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.

Observing the development process

245678

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    All i hear from what you are saying is you want participation trophies for players which reduces the meaning and value of it.
    That is because you do not listen.
    Noaani wrote: »
    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.

  • HumblePuffinHumblePuffin Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    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.

    I know it may seem sometimes that I’m in the “l2” camp of gamers but if you go back over the last 20 years of my life and /played my games
    I would almost guarantee my most played mmo type games are WoW, SWtOR, and Warframe. You might call me an enjoyer of the “casual challenge” games. I am however extremely excited for this game.

    WoW owpvp is trash, and has zero weight. It’s a pure red=dead mentality. Have I helped out hordies in the open world take down that quest boss they looked like they were gonna die to? Sure. But I would argue red=dead wins out most the time. There are zero consequences to killing people no matter the level difference so you get people camping dungeon entrances for hours and killing FMs. In this game if you keep doing that at some point the person you’re picking on may be able to one tap you.

    SWtOR owpvp was basically entirely stamped out because of how equally pointless it was and that game is mainly about the story.

    Warframe PvP is pointless and unless you get up to the higher rounds of an endless mission it is casual af. Although admittedly this one doesn’t fit into the normal mmorpg formula.

    I’m willing to bet that I am not unique and there are lots of people that may fit into the categories of players you suggest based off of how they have gamed over the last couple decades who are certainly excited to see Ashes attempt to do this all correctly.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    All i hear from what you are saying is you want participation trophies for players which reduces the meaning and value of it.
    That is because you do not listen.
    Noaani wrote: »
    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.

    You are rewording it, the idea if you are trying to make them participation trophies as defined by people. Ie you just get one by playing the game without doing anything special or any actual challenge.

    It doesn't matter how you try to reword or twist it. Pretty basic manipulation to try to force a bad point across by making the conversation more muddy.

    Freeholds are high end housing and meant to be more competitive in nature, they are not meant to be handouts but worked towards. If you don't like the idea of doing that, that is fully up to you. That does not mean the game needs to change because you don't want competitive elements in the game lmao.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    You are rewording it
    I mean, yeah, thats my point. If you were paying attention, you would know.

    The way freeholds are in the game now, one could argue that they are trophies.

    My point is that they should not be trophies.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    You are rewording it
    I mean, yeah, thats my point. If you were paying attention, you would know.

    The way freeholds are in the game now, one could argue that they are trophies.

    My point is that they should not be trophies.

    You are purposely trying to twist the general meaning of what people understand as participation trophies.

    Freeholds are more of a social status as well as a sign of your skill and ability Ie if you need to do quite a lot of pvp to obtain one with currency linked to it, or whatever other task to get some of them.

    And it is no trophy it is something that if you don't fight for you will lose both in war and the aftermath.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    If you only watched from the point shared to you, you missed it.
    I rarely have more than a few minutes a day where I am able to watch a video like this. I have quite a few short periods of time where I can read - or write - but very rarely where I can watch or listen.

    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 since 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 11:00 minutes, currencies around 15:20-16:46(I think the 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.

    So, I watched the applicable parts of the video, and am somewhat unimpressed.

    There was, however, one comment from Steven that gave me some hope.
    One of the biggest things I saw in the course of the last couple of weeks since we had that stream and we've been gauging kind of, the communities response to that is what appears to me as kind of like an aversion to a degree of what has been for a long time one of the central tennents and core pillars of the game, which is this idea of risk vs reward, exclusivity, kind of scarcity that exists. You know, not everybody gets a trophy.

    But I think that, this example of the freehold system being shown is that a lot of people want the ability to own a piece of land and to engage in those core gameplay loops of farming and of livestock and that type of interaction - owning a home and customizing that location. And when it's been resurfaced that these freeholds are exclusive to a degree, that they are achievements that you have to strive for, and that limitation, there's a bit of pushback.

    So, this tells me two things.

    First, it tells me that Steven understand that people see freeholds as core aspects of the game. They are not trophies, they are content. A trophy is something you get for doing content well. You get a trophy for using your freehold well - your freehold should not be the trophy.

    The second thing this tells me is due to the literal next words out of his mouth - what do you guys think?

    This tells me he is completely unsure that many players feel freeholds shouldn't be trophies, that the core design philosophy is wrong in this regard. It isn't a case of the systems being wrong (and thus being able to be tested), it is a case of the actual philosophy behind them from Intrepid being just wrong.

    His comments that I quoted above do actually lead me to be more sure in my prediction that the eventual resolution to this will be the addition of a tier of smaller freeholds. This again puts players in a position where they are more easily able to engage in those core gameplay loops, but still leaves the trophy aspect in place.
  • HumblePuffinHumblePuffin Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Quite possibly. I don’t really view it as him saying intrepid’s philosophy on this is wrong, but more so that there are many ways to adjust it that will need to be tested to make it feel right.

    I really don’t think Steven wants to create a game that feels bad to play. He has certainly drawn some lines in the sand on many different things, but he certainly seems willing to gauge the spectrum of opinions and adapt while not crossing those lines.

    His passion about making an mmorpg that actually feels good to play, that dream game, drives a large amount of my positivity. I mean the man reworked combat how many times to try to make it look and feel right.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Quite possibly. I don’t really view it as him saying intrepid’s philosophy on this is wrong, but more so that there are many ways to adjust it that will need to be tested to make it feel right.

    I really don’t think Steven wants to create a game that feels bad to play. He has certainly drawn some lines in the sand on many different things, but he certainly seems willing to gauge the spectrum of opinions and adapt while not crossing those lines.

    His passion about making an mmorpg that actually feels good to play, that dream game, drives a large amount of my positivity. I mean the man reworked combat how many times to try to make it look and feel right.

    Oh, I'm not saying Steven thinks the design is wrong - sorry if I wasn't clear.

    I'm saying the design *is* wrong, and Steven still seems to be trying to wrap his head around where and why it is wrong. From the outside, it seems to fit the design philosophy of risk vs reward just fine, and this seems to be slowing down his speed in understanding the pushback he is getting.

    The comments I quoted from him are what give me hope he will get there - he just isn't there yet.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    I know it may seem sometimes that I’m in the “l2” camp of gamers but if you go back over the last 20 years of my life and /played my games
    I would almost guarantee my most played mmo type games are WoW, SWtOR, and Warframe. You might call me an enjoyer of the “casual challenge” games. I am however extremely excited for this game.
    I'm not sure which MMORPGs you consider to be Casual Challenge MMORPGs.
    The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Wizard101. Even Wizard101 has competitive PvP.
    And I used to hangout with a group of Hardcore Challenge Elite Arena Wizards who stayed at the top of the leaderboards by using my pet breeding techniques to maximize the PvP spells available on their pets.

    Playstyles can be fluid.
    It's fairly typical for gamers who were Hardcore Time/Hardcore Challenge to become some form of Casual after they graduate from college and no longer have the same amount of free time to devote to playing MMORPGs. It's quite common for gamers who used to be Hardcore Challenge players to become Casual Challenge players once they are married/with kids.
    If you're trying to tell me that you used to be a Casual Challenge player, but now you are a Hardcore Challenge gamer, I wouldn't be surprised.

    If what you are craving right now is the adrenaline rush from Risk v Reward and PvP combat and Economic Warfare... I would place you in the Hardcore Challenge camp. If you are eager to explore the high stakes, auto-consent, Corruption-free Open Seas to battle it out with the player pirates who dwell there - I would place you in the Hardcore Challenge camp, rather than the Casual Challenge camp.
    Because Casual Challenge implies that the player wants to participate in things that are more chill than the adrenaline rush of intense battles vs other players.


    I’m willing to bet that I am not unique and there are lots of people that may fit into the categories of players you suggest based off of how they have gamed over the last couple decades who are certainly excited to see Ashes attempt to do this all correctly.
    Honestly, I did not understand what you were trying to convey.
    It sounds to me something like you are truly a Hardcore Challenge gamer, but you haven't, until Ashes, found an MMORPG that satisfies your PvP combat desires.
    Based on what I think you said... I don't think that is necessarily unique, but it also doesn't counter what I've said about why Casual Challenge players are reacting somewhat negatively to the new reveals of more Hardcore Challenge features and mechanics.
  • HumblePuffinHumblePuffin Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    My point is that the boxes you like to put player groups in tend to be far more fluid than implied, and was giving examples that I too have had my share of enjoyment in my casual, theme park, Care Beary games.

    I’m sure I will degen Ashes in the beginning, but nothing in the current game design makes me feel like I will be unable to casually enjoy the challenge of ashes when I decide touching grass is good again.

    You are certainly right though, this is the first mmorpg I have played/followed in a while that looks like it wants to make owpvp meaningful. Aion got pretty close but fell in to the factions pitfall of red=dead, which took away a lot of meaningful owpvp moments. (Also the dungeons were pretty sub par)
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    I don't think that I indicated that playstyles are static rather than fluid.
    But, what you are talking about is significantly different than what I'm talking about as far as I can tell.
    Which MMORPGs are in your list of Casual/Carebeary games?
    Wizard101 is a family MMORPG. I have never thought of that as a carebeary game since you still level via combat.

    The Carebear Challenge is when you try to reach max level with 0 kills. I don't think you can do that in Wizard101. I'm a Carebear because I spend most of my time avoiding combat and avoiding kills.
    That doesn't mean I never go on killing sprees in certain games.
    Heck... I'm playing Diablo IV right now. I cannot be a carebear in Diablo IV.

    I don't know what you mean by "casually enjoy the challenge of Ashes". I don't see how that is supposed to fit into this discussion.
    I don't know what you mean by touching grass again.
    But, I also never said anything like, "It is now impossible for any Casual Challenge player to enjoy playing Ashes."

    I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say, but it seems to me that we don't actually disagree.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    WoW owpvp is trash, and has zero weight. It’s a pure red=dead mentality. Have I helped out hordies in the open world take down that quest boss they looked like they were gonna die to? Sure. But I would argue red=dead wins out most the time. There are zero consequences to killing people no matter the level difference so you get people camping dungeon entrances for hours and killing FMs. In this game if you keep doing that at some point the person you’re picking on may be able to one tap you.
    When you played WoW, did you primarily play on a PvP server or a PvE-Only server?


    SWtOR owpvp was basically entirely stamped out because of how equally pointless it was and that game is mainly about the story.
    When you played SWtOR, did you primarily play on a PvP server or a PvE server?


    Warframe PvP is pointless and unless you get up to the higher rounds of an endless mission it is casual af. Although admittedly this one doesn’t fit into the normal mmorpg formula.
    When I Google Warframe, I see people asking when the devs are going to create a PvP server.
    And the way you say Warframe PvP is pointless it seems like you feel you would enjoy PvP if someone could design PvP to have the weight you desire.

    So, actually instead of placing you in the Hardcore Challenge camp, I'd probably be more likely to place you in the PvPer camp. It seems as though you are not the type of player who thinks, "This PvP ruleset is too intense - I would rather move over to the PvE-Only server, where it's more chill and I don't have to be concerned about non-consensual PvP."

    ???
  • KilionKilion Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Locking content - especially casual/RP content - is not.

    The issue is: Nothing states that freeholds in every game have to be "casual content". Nothing states that if a game feature can be highly beneficial to RP it has to be easily accessible.

    I'd argue that banding together against these odd forces on Verra to acquire a freehold is an RP element as well which would align with the design choices of Intrepid. But again: there are still too many unknowns so it is still too early to make any final judgments.

    And I don't agree with the framing of "content locking". Legendary items that are heavily weaved into Verra history are also fantastic elements that can play huge roles for RP. Is it "content locking" that only 1-5 people, presumably hardcore players who don't care to much about RPing their way there because it may take too much time, can have them per server? Is that also "bad"?
    The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Kilion wrote: »
    The issue is: Nothing states that freeholds in every game have to be "casual content".

    You could argue this, but Steven himself referred to "core gameplay loops of farming and of livestock" in relation to freeholds.

    Again, I am all for making freeholds top end, scarce things.

    I am not keen on core gameplay loops of farming and of livestock - or other loops - being considered trophies rather than content.
  • Kilion wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Locking content - especially casual/RP content - is not.

    The issue is: Nothing states that freeholds in every game have to be "casual content". Nothing states that if a game feature can be highly beneficial to RP it has to be easily accessible.

    I'd argue that banding together against these odd forces on Verra to acquire a freehold is an RP element as well which would align with the design choices of Intrepid. But again: there are still too many unknowns so it is still too early to make any final judgments.

    Just a little comment, in my experience, the types of players that enjoy RP are seldom part of the uber competitive guilds that would have the means of obtaining Freeholds.

    My impression at the moment, is that the only roles RPers will truly be able to partake in Ashes will be as homeless serfs feeding the rich guild machine.

    I hope I'm wrong. I'm just not seeing what RPers will get from Ashes at the moment, because serious guilds, generally, don't RP. They are playing the game. They are competitive and don't have time for fluff and casual shenanigans.

    RPers love to hang around towns, taverns, put on shows, intermingle, decorate their homes to enhance the RP experience... I'd even wager many would love a Freehold and put them to good use in serving and entertaining the rest of the community.
    "A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities." —J.R.R. Tolkien
  • KilionKilion Member, Alpha Two
    @Dygz Agreed and I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of more PvE focused players quitting at this point. Though to put that into perspective, I have to mention that a few months back the discussion was going exactly the other way, where we had posts about "PvE carebears ruining the game" because the corruption system existing and PvP opportunities seeming too scarces to keep PvP focused players interested. At this point it seems like recency bias to me and depending on the last 2-3 streams people will think the game is catering too much to this or that "side". But ultimately I think we will find is that PvP will only move into focus for gatherers in the borderlands between enemy nodes, freeholds won't be as impossible to get as people fear, corrpution will not kill PvP, there won't be a static game-break meta, people will not be RMTing the game into ruins and dungeon boss mechanics will not be mindless dmg tests because someone could come in and compete with us over them. It won't be as dramatic in any of these cases because A2 will measure a lot of these things, we will have Beta phases to balance these systems and we will have distance through time to calm down a bit after hearing about a feature that is not directly up our aisle. And who knows, maybe when we see the finished product I can invite you to an ale in my tavern :D



    @Noaani Yeah, Steven said that but just because something is part of the core gameplay doesn't mean it has to be accessible to the majority of players, not by a long shot - just like epic and legendary items are core features of RPG gameplay incentives. WoW tried that, gave even the casuals easy epics and then found out that they had to reintroduce distinctions via item levels, so no longer the color of the item was relevant, now the level was.

    And as far as I remember Steven called freeholds a big attainment, not a trophy. But ignoring the semantics here for a moment: Freeholds can be both, objects of high prestige AND core gameplay features. There is no rule that declares that good or bad from the get go, if it works in Ashes, it works - full stop. And that is once again something testing will show, we won't figure this one out beforehand.
    The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
  • KilionKilion Member, Alpha Two
    LadyZel wrote: »
    Kilion wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Locking content - especially casual/RP content - is not.

    The issue is: Nothing states that freeholds in every game have to be "casual content". Nothing states that if a game feature can be highly beneficial to RP it has to be easily accessible.

    I'd argue that banding together against these odd forces on Verra to acquire a freehold is an RP element as well which would align with the design choices of Intrepid. But again: there are still too many unknowns so it is still too early to make any final judgments.

    Just a little comment, in my experience, the types of players that enjoy RP are seldom part of the uber competitive guilds that would have the means of obtaining Freeholds.

    My impression at the moment, is that the only roles RPers will truly be able to partake in Ashes will be as homeless serfs feeding the rich guild machine.

    I hope I'm wrong. I'm just not seeing what RPers will get from Ashes at the moment, because serious guilds, generally, don't RP. They are playing the game. They are competitive and don't have time for fluff and casual shenanigans.

    RPers love to hang around towns, taverns, put on shows, intermingle, decorate their homes to enhance the RP experience... I'd even wager many would love a Freehold and put them to good use in serving and entertaining the rest of the community.

    I guess what your concern comes down to is how intense the competition on each server will be. I don't rule out that your worries might turn out to be true... however, I think they will mainly manifest on servers with a huge number of highly active, highly competitive players. There will be servers where that number is lower, where the overall mood is less focused on competition for the top spots of the hierarchies. But there will also be those where high competition will focus more on borderland regions and around the biggest nodes, while outskirt regions more towards the edge of the map will be less of a battlefield, especially since there is no map wrap.

    I think observing the demographics of a server will be a key thing in this game, exactly because players will have so much agency in Ashes. Finding the right server community for what YOU want to do might be the make-or-break point more than many realize.
    The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Kilion wrote: »
    Noaani Yeah, Steven said that but just because something is part of the core gameplay doesn't mean it has to be accessible to the majority of players, not by a long shot - just like epic and legendary items are core features of RPG gameplay incentives. WoW tried that, gave even the casuals easy epics and then found out that they had to reintroduce distinctions via item levels, so no longer the color of the item was relevant, now the level was.
    You are right that not all players should have access to epic and legendary gear. 100% behind that.

    However, if a developer was stupid enough to make a game where the only gear was epic and legendary, then everyone should have access to it.

    The resolution to that situation isn't to give all players epic and legendary gear, it is to add in some gear tiers below that.

    That is what I am saying here.
  • Kilion wrote: »
    LadyZel wrote: »
    Kilion wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Locking content - especially casual/RP content - is not.

    The issue is: Nothing states that freeholds in every game have to be "casual content". Nothing states that if a game feature can be highly beneficial to RP it has to be easily accessible.

    I'd argue that banding together against these odd forces on Verra to acquire a freehold is an RP element as well which would align with the design choices of Intrepid. But again: there are still too many unknowns so it is still too early to make any final judgments.

    Just a little comment, in my experience, the types of players that enjoy RP are seldom part of the uber competitive guilds that would have the means of obtaining Freeholds.

    My impression at the moment, is that the only roles RPers will truly be able to partake in Ashes will be as homeless serfs feeding the rich guild machine.

    I hope I'm wrong. I'm just not seeing what RPers will get from Ashes at the moment, because serious guilds, generally, don't RP. They are playing the game. They are competitive and don't have time for fluff and casual shenanigans.

    RPers love to hang around towns, taverns, put on shows, intermingle, decorate their homes to enhance the RP experience... I'd even wager many would love a Freehold and put them to good use in serving and entertaining the rest of the community.

    I guess what your concern comes down to is how intense the competition on each server will be. I don't rule out that your worries might turn out to be true... however, I think they will mainly manifest on servers with a huge number of highly active, highly competitive players. There will be servers where that number is lower, where the overall mood is less focused on competition for the top spots of the hierarchies. But there will also be those where high competition will focus more on borderland regions and around the biggest nodes, while outskirt regions more towards the edge of the map will be less of a battlefield, especially since there is no map wrap.

    I think observing the demographics of a server will be a key thing in this game, exactly because players will have so much agency in Ashes. Finding the right server community for what YOU want to do might be the make-or-break point more than many realize.

    Yes, I think you've nailed my overall concern with Ashes. It's really accessibility to content. I do worry that some players will have so much power and control that it will determine the experiences of the many.

    I think, perhaps, Steven and the Ashes devs have far more faith in the hardcore side of the community than I do. I just don't trust other players with too much power and influence.

    Your post did make me ponder on the possibility that RPers might galvanise and choose to gather on the same server/s to help shape a more communal/fun/casual atmosphere.

    I have no issue with competition, etc, if players were more mature in the way they operated in pvx games. I guess: I don't trust other players.
    "A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities." —J.R.R. Tolkien
  • KilionKilion Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Kilion wrote: »
    Noaani Yeah, Steven said that but just because something is part of the core gameplay doesn't mean it has to be accessible to the majority of players, not by a long shot - just like epic and legendary items are core features of RPG gameplay incentives. WoW tried that, gave even the casuals easy epics and then found out that they had to reintroduce distinctions via item levels, so no longer the color of the item was relevant, now the level was.
    You are right that not all players should have access to epic and legendary gear. 100% behind that.

    However, if a developer was stupid enough to make a game where the only gear was epic and legendary, then everyone should have access to it.

    The resolution to that situation isn't to give all players epic and legendary gear, it is to add in some gear tiers below that.

    That is what I am saying here.

    And I am not against your idea of "tiny freeholds" (I just named them that because I don't remember how you described them exactly). But those should only be implemeted if it turns out that there truly are too few freeholds in the current design itteration - and that will have to be tested ingame.
    The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
  • KilionKilion Member, Alpha Two
    @LadyZel And I get why, but I mentioned this further up in my comment addressed at Dygz - I think much of the concerns may be more due to recency bias than we all might realize. To quote: "At this point it seems like recency bias to me and depending on the last 2-3 streams people will think the game is catering too much to this or that "side". But ultimately I think we will find is that PvP will only move into focus for gatherers in the borderlands between enemy nodes, freeholds won't be as impossible to get as people fear, corrpution will not kill PvP, there won't be a static game-break meta, people will not be RMTing the game into ruins and dungeon boss mechanics will not be mindless dmg tests because someone could come in and compete with us over them. It won't be as dramatic in any of these cases because A2 will measure a lot of these things, we will have Beta phases to balance these systems and we will have distance through time to calm down a bit after hearing about a feature that is not directly up our aisle."

    Add to that the deliberate vetting for a suitable server and I think this game will turn out to be very enjoyable to many different groups plus feel very different on those various servers.
    The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Kilion wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Kilion wrote: »
    Noaani Yeah, Steven said that but just because something is part of the core gameplay doesn't mean it has to be accessible to the majority of players, not by a long shot - just like epic and legendary items are core features of RPG gameplay incentives. WoW tried that, gave even the casuals easy epics and then found out that they had to reintroduce distinctions via item levels, so no longer the color of the item was relevant, now the level was.
    You are right that not all players should have access to epic and legendary gear. 100% behind that.

    However, if a developer was stupid enough to make a game where the only gear was epic and legendary, then everyone should have access to it.

    The resolution to that situation isn't to give all players epic and legendary gear, it is to add in some gear tiers below that.

    That is what I am saying here.

    And I am not against your idea of "tiny freeholds" (I just named them that because I don't remember how you described them exactly). But those should only be implemeted if it turns out that there truly are too few freeholds in the current design itteration - and that will have to be tested ingame.

    No, they should be in the game to start with.

    Players will leave a game for not having something like this. By and large, they won't return to a game if it is added.

    What negative situation could arise if there is too much player land that is worse than players leaving the game, and not easily able to be fixed via levers that can be added to the system?
  • Kilion wrote: »
    @LadyZel And I get why, but I mentioned this further up in my comment addressed at Dygz - I think much of the concerns may be more due to recency bias than we all might realize. To quote: "At this point it seems like recency bias to me and depending on the last 2-3 streams people will think the game is catering too much to this or that "side". But ultimately I think we will find is that PvP will only move into focus for gatherers in the borderlands between enemy nodes, freeholds won't be as impossible to get as people fear, corrpution will not kill PvP, there won't be a static game-break meta, people will not be RMTing the game into ruins and dungeon boss mechanics will not be mindless dmg tests because someone could come in and compete with us over them. It won't be as dramatic in any of these cases because A2 will measure a lot of these things, we will have Beta phases to balance these systems and we will have distance through time to calm down a bit after hearing about a feature that is not directly up our aisle."

    Add to that the deliberate vetting for a suitable server and I think this game will turn out to be very enjoyable to many different groups plus feel very different on those various servers.

    My hope would be exactly as you describe, that pvp would be strategic, rather than a free-for-all (I know the corruption system would apparently help as well), but pvpers... (I can only speak from my experience) are blood-thirsty and often don't have the patience or maturity to play that way.

    I do feel Ashes will need a mature audience to make it function as intended.

    But as you say, quite reassuringly, recency bias is playing into my current concerns. Absolutely. And as things progress, and even more of the game is shown, it may inspire more confidence in me that a place is possible for me and mine in Ashes after all.

    Further alpha tests, and beyond, will reveal the true challenges and potential issues. Not even the devs, right now, knows 100% if these systems will be truly successful or whether they'll need to make tweaks or other changes.
    "A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities." —J.R.R. Tolkien
  • KilionKilion Member, Alpha Two
    I would be agreeing to your concerns, as I count myself as a PvE player - mainly because I don't see fighting over the attainments of others as very meaningful and suck at it, too - but from all I have seen in the development so far and read on sites like the wiki led me to the conclusion that the impatient, indescriminate trouble maker will not be able to progress anywhere close to what other players will be able to attain in Ashes and ultimately fail to succeed in in causing significant trouble over all. That is the neat thing about games: If carefully designed certain behaviors will be like running head first into a wall and I think the type of behavior you have described will quickly lead to someone smashing face first into that wall as they will not be able to avoid corruption, in-system reputation loss as well as tarnishing their name on the server which will inhibit their success or completely lock them out of cooperative content.
    The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    Kilion wrote: »
    And who knows, maybe when we see the finished product I can invite you to an ale in my tavern :D
    Oh. I will very likely accept an invitation for an ale at your tavern.
    My Bartle score is: Explorer 87; Socializer 73; Achiever 47; Killer 0.
    I now have no interest in pursuing any of the progression paths, so...
    My avatar will have minimal xp, minimal Levels, no Inventory, and trash/starter gear hidden by cosmetics.
    Death penalties will be irrelevant because I'm not pursuing progression, so...
    I have no problem hanging out for a bit in the game to socialize.

    When I say I won't play Ashes, it doesn't mean I refuse to step foot in the game, at all, ever.
    It means I have 0 interest in putting any effort into any of the progression paths.
    When I want to actually play an MMORPG, I will be spending 8+ hours per day in some other game.
    But, if someone wants me to hang out with them for 15-20 minutes at a party - I'm down for socializing in game.

    I'm Braver of Worlds, so... it's not like I have to pay a subscription fee to hop into the game for a few minutes a couple times per month to socialize.
  • Kilion wrote: »
    I would be agreeing to your concerns, as I count myself as a PvE player - mainly because I don't see fighting over the attainments of others as very meaningful and suck at it, too - but from all I have seen in the development so far and read on sites like the wiki led me to the conclusion that the impatient, indescriminate trouble maker will not be able to progress anywhere close to what other players will be able to attain in Ashes and ultimately fail to succeed in in causing significant trouble over all. That is the neat thing about games: If carefully designed certain behaviors will be like running head first into a wall and I think the type of behavior you have described will quickly lead to someone smashing face first into that wall as they will not be able to avoid corruption, in-system reputation loss as well as tarnishing their name on the server which will inhibit their success or completely lock them out of cooperative content.

    Yes, that sounds ideal. Players can't be controlled, but they can be curtailed where appropriate. I hope the devs are able to get this right.
    I just want an adventurous experience, where I'll feel, as long as I work hard and long enough, that I too can get a little slice of the pie.

    It would be amazing to see a flourishing environment that's thriving with commerce, fun, and life. Competition, yes, but also cooperation.
    "A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities." —J.R.R. Tolkien
  • HumblePuffinHumblePuffin Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    WoW owpvp is trash, and has zero weight. It’s a pure red=dead mentality. Have I helped out hordies in the open world take down that quest boss they looked like they were gonna die to? Sure. But I would argue red=dead wins out most the time. There are zero consequences to killing people no matter the level difference so you get people camping dungeon entrances for hours and killing FMs. In this game if you keep doing that at some point the person you’re picking on may be able to one tap you.
    When you played WoW, did you primarily play on a PvP server or a PvE-Only server?


    SWtOR owpvp was basically entirely stamped out because of how equally pointless it was and that game is mainly about the story.
    When you played SWtOR, did you primarily play on a PvP server or a PvE server?


    Warframe PvP is pointless and unless you get up to the higher rounds of an endless mission it is casual af. Although admittedly this one doesn’t fit into the normal mmorpg formula.
    When I Google Warframe, I see people asking when the devs are going to create a PvP server.
    And the way you say Warframe PvP is pointless it seems like you feel you would enjoy PvP if someone could design PvP to have the weight you desire.

    So, actually instead of placing you in the Hardcore Challenge camp, I'd probably be more likely to place you in the PvPer camp. It seems as though you are not the type of player who thinks, "This PvP ruleset is too intense - I would rather move over to the PvE-Only server, where it's more chill and I don't have to be concerned about non-consensual PvP."

    ???

    I did, I did, and that’s some google bias right there because no, the community at large does not give a single crap about PvP and that is extremely understandable because the PvP that does exist in it hugely waters down how godly you feel to accommodate PvP.

    Warframe is kind of like Diablo IV but set in a space ninja third person shooter world. Big numbers, big hordes, in a cooperative pve setting.

    Even though I did play the first two on a PvP server I don’t believe that it adds a lot of weight because it didn’t overly change how I played the game.

    SWtOR is the easiest one to explain why because honestly owpvp might has well not even existed after a couple months. In my years of playing that game on and off again I don’t think I have ever attacked or been attack in the opening world since shortly after launch. It’s all casual AF, story mode stuff in a multiplayer setting at this point.

    My experience in WoW includes more owpvp experiences than swtor, but playing on a PvP server still felt quite similar with extremely minimal *legit* owpvp scenarios(I am not including a faction blocking a dungeon entrance or flight points. There is zero consequence, with little reward and is basically just griefing and zerging, not any kind of meaningful PvP)

    My most recent experience with WoW in BC classic, on a PvP server resulted in me spending 90% of my time mining and gathering primals to sell in auction. Initially my server was rather equal and even on equal footing, the way the factions are split up I think I encountered owpvp scenarios maybe like 10-20 times in months.

    As I said though faction PvP leads to red=dead mentality and removed a lot of the social aspects and decisions that go into why you want to PvP. It makes sense to me that people have a bad taste in their mouth about owpvp because of how binary the system becomes in those games.

    Went on a tangent there but my point is that I would say a large amount of the gamers in the world do not fit in to these neat little groupings. I do enjoy me some PvP, but I also enjoy casually playing games, life skilling, playing solo, no lifing games, fighting games, rts, fps, story games. I guess if I don’t fall into the box of enjoying casual challenge games, I probably fit in the box of casual hardcore pve life skill pvper who’s not afraid to get down with some rp.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2023
    I think it's not so much about how you play the game but whether you feel comfortable playing on a server with a particular PvP ruleset.
    For me, a PvPer is someone who enjoys playing MMORPGS on PvP servers or PvP-Optional servers. And a PvEer is someone who prefers playing on PvE-Only.
    A PvPer is going to feel comfortable playing UO, whereas a PvEer is likely to find the PvP to intense to be willing to play UO.

    I only use PvPer and PvEer in relation to MMORPGs specifically.
    I don't use those terms for RTS or Fighting games, etc. I'm not even sure how one uses PvE to apply to RTS or Fighting games.
    When I play an MMORPG what I first want to know is the PvP ruleset for the available servers so I can guage the frequency with which I am likely to be forced into non-consensual PvP and what the negative ramifications to my play session time will be.

    So, again, the way you describe yourself, it seems like you typically feel comfortable playing on PvP servers.
    I don't. Even though I enjoy PvP sometimes, I always move from PvP Optional servers to PvE-Only servers.
    Also, while you seem to have no issue with the PvP ruleset Ashes offers, I do. Especially in the Open Seas.
    So... it appears to me that you do fit within my binary categories.

    In MMORPGs, PvPers also have to do some PvE, so it's not surprising that PvPers also do some life-skilling etc.
    To me, PvPer means you have no problem doing stuff while under constant threat of PvP.
    It means you generally feel comfortable being always flagged for PvP.
    As opposed to a PvEer, who generally does not feel comfortable being always flagged for PvP.

    But, it doesn't really matter in any case because I never claimed that every single person who contemplates playing Ashes will fit neatly into these categories. If you are looking forward to experiencing the PvP ruleset that Ashes offers, that's awesome.
    I think you don't represent the players who look at Ashes and immediately want to know what is going to prevent them from feeling overwhelmed by always being vulnerable to non-consensual PvP.

    We don't use terms the same way, so I think it's true that we won't see the issue the same way.
    Truly the issue is: How do you get players concerned about non-consensual PvP to be willing to play on the same servers as gamers who refuse to acknowledge that non-consensual PvP is a valid concept.
    It's easier to label those two groups as PveEr and PvPer. Gamers who aren't concerned about non-consensual PvP probably fall into the PvPer group because they are likely to feel comfortable playing on PvP servers.
    It doesn't matter what you spent your time doing on the PvP server. What matters is that you felt comfortable doing anything on the PvP server.
    Why I would want to PvP is mostly irrelevant because I realy don't want to spend much time competing with other players. I don't really want to spend much time playing in opposition to other players.

    In terms of Hardcore Challenge v Casual Challenge. It's a spectrum, so... of course there can be people in the middle. There can be people who would say, " I just like to play whatever."
    Sure.
