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.
Observing the development process
Kilion
Member, Alpha Two
For those who missed it, Steven had another surprise appearance in a livestream of Kaos and Lace where he elaborated on a few points like the bound currencies in relations to the bidding system, the consequences of level caps for freehold, the process of development overall but imo most importantly the type of people he sees following this game development.
From around 32:40 into the video:
He further acknowledged that there is for some people an issue of trust in developers of MMORPGs who have hollowed out their games too much to appeal to a broader audience of players or simply implemented systems that were not conducive to the intended game experience that the developer aimed at.
Why bring this up?
I think it is worth pointing to this interview because lots of things in it highlight a very important key point: We are indeed truly deep in the Alpha Stage. While certain design choices like the bidding system on their own might sound like a drain on fun when looked at in isolation, in context of the other systems, they might not be as "dysfunctional" as some have already declared them. But IF they turn out to be dysfunctional in the active Alpha 2 Stage, they will be subject to change, same applies to the corruption system and so on.
Its a good thing that people engage with this project but on occasions maybe the best we can offer is to raise points of concern with certain mechanics, discuss them in context of the other systems that critically influence them and ask for more information on them, while reserving the final judgements for when we had the chance to actually test them.
With that being said one of the best recent examples in my opinion was the Tank Showcase, after which we have seen significant improvement, because we saw the finished product and it didn't fit the intent of informing the watchers.
With that being said, so far I have enjoyed the discussions on the forums and the information given by Intrepid, though not everything was (or could be) perfect. Watch the interview, it was very insightful and enjoy your week!
From around 32:40 into the video:
Did you ever sit down with your friends and you are about to open up a brand new board game; you are sitting around the table and you have this one friend digging through the rule book [...] reading it out loud, every single sentence. Some people respond very positively to that, I call those the developer watchers. Those are people who are able to watch a development in progress, they love talking about it, [...] are very auditory related listeners; they are capable to follow along. However some people at the table are like "Yeah, let's just start playing, we will figure it out when we start playing." And that's okay, we are all different types of learners but to what you descirbed: it's not so much that I feel people can't grasp the systems, it's that I feel people are different in the sense of how they wished to grasp it. So [some] people want to grasp it by playing it, by touching it, by feeling it, right? And other people want to grasp it by talking about it, by reading through it by understanding it in a different way. And the harsh reality is that [...] development journeys are not for everybody, that's just a simple fact, what I gave you as an example is a testament to that truth. But we have to cater the process of showing development in a transparent manner that is capable of transcending certain audiences or at least being mindful of the different audiences that are watching. You guys are an example of an audience that are capable, willing [and] wanting to get into the nitty gritty during the discussion phase, but there is a much larger portion of our audience that just want to see and play. And that is why we have to be careful how we do it.
He further acknowledged that there is for some people an issue of trust in developers of MMORPGs who have hollowed out their games too much to appeal to a broader audience of players or simply implemented systems that were not conducive to the intended game experience that the developer aimed at.
Why bring this up?
I think it is worth pointing to this interview because lots of things in it highlight a very important key point: We are indeed truly deep in the Alpha Stage. While certain design choices like the bidding system on their own might sound like a drain on fun when looked at in isolation, in context of the other systems, they might not be as "dysfunctional" as some have already declared them. But IF they turn out to be dysfunctional in the active Alpha 2 Stage, they will be subject to change, same applies to the corruption system and so on.
Its a good thing that people engage with this project but on occasions maybe the best we can offer is to raise points of concern with certain mechanics, discuss them in context of the other systems that critically influence them and ask for more information on them, while reserving the final judgements for when we had the chance to actually test them.
With that being said one of the best recent examples in my opinion was the Tank Showcase, after which we have seen significant improvement, because we saw the finished product and it didn't fit the intent of informing the watchers.
With that being said, so far I have enjoyed the discussions on the forums and the information given by Intrepid, though not everything was (or could be) perfect. Watch the interview, it was very insightful and enjoy your week!
The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
4
Comments
A test can be conducted to see if a games system functions correctly, but it can't be set to see how players will use a system.
This is why you will see me most vocal on issues that relate to how players will use a mechanic or system. These things simply can not be tested.
Intrepid know this all too well as well. This is why the corruption system has the built in levers that it has (I believe Steven talked about that in the same video linked above). They have them because they don't know how players will react to the corruption system once the game goes live, and so are building in easy ways to adjust it so that it achieves what ever they want it to achieve.
In fact, it is the existence of these levers that makes me put down any complaints as to whether the corruption system will be effective or not - it will have the function Intrepid want it to have.
