Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Right now, my guild is completely uninterested in this game based on the ancilliary details, and I am unlikely to play it at all for that same reason.
However, development seens things change. My hope is that some of those ancillary details will change.
Perhaps more precisely, I have 0 interest in pursuing any of the progression paths after launch.
And, when I wish to get my 8+ hour per day MMORPG fix, that will be with several other games, rather than in Ashes.
I backed the Kickstarter because I want the Ashes devs to gain experience creating and implementing systems like Nodes so that even if Corruption does not work to my satisfaction to minimize non-consensual PvP, when these devs eventually move on (for whatever reasons, like Bard and Bacon did) to design/develop some other MMORPG that has separate PvE-Only servers or a PvP rule-set I'm comfortable with, it won't take them 5+ years for them to create Node mechanics.
I'm still here because I plan to test the features I like through Alpha 2 and the Betas.
And I still support the game because I have friends in the forums who want to play.
When people wonder why I no longer wish to play, I can try to explain that to them while being happy that they have not yet stumbled upon any dealbreakers - and that they are loving the changes to the design. Even if those design change cause me to not want to play.
I also have friends who are game devs working for IS.
And... I'm still very curious to see how you convince players who abhor non-consensual PvP to play on the same servers as gamers who don't even believe that non-consensual PvP is a valid concept.
Presume you mean after launch then?
Hopefully, even if you don't want to play Ashes, some good will come from the game for you in potentially other games and I think it's pretty good of you to help support your friends in who are in development.
It remains to be seen if the corruption system will be enough for players like yourself who don't like non-consensual PvP, I think for some it will and some it won't.
Already plenty of good. More forum friends now than before the Kickstarter.
And, I've now played a few other games with some of them.
Yeah. For those players who are willing to never travel to the Open Seas if/when they don't want to auto-flag for FFA PvP - they'll still have to test Corruption during Alpha 2 to determine whether it works to their satisfaction.
I hope that the discussions on the forums can go back to constructive discussions about the game or development points rather than just I'm right you're wrong.
Delusions.
Huuuuuuh?
If you need effort and cooperation to achieve success, and success gets you a reward, then how "effort and cooperation do not produce rewards"??
Just because A doesn't always result in B doesn't mean that B is not a result of A.
An additional condition that can fail does not negate the condition that came before it.
What has gotten me really interested lately is the beauty of the environments. That recent dev showcase with the view over the valley during fall time really got me.
ok lets say you are right. numbers of deaths is an indication. so if you are going to design a top end pve encounter, you will design it in such a way that the players attempting it will die 500 (or x number) times? is that what will guide your direction in the design process of a top end pve activity?
you know "node mechanics" is just a tree in programming. It's a solved problem. it has been solved for decades now >_> what takes time is all the art and assets that these nodes will have.
The statement may be able to be made true with an amendment, but as it stands, it is false.
What I mean by Node mechanics is the watered down version of EQNext's StoryBricks that the Ashes Devs are trying to implement.
You're correct in that it's now common for MMOs to include village/town/city construction into their design.
But, I've been waiting for an MMORPG to actually have that playable for 10 years now.
So, having that implemented quickly has not been solved yet.
Also, "solved" doesn't necessarily mean that many or most game designers are able to easily communicate their vision to the programmers. It also doesn't mean the programmers can adequately and quickly troubleshoot and offer solutions to snags in the code or implementation as it relates to MMORPGs specifically. Or that the designers and programmers are well-versed in how to easily articulate their vision to the artists.
That comes with experience and practice.
And, actually, what I truly want MMORPG game devs to gain experience in is implementing StoryBricks.
But, that was not a reasonable expectation in 2017 for an MMORPG hoping to release before 2020.
i guess we are referring to different things then. I meant how the nodes are connected, parent nodes, child nodes, etc etc. those are just trees. i just thought you meant programmers didnt know how to implement a tree structure and you were supporting the game so that they acquire experience on how to implement a tree structure so that they can code a tree faster in the next game they made instead of waiting 5 years.
I consider Ashes' Nodes to be a simplified version of EQNext's StoryBricks.
I want MMORPG game devs to have enough experience that we don't have to wait 10+ years to implement something extremely similar to StoryBricks.
So, I try to support games that have features similar to Ashes' Nodes.
Logically it is not false.
Just because sometimes there's not enough clay doesn't render the statement "clay is made into bricks" untrue.
I mean, this is also a false statement without an amendment.
I took some pottery classes a few years ago. We made a vase out of clay.
If you were to say "clay is sometimes made in to bricks" that statement would be true regardless of how much clay you have on hand.
If you say "effort and cooperation sometimes produce rewards", then that is an accurate statement.
Try reversing those statements.
"Clay is not made into bricks"
Is it true? Because it would be if "clay is made into bricks" is false.
To clarify, I do not say that is inherently true, but nor is it inherently false.
Very well said. Some very minor changes could cause Ashes to appeal to a much wider audience. It would be safe to assume that many people following this game are waiting to see if those changes are made.
A CEO fresh into the industry who has funded his own project would probably be stoked to have a dev competent enough to work on CoD work for him, but the public... If it was Activision CoD..
I wouldn't tell a soul, hold tight onto my holy water and just hope he didn't bring the spirit of Activision with him.
I worked on Call of Duty, but it wouldn't be at the top of the list of games I worked on.
This was back in 2017.
Back then, Activision didn't have the reputation it has now.
Maybe he was trying to imply how ubiquitous he wants PvP combat and PvP conflict to be.
The question isn't of talking about CoD - the question is "why would they have a developer from a game, talk about it in a video, but not include that game in the list of "previously worked on" games that they so proudly display on their kickstarter page.
If they want to advertise the fact that they have someone from CoD, cool - I think we all get why. The question is why only partially advertise that fact.
It isn't even like they can say that the games they displayed on the kickstarter page were all just MMO's, because Xcom was there as well.
Would you say as somebody looking forward to PvX you enjoy having PvE with risk vs reward?
Is the current implementation of risk vs reward appealing to you?
I do enjoy having risk vs reward in all aspects
It needs more testing but so far it sounds pretty good.