally believe the player base will choose largely over time who is attracted and even more so who stays beyond lets say a fictitious 30 day free trial. If all goes as planned and the world is not full of numbskulls just skull bashing each other endlessly.. which how the game is designed and states intertwined shouldnt and i will go as far as wont be how 90% are playing the game anyways it will allow both pvp and pve players to play comfortably. Now even though you have corruption risks as well as social and economic risks in pvp if one large player base of a server just wants pvp and flag themselves endlessly well i would suspect itd be more niche. If another server no one ever really engages because politically it is agreed to by most of the major nodes/alliances it is also niche. That is the scary part of ashes.. not knowing joining the types of playerbase on a server. The people will make or break the game. As far as i know there is no public tracking to show how volatile a server is by measurable means. The only thing other then this would depend on getting the name out properly and in my opinion is very difficult to do because pvx can mean vastly different things. Just imagine trying to attract domeone to your game with a 30 second commercial and how complicated this game is. Not easy. But if it can be done properly it could attract millions upon millions i believe. Like others said.. keeping those numbers is something else. Risk goes up in a game that is technically still player driven by the literal sense. I’d say eve online at its peak is a decent comparison for online at anytime. Its hard to estimate like i said. However i do hope for a close to WoW type explosion of interest.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Percimes wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    also what is BRs?

    Battle Royal. I guess. Fortnight, PUBG, etc.

    ah ok got it ty
  • iccericcer Member
    Most MMORPGs are niche by themselves, just like survival games, sport games, etc. Niche doesn't automatically mean a small playerbase. Football (soccer for those that try to be different) games are niche, but they still have a pretty large playerbase.

    So if we're looking at Ashes as being niche in the MMORPG genre, then sure let's discuss this.

    I'm fairly sure that the game will have a large playerbase at launch. The more "casual" players, who aren't following the development right now, will definitely jump in and try the game. The less you know about the game, the better. Oh, and your expectations are probably lower.
    The thing is, how many of those players will continue playing after a month, after 3 months, after 6 months?
    That really depends on how the game treats those new "clueless" players. Are they going to end up liking the game more than they though they would, or are they going to be pushed away by certain systems?

    And what would be niche inside the MMORPG genre? A hardocre PvP MMO, for example, something Ashes hopefully won't be. I personally do not want the game to be like Albion, EVE, or w/e other game that falls into that category. Just like I wouldn't want it to be like what WoW has become, like what GW2 is, like what FFXIV is, etc. Those games, even though they might have PvP of some sorts, just are too PvE centric at this point.

    So for me, something that's in the middle would be the best. Archeage, for example, was great. The PvP wasn't too hardcore or anything, there was competition for castles between guilds, world bosses between guilds/random groups of players/factions, farming spots between factions/groups, etc. You'd even get ganked by people if you were just wandering around and being at the wrong place at the wrong time, but the game also allowed you to be semi-safe, by giving you a choice not to go to PvP zones. The war/peace cycle was great imo, as it meant you wouldn't constantly worry about being attacked. You had a safe space to go to, if you really didn't want to deal with PvP.

    Where does Ashes fall into? Well, from the start it's going to be more hardcore than Archeage, by the looks of it. It seems there won't be too many safe zones in open-world, there won't be factions, so really anyone can be an enemy, etc. Which is a shame, but oh well, it might change, or it might not be so bad.

    Was Archeage a niche game inside the genre? Well, kind of, but the niche was very broad in terms of the MMORPG genre, only the most hardcore PvE carebears wouldn't play it. It became more niche, because it got ruined by p2w, multiboxing, hackers/bots, etc. Only the hardcore players and those who spend money ended up playing the game in the long run (baseless assumption from me), but not because the core game design aimed at that. The failure of that game couldn't be really attributed to poor core design of the game.

    So from the start, Ashes does look like it's going to be more niche than that. PvP is more hardcore than Archeage, they're looking to bring back "the old days" by taking design inspirations from older games, which means less QoL stuff, they're looking to limit what you could realistically achieve without playing in a group, etc.
    Some of those things will obviously appeal to people. There definitely will be people who avoided most of the new MMORPGs, but they might be willing to try Ashes out, so this actually means it might appeal to a broader group of MMORPG players in that sense.