However, other systems are still in the works that will be greatly impacted based on how players react to them in game, and many of these systems don't have such levers built in - the freehold system is just the most recent example of this.
Well, I think that is exactly what the quote referrs to that I posted: The systems are interconnected and the reason why such a lever may not be in place, it is probably because Intrepid sees the limitation coming from other parts of the mechanics they have designed or deemed restrictions unneccessary to what they were trying to achieve.
In case of the freehold system however there are levers - vetting quests, bound currencies, time restrictions, information restrictions. These might not work in the way that some people hoped they would, but that seems to be because Intrepid never intended the outcome some were hoping for, namely: Almost everyone having a freehold.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't speak up though - if for no reason other than to make sure Intrepid know that people care. Additionally, those things that could act as a control that we are talking about - they may not actually exist, we simply don't know.
Sometimes, things are actual oversights.
In the recent Kaos & Lace interview with Steven he confirmed basically all of those controls. I guess technically I can’t remember him directly talking about “information” as a control, but I guess I could extrapolate that based on how information is provided about bound currencies based on node type, freehold availability, node progress and such could technically fall under information controls.
Unless you’re talking about other controls not mentioned in the quoted comment.
With corruption, yes.
I've been talking about how they exist for years on these forums - it isn't something new in reagrds to corruption. Sure, players will interact with the corruption system in ways that Intrepid can't anticipate, and the levers are there for that system, for that reason. They will allow Intrepid to deal with the ways players interact with the system.
However, taking another recent system - freeholds. People are saying "it's fine, it will be tested", but the issue is not about whether the system functions or not, it is about the way players will interact with it. There is no way of testing how determined players will be to hoarde as many freeholds as they can among their guild, friends and allies. We have no way at all of knowing if people that want to play the game to experience the RP aspects of running a tavern in game will actually need to compete with the most dedicated, most organized players in the game in order to be able to do so.
And - as far as we know - there are no levers in place to address that post launch.
These are the things we, or at least *I*, am vocal about.
It can't be tested, there are no obvious levers, it should be addressed - and so I will be vocal.
I'm not saying "don't speak up". I'm saying: If we lack too much information we can't just ignore that or paint the worst case scenario, we need to ask for that information or have to make weighted estimates of the consequences of that design choice. Ignoring unclear but annouced features or painting a worst case picture only, from my experience in writing and designing TTRPGs, simply looks like complete distrust in the developer.
No I was talking about freeholds not corruption. You should watch the whole interview I thought it was some pretty good information as whole. I think they discuss the freehold “levers” in the earlier part of the interview. If you only watched from the point shared to you, you missed it.
Most of the time - the worst case discussion happens when people come in and try to play down the concern.
If I say "I think this could be an issue, more information on it would be great", and someone else comes in and says "that is not going to be an issue", I'm going to tell them why I think it could be an issue. Usually that starts out with the very basic stuff that isn't worst case scenario - but then you have some posters that take it too far, resulting in the discussion having to end up in a worst case scenario kind of situation.
This discussion isn't necessarily a result of lack of trust in the developer - that is what the initial comments were about. The worst case scenario discussion is a result of poster interaction.
Understandable. I don’t necessarily trust myself enough to properly paraphrase all the information provided, including an explanation of the context around limiting freeholds to lvl 50. I personally don’t know if I still agree with the decision, but at least the reason why they chose to do it makes more sense to me.
But as for other freehold stuff, he talks about the levers built in to all the systems in a general sense around 5:30, asks for their opinion on what they have presented about freeholds and his feelings on what the freeholds should represent around 9:00 minutes, lace talks about her perspective regarding these kind of mechanics around 10:00 minutes and then he talks about the lvl 50 requirement/rushing around 11:00 minutes, currencies around 15:20-16:46(I think this may be the most relevant to this conversation).
Either way, I found it a good watch if you can get around to it (sorry I didn’t link time stamps for ya)
That is actually very helpful information, and as I have time over the next few days I should be able to watch most of that. Thanks.
Yup people try to use that to do doom speak with the project without understanding it. Than try to voice to change things in a completely different direction (usually more casual)
Actually, most of the ways I suggest things be changed add ways to allow the casual player to participate in a little better, but also add more depth to those that are less casual.
An example of this would be my suggestion (prediction) that people getting rights to place a freehold be able to then sell on rights to place a smaller freehold somewhere else on the land they have the rights to. This gives more casual players a smaller freehold and thus access to that gameplay, and gives those that get an actual freehold more they are able to do with it - while at the same time increasing the desire of actual freeholds and thus increasing the competition for them.
To me, this is a pure win. It increases the top end players desire for a freehold and thus increases the competition for them, but also gives more casual players a second avenue for getting some land (even if smaller) that they can then use to access actual gameplay.