    If it devolves into large guilds owning everything, and controlling everything, then it won't be as successful.
    If you're locked out from content, because you aren't a member of a large and powerful guild, it won't be as successful.
    If it becomes a hardcore PvP game, where you're constantly looking over your shoulder, filled with anxiety as soon as you see another player, then it won't be as successful.
    If the PvP is too punishing, meaning you lose a lot by dying, then it won't be as successful.
    If you can't realistically just play the game as a solo player (solo in terms of not always being in a group whenever you want to do anything in the game), then it won't be as successful.

    If the game provides a large amount of depth, without it being too punishing, then I can see it being a success.
    If it encourages group play, without limiting content strictly to groups, then I can see it being a success.
    If the PvP isn't too punishing, if it doesn't just happen all the time, and if the corruption system prevents mindless killing and harassment of weaker players, then I can see it being a success.


    The game is still in development, it can still shift in either direction. The core design principles are set in stone, but their implementation is what will either kill the game, or make it successful.

    I honestly wouldn't even care if it isn't a massive success, as long as I enjoy the game, and as long as it has a healthy playerbase.

  • iccer wrote: »
    I honestly wouldn't even care if it isn't a massive success, as long as I enjoy the game, and as long as it has a healthy playerbase.

    What is a healthy player-base? Why do you need it?
  • iccericcer Member
    Raven016 wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    I honestly wouldn't even care if it isn't a massive success, as long as I enjoy the game, and as long as it has a healthy playerbase.

    What is a healthy player-base? Why do you need it?

    Can't tell if it was a genuine question, or just a snarky "question".


    Healthy player-base means different things for each game, because the number isn't always the same.

    The most obvious reason why you need a healthy player base, is because the game needs to earn money. From just running the game, to customer support, marketing, to developing new content, it all requires money.
    If the game doesn't earn enough money, then it basically dies out. If there are not enough players, the game won't earn enough, especially if it relies on monthly subs and cosmetics. If they went straight out p2w route, then you would have whales keeping the game on life support.

    Another reason, which is especially the case with games like Ashes, is that the game's systems simply require other players' contribution (the most obvious example would be nodes). Especially if you have multiple servers, that each offer a different and unique experience. Players will be the main driving force for anything that happens in Ashes, you need players to keep the game world "alive".

    And personally, whenever I play a game, I want to easily find groups for stuff, to have an active guild, to encounter others in the world, and to be able to do all sorts of content, whether it's world bosses, open-world PvP, instanced arena PvP, dungeons, or whatever else. The whole risk/reward goes out the window if there aren't enough players playing the game, because there won't be any risk.
  • Raven016 wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    I honestly wouldn't even care if it isn't a massive success, as long as I enjoy the game, and as long as it has a healthy playerbase.

    What is a healthy player-base? Why do you need it?

    On a server scale, enough players so that all types of content is used. Enough grease to keep the wheels turning, so to speak.

    On the game as a business scale, enough paying people to not only maintain the servers on, but to keep creating new content.
    Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
  • iccer wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    I honestly wouldn't even care if it isn't a massive success, as long as I enjoy the game, and as long as it has a healthy playerbase.

    What is a healthy player-base? Why do you need it?

    Can't tell if it was a genuine question, or just a snarky "question".


    Healthy player-base means different things for each game, because the number isn't always the same.

    The most obvious reason why you need a healthy player base, is because the game needs to earn money. From just running the game, to customer support, marketing, to developing new content, it all requires money.
    If the game doesn't earn enough money, then it basically dies out. If there are not enough players, the game won't earn enough, especially if it relies on monthly subs and cosmetics. If they went straight out p2w route, then you would have whales keeping the game on life support.

    Another reason, which is especially the case with games like Ashes, is that the game's systems simply require other players' contribution (the most obvious example would be nodes). Especially if you have multiple servers, that each offer a different and unique experience. Players will be the main driving force for anything that happens in Ashes, you need players to keep the game world "alive".

    And personally, whenever I play a game, I want to easily find groups for stuff, to have an active guild, to encounter others in the world, and to be able to do all sorts of content, whether it's world bosses, open-world PvP, instanced arena PvP, dungeons, or whatever else. The whole risk/reward goes out the window if there aren't enough players playing the game, because there won't be any risk.

    Given that you said you don't care if it isn't a massive success, you shouldn't have spent more than half of the post about the need to have profit.
    Only the last part, about finding groups should be important for you.
    That means you should not run away from this game if you like it and it has a single server with enough players for you to find groups.
    You don't need more servers, isn't it?
  • iccericcer Member
    Raven016 wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    I honestly wouldn't even care if it isn't a massive success, as long as I enjoy the game, and as long as it has a healthy playerbase.

    What is a healthy player-base? Why do you need it?

    Can't tell if it was a genuine question, or just a snarky "question".


    Healthy player-base means different things for each game, because the number isn't always the same.

    The most obvious reason why you need a healthy player base, is because the game needs to earn money. From just running the game, to customer support, marketing, to developing new content, it all requires money.
    If the game doesn't earn enough money, then it basically dies out. If there are not enough players, the game won't earn enough, especially if it relies on monthly subs and cosmetics. If they went straight out p2w route, then you would have whales keeping the game on life support.

    Another reason, which is especially the case with games like Ashes, is that the game's systems simply require other players' contribution (the most obvious example would be nodes). Especially if you have multiple servers, that each offer a different and unique experience. Players will be the main driving force for anything that happens in Ashes, you need players to keep the game world "alive".

    And personally, whenever I play a game, I want to easily find groups for stuff, to have an active guild, to encounter others in the world, and to be able to do all sorts of content, whether it's world bosses, open-world PvP, instanced arena PvP, dungeons, or whatever else. The whole risk/reward goes out the window if there aren't enough players playing the game, because there won't be any risk.

    Given that you said you don't care if it isn't a massive success, you shouldn't have spent more than half of the post about the need to have profit.
    Only the last part, about finding groups should be important for you.
    That means you should not run away from this game if you like it and it has a single server with enough players for you to find groups.
    You don't need more servers, isn't it?

    Well it doesn't need to be a massive success, aka the top dog, No.1 MMORPG. It can still do just fine with being a moderate success.

    What if I happen to play on a dead server? What does 1 server having enough players do for me, if I'm not on that server? We're now getting into server transfers and other stuff...

    Honestly I don't even see what is the point you're trying to make here?
  • iccer wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    iccer wrote: »
    I honestly wouldn't even care if it isn't a massive success, as long as I enjoy the game, and as long as it has a healthy playerbase.

    What is a healthy player-base? Why do you need it?

    Can't tell if it was a genuine question, or just a snarky "question".


    Healthy player-base means different things for each game, because the number isn't always the same.

    The most obvious reason why you need a healthy player base, is because the game needs to earn money. From just running the game, to customer support, marketing, to developing new content, it all requires money.
    If the game doesn't earn enough money, then it basically dies out. If there are not enough players, the game won't earn enough, especially if it relies on monthly subs and cosmetics. If they went straight out p2w route, then you would have whales keeping the game on life support.

    Another reason, which is especially the case with games like Ashes, is that the game's systems simply require other players' contribution (the most obvious example would be nodes). Especially if you have multiple servers, that each offer a different and unique experience. Players will be the main driving force for anything that happens in Ashes, you need players to keep the game world "alive".

    And personally, whenever I play a game, I want to easily find groups for stuff, to have an active guild, to encounter others in the world, and to be able to do all sorts of content, whether it's world bosses, open-world PvP, instanced arena PvP, dungeons, or whatever else. The whole risk/reward goes out the window if there aren't enough players playing the game, because there won't be any risk.

    Given that you said you don't care if it isn't a massive success, you shouldn't have spent more than half of the post about the need to have profit.
    Only the last part, about finding groups should be important for you.
    That means you should not run away from this game if you like it and it has a single server with enough players for you to find groups.
    You don't need more servers, isn't it?

    Well it doesn't need to be a massive success, aka the top dog, No.1 MMORPG. It can still do just fine with being a moderate success.

    What if I happen to play on a dead server? What does 1 server having enough players do for me, if I'm not on that server? We're now getting into server transfers and other stuff...

    Honestly I don't even see what is the point you're trying to make here?

    Server merges can happen.
    My point, or what I wanted to know is if it bothers you if there will be just one server.

    You said: "I honestly wouldn't even care if it isn't a massive success, as long as I enjoy the game, and as long as it has a healthy playerbase."
    Which I understand as: If there is not a healthy playerbase, even if you enjoy the game you will not play it.

    I have not made any research to get a feeling how big the world map is, but for me even 1500 active players on one server is ok, even if that might be the only server the game will have.
    Probably the entire world will say the game failed and "is dead".
    I will let Steven worry about his business.
  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    edited July 2023
    @Trustmebro666 wrote:
    Hmm, you say that people don't want the same things as they did 20 years ago, but Ashes of Creation is far closer to those games from 20 years ago than it is to modern MMORPGs. So, with this logic, people don't want Ashes of Creation?
    Ashes is nothing like any of the popular MMOs of that time aside from Lineage 2. If you're going to say things like that, at least have some idea of what you're talking about.

    Using other PvP games that don't require you to pick flowers or kill rats for 200-300 hours before you can get into proper PvP isn't really a good point when it comes to the popularity of PvP in MMORPGs.
    Define "proper PvP". You don't have to be 200 hours in to experience PvP in the game, you can do it at any level and there are plenty of systems for it.
    There is an audience for this game; it just won't be that big, and that's completely fine. Any game where other players can decide if you are having fun or not in the context of MMORPGs will be niche. It might start big, but these systems will eventually cannibalize the player base. It's not like this hasn't happened multiple times already. AoC isn't going to be any different.
    A lot of baseless speculation here. Your entire arguement is based on your emotions. Nobody knows for sure how popular/unpopular it will be and anyone making those claims are clueless. Stop projecting your doom and gloom on everyone else. You're exactly the kind of negativity the OP is talking about. Past failures do not guarantee failures ahead, especially when we're talking about entirely different games and people developing them. If anything, those failures will help Ashes succeed by avoiding the same mistakes. This is an entirely new game with new systems, a new development team and monetary decisions.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Could be, never really had an argument against your opinion.

    Just lotta people throw around words to devalue the opinions of others.
    Some, perhaps.
    And some people have a more negative concept of the terms than other people.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Azherae wrote: »
    They also mentioned a counterpoint about things like Survival games and Extraction shooters, and mentioned 'bigger than New World', so I've been going with 'New World isn't quite niche and anything bigger than that isn't niche' + 'The rising popularity of hardcore games such as Tarkov implies that gaming's populace would push Ashes beyond niche'.
    By niche, I mean near EvE Online, ArcheAge and Lineage II numbers.
    People can play New World like they're on a PvE-Only server, so... I doubt Ashes will have higher numbers than New World.

    With all the SOE devs on the Ashes team, I thought they were hoping to have similar population numbers to EQ and would want players who typically play on PvE-Only servers to feel comfortable playing Ashes.
    But, they aren't designing for fans of EQ.
    They are designing for fans of EvE Online, ArcheAge and Lineage II.
  • BlackBronyBlackBrony Member, Alpha Two
    For me yeah. I'm gonna play the game, but I can hardly see why a PvEr would enjoy this game. Everything sets you back. If you go out of a protected zone, you risk dying, losing mats, xp and time.
    There's no choice. Going out of a protected zone means you accept the ToS of "death is a given".
    People keep saying "solo players will gather mats and explore".
    I mean... yeah, you could do that. But then you have to return home, and I bet you someone is going to gank you, and now you're forced to either PvP or lose a lot of mats. I mean, if you die you always lose, and that's the thing PvErs might not be good a PvP, and they lose.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    PvEers might be great at PvP.
    But you still lose even if you win the combat encounter - if you have to PvP when you're not in the mood for PvP.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    PvEers might be great at PvP.
    But you still lose even if you win the combat encounter - if you have to PvP when you're not in the mood for PvP.

    There's also the relatively constant problem in games that builds that are specifically good at 'killing other people' are not often the builds that are good at 'doing other things' almost by definition. So a person who is 'always in the mood for PvP' starts at the technical advantage.

    Even if you can beat them every time, for some people, fighting against the technical advantage isn't necessarily fun. The first few times it's, at best, a boost to the ego, but the 'problem' with winning the encounter against a weaker player who just wants to fight when you don't, is that this person has zero incentive to stop attacking or disrupting you.

    They didn't get corrupted, because they lost.

    At least in Ashes they will get some exp debt, though, so hopefully that will be enough, but that process isn't likely to be very fast, or it'd be double-edged.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • ZippyAZippyA Member
    edited July 2023
    Azherae wrote: »
    the 'problem' with winning the encounter against a weaker player who just wants to fight when you don't, is that this person has zero incentive to stop attacking or disrupting you.
    Bacause no risk i.e. no drop PvP sucks and incentivises use of bots. Add drop of gear/gold/exp and people will think twice before attacking a stronger person.
    If you are in no mood for PvP just flee or hide better.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    ZippyA wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    the 'problem' with winning the encounter against a weaker player who just wants to fight when you don't, is that this person has zero incentive to stop attacking or disrupting you.
    Bacause no risk i.e. no drop PvP sucks. Add drop of gear/gold/exp and people will think twice before attacking a stronger person.
    If you are in no mood for PvP just flee or hide better.

    I consider people who are carrying anything of meaningful value to them, that they can drop, when engaging in PvP that they personally start, to be playing suboptimally, so I don't really consider them as much.

    If they're losing the fight, they're not corrupted, so after the first loss they can go store anything of value and come back and keep attacking with only the exp being the loss, as the design is now.

    I haven't played a game where the exp loss or the equivalent of exp loss was ever enough to deter this specific type of person enough that I didn't have to deal with them repeatedly.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • ZippyAZippyA Member
    edited July 2023
    Azherae wrote: »
    If they're losing the fight, they're not corrupted, so after the first loss they can go store anything of value and come back and keep attacking with only the exp being the loss, as the design is now.
    I understand what the scenario you are talking about, but I think the problem would be a bit different.
    If they know where you are and you stay there after being attacked, I guess you are fkd anyways.
    They can put a good gear on or come in numbers and you are dead. They will keep on coming if that is what they want. IMHO nobody will keep coming to die, they will be returning to kill you.
  • BlackBrony wrote: »
    For me yeah. I'm gonna play the game, but I can hardly see why a PvEr would enjoy this game. Everything sets you back. If you go out of a protected zone, you risk dying, losing mats, xp and time.
    There's no choice. Going out of a protected zone means you accept the ToS of "death is a given".
    People keep saying "solo players will gather mats and explore".
    I mean... yeah, you could do that. But then you have to return home, and I bet you someone is going to gank you, and now you're forced to either PvP or lose a lot of mats. I mean, if you die you always lose, and that's the thing PvErs might not be good a PvP, and they lose.

    People are coming at this from a Theme park perspective. That the reward must always be some material thing. People who give it a chance will realize that the the reward is far better.

    If you do play this game. It will be the experience you come back for and you will learn to love it. Plus your items increase in value in a round about way so it's all relative really
  • RatzuRatzu Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Dygz wrote: »
    I doubt Ashes will have higher numbers than New World.

    I'll take that bet. I get that you are a carebear and you don't want to be made to PVP, but why is it so hard for you to believe that many many other people actually enjoy competitive PvX gameplay that involves PvP? Yea, it can be frustrating when another player engages you in combat when you weren't ready or were hoping to play more passively, but it is a small price to pay to get to experience an open world with an ever-present sense of danger that requires gamers to engage with their surroundings and think carefully about their choices rather than mindlessly grind mobs or pick flowers while second-screening Netflix because worlds in PvE games are so damn boring.

    Many many people are looking forward to this game's design, which you surely know otherwise you wouldn't still be sticking around, but almost all of your forum comments are unsubstantiated speculation predicting doom for the game if Intrepid doesn't redesign core pillars around your personal gameplay preferences. We already have PvE games out there that you can go play right now and continue to play even after Ashes launches. Why try to make this game something it isn't trying to be? Are you just trolling the forums at this point?
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Ratzu wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I doubt Ashes will have higher numbers than New World.