Something I have seen a few people talk about is participation trophies, and how things shouldn't just be given out. Freeholds aren't participation trophies, they are just participation. People should be able to participate.
I don’t believe I’ve seen you make this suggestions before but that actually sounds pretty interesting. Can gate it behind permitting costs so it’s not just the auto default method of using your estate. Forces you to cost benefit the “rent” these additional people can pay vs permitting costs.
Hopefully “Slum Lord” will be an achievement.
This only makes sense imo if both freeholds are reduced by half in size and you aren't just doubling up on free holds just cause without a drawback. Even if you could make another one, if i have a guild my guild is the one getting it, not some random people I don't know.
Though I'm not here to argue what idea work or doesn't work for freeholds. I understand the goal with it and am content with it atm.
And yeah, some people absolutely would just pass on their sub-freeholds to people in their guild or other allies. But that then reduces the number of actual freeholds that guild will want - and other people may well be keen on getting weekly or monthly rent.
It's like - more choices and deeper gameplay and shit.
In other words, it is objectively better.
Not if the intent is high competition, scarcity and strong PvP incentive. Which seems to be exactly what Intrepid is aiming for with the current design.
in your opinion, in my opinion not all players need freeholds or access to it, there are other things you can do to provide players with the ability to do things as well as adding other variety of elements.
Even I am not going to presume to tell players what content they should or should not enjoy.
Locking content - especially casual/RP content - is not.
Ashes of creation is game, all elements of the game are content. What is your point?
Where is my post did I talk about what players will and won't enjoy, that sounds like you are trying to manipulate as usual ;o. Sounds like you can't get away from doing that on the forums with your agenda.
Not just a piece of content, and entire content type.
I am personally fine with some content being gated. In order to get to top tier crafting you need to do lower tiers of crafting. In order to get to end game raids you need to do entry level raids.
That isn't what this is. There are no other content pieces like freeholds (or at least not that we have been told of). This means that gating freeholds is gating an entire content type.
You are ignoring the context of the post which is in relation the game and the objective design wise...
I don't enjoy having conversations which i need to explain the game design since it just derails the point and becomes more writing than is needed for no reason...
Not having has access to it in sense there is limited amount so it will be a percent of the player base. That does not mean they won't get access to one later, or through pvp more places open up and cycling who has access to it. As well as usual social skills to talk to people and get access to a freehold.
Access to an entire content type shouldn't require luck, being in the right place at the right time. Nor should RP based content rely on having to compete with top end guilds wanting the same resource for top end gear.
why it shouldnt? why does the casual rper must have or is entitled to access content designed to be fought for?
the key word here is must. i mean doesnt the casual rper only care about rping, instead of fighting for stuff? unless his rp is fighting for stuff and pvping?
You have the question backwards.
Why is RP content desgned to be fought over?
Again, I'm fine with top end players like myself fighting to keep top end processing limited. I'd love to see top tier processing stations require mob drops that guilds can then block others from killing. Sounds great.
Guilds blocking casual players from RP content though? Why? That's honestly just stupid. What purpose does it serve? Whose game is better because of this?
And, I think Casual Challenge Crafters were originally expecting to be supported more - especially when it comes to Freeholds.
Since the reveal of the changes to The Open Seas in Sep 2022, it seems as though every couple of months we learn of some new feature or mechanic designed to heighten competition and PvP encounters to a degree that was not particularly evident while Jeffrey Bard was Lead Game Designer.
To the point that now, whenevever we head out to Harvest, we're expected to contemplate the Inventory layouts of our bags in order how to strategize for economic warfare and retaking the PvP battlefied if we die.
There should be no surprise that Casual Challenge players are probably not going to be happy about the need to contemplate economic warfare everytime they want to pick some flowers.
That's not to say that the Casual Challenge player must be accomodated or catered to.
Just don't be surprised as more and more Casual Challenge players choose not to play the game.
A lot of things can be luck in mmorpgs lmao.
Also it isn't lucky you have money and/or rep and you place a bid. If you don't get it you try again. If there is non up you support pvp raiding to destroy them. Freeholds are clearly designed with PvX in mind.
Rp based content? Saying thing is rp can be said about anything, that isn't a valid reason to change designs around it because you want to rp. Designs should not be changed around rping but should make sense to the gameplay being provided. Effectively that is a non answer to me, I can also say Rp wise they should be limited because i want to be a lord and not everyone should be one. So pretty false reason to bring up since you can use rp on any angle.
All i hear from what you are saying is you want participation trophies for players which reduces the meaning and value of it.