    I'll take that bet. I get that you are a carebear and you don't want to be made to PVP, but why is it so hard for you to believe that many many other people actually enjoy competitive PvX gameplay that involves PvP? Yea, it can be frustrating when another player engages you in combat when you weren't ready or were hoping to play more passively, but it is a small price to pay to get to experience an open world with an ever-present sense of danger that requires gamers to engage with their surroundings and think carefully about their choices rather than mindlessly grind mobs or pick flowers while second-screening Netflix because worlds in PvE games are so damn boring.

    Many many people are looking forward to this game's design, which you surely know otherwise you wouldn't still be sticking around, but almost all of your forum comments are unsubstantiated speculation predicting doom for the game if Intrepid doesn't redesign core pillars around your personal gameplay preferences. We already have PvE games out there that you can go play right now and continue to play even after Ashes launches. Why try to make this game something it isn't trying to be? Are you just trolling the forums at this point?

    I always feel like people who have this reaction at this strength are really insecure about the game's design.

    But once again...

    Dygz has not said nor done any of these things.

    Is it okay if I bot an autoresponder for these or is that against Forum TOS?
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • RatzuRatzu Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    No @Azherae I just know a forum troll when I see one. His comments about doom and gloom unless Intrepid does exactly what he asks for add absolutely nothing of value to this conversation.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Ratzu wrote: »
    No @Azherae I just know a forum troll when I see one. His comments about doom and gloom unless Intrepid does exactly what he asks for add absolutely nothing of value to this conversation.

    Yeah ok. Seems indeed one cannot win.

    Doom and gloom you say?

    New World has at least 100,000 players daily supposedly.

    Tiresome, but it's technically our fault for being here.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    New World has at least 100,000 players daily supposedly.
    Steam charts say ~25k at peak daily with ~15k average. That might be around 100k overall dailies, but with servers supposedly being 10k active in Ashes, having barely 2 full servers (most likely 1 NA and 1 EU) would be quite small.

    The important thing is that Dygz didn't specifically say which numbers he was talking about. NW had a mil on release, which probably meant several million purchases, which would be great for Ashes even if they get a bit less.

    AoC would just need to go down in numbers slower than NW did.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    New World has at least 100,000 players daily supposedly.
    Steam charts say ~25k at peak daily with ~15k average. That might be around 100k overall dailies, but with servers supposedly being 10k active in Ashes, having barely 2 full servers (most likely 1 NA and 1 EU) would be quite small.

    The important thing is that Dygz didn't specifically say which numbers he was talking about. NW had a mil on release, which probably meant several million purchases, which would be great for Ashes even if they get a bit less.

    AoC would just need to go down in numbers slower than NW did.

    I feel the numbers are honestly more of a generation thing when i think about it. Back than people had less access to information, it took longer to get the game, and more hoops were needed. Rather than gaining those players overtime be it months or year, etc. A lot of people are jumping on within the first week. And why naturally the new pattern is a ton of people with a lot of people falling off quickly, over ramping up over time.
  • I would request that if you feel a certain way that you provide a reason why. Otherwise you might need to admit that you are making it based on pure emotional. I think my original post might be for you.

    New world was a very different MMO-wise at least then anything else on the market. RuneScape probably being close but there's some pretty obvious differences.Combined with It being Amazons first real game release(not including the failed launches) it was huge. People are thirsty for something new.

    I honestly compare most MMOs to guitar hero because there hasn't been any real innovation, it's just over saturation of the same thing with minor differences. Rockband was" different" but was it really?

    I think numbers wise people are basing it on past experiences. New World dropped off a lot because it wasn't completed and the experience was empty and drawn out. Some would argue every game falls off but that's also under the context of how games are made these days. To be instant gratification or seasonal. To capitalize income over experience.

    It's all the same formula and I don't think anyone should expect a different result, in any fashion. Intrepid and Steven are offering a different formula and basing your opinion on the old one just doesn't make any sense.

    Just for the record WoW was being developed at the same time as EQ2. EQ was Goliath and it was dwarfed by WoW. Everyone I knew was saying it would fail because it was too cartoony and only kids would play it. Some of you just need to admit that you are pessimistic or cynical and your opinion isn't based on anything other then how you feel.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    ZippyA wrote: »
    Bacause no risk i.e. no drop PvP sucks and incentivises use of bots. Add drop of gear/gold/exp and people will think twice before attacking a stronger person.
    If you are in no mood for PvP just flee or hide better.
    Better yet, just go play an MMORPG where people don't have to flee from other players.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Ratzu wrote: »
    I'll take that bet. I get that you are a carebear and you don't want to be made to PVP, but why is it so hard for you to believe that many many other people actually enjoy competitive PvX gameplay that involves PvP?
    Um. I think it's not hard to believe that - since I do believe that.
    I would just phrase that as - many, many people actually enjoy hardcore PvP MMORPGs, like EvE Online, ArcheAge and Lineage II... and Ashes of Creation.


    Ratzu wrote: »
    Many many people are looking forward to this game's design, which you surely know otherwise you wouldn't still be sticking around
    Yep. Many, many people are looking forward to this game's design. We agree!!!
    It's just not as many as there were before changes to the design, like the Open Seas.
    And some casuals are not particularly happy about Bidding for Freeholds.


    Ratzu wrote: »
    almost all of your forum comments are unsubstantiated speculation predicting doom for the game if Intrepid doesn't redesign core pillars around your personal gameplay preferences. We already have PvE games out there that you can go play right now and continue to play even after Ashes launches. Why try to make this game something it isn't trying to be? Are you just trolling the forums at this point?
    Nope. I have not predicted doom for Ashes.
    I've predicted success along the lines of success for EvE Online, ArcheAge and Lineage II.
    I now don't think it's going to come close to EQ/EQ2 population numbers. Previously, I was expecting the SOE devs and Lead Game Designer to be striving to create a game that players who loved EQ/EQ2 would want to play. But, after Jeffrey Bard left, Steven made changes to the design that makes the game signifcantly more hardcore and PvP-centric than EQ/EQ2. And that is very likely to push many, many casuals and PvEers away from the game.
    As Steven began to stress after Jeffrey Bard left Intrepid Studios - Ashes is not made for everyone.
    And that's OK.

    I haven't asked for any changes to the current vision for the game. I haven't asked for the game to be anything.
    I expect the game to be exactly how Steven envisions the game.
    We'll just wait to see how accurate my prediction is once the game launches.

    What I did ask for, which should have some value for these forums, is for Steven to join us on The Ashen Forge last weekend so that he could share some new info with everyone.
    And I assure you, I would not have done that if I thought the game was doomed to fail.

    (Also, I haven't said that Ashes population numbers will be similar to EvE Online numbers. I said I think Steven will consider Ashes to be a success if Ashes gets popluation numbers similar to EvE Online or Lineage II. Even better if Ashes can get significantly higher numbers than that.)
  • Dygz wrote: »
    Nope. I have not predicted doom for Ashes.
    I've predicted success along the lines of success for EvE Online, ArcheAge and Lineage II.
    I now don't think it's going to come close to EQ/EQ2 population numbers.

    You're are talking about West(NA/EU) only right?
    If you take in consideration numbers from the East(Korea, Russia, China, Japan and etc)
    Lineage and Lineage II population numbers were far greater than EQ and EQ2 in a global scale.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20100701045444/http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
    Subscriptions_8846_image001.png

    For EvE Online you are correct, EQ/EQ2 numbers were higher.

    As you can see Lineage reached over 3 million in its highest peak and Lineage 2 over 2 million in its highest peak, Numbers far beyond EQ and EQ2 highest peaks which remained consistently bellow the 500 thousands.

    As for Archeage it's hard to get its numbers, but its highest peak is estimated to be 2 Million during its Release by Trion, wasn't able find numbers for the very populated KR server and RU server during their gold eras tho.

    If Ashes reach L2/AA Highest population peaks, i certainly believe Steven will be quite happy.
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
Sign In or Register to comment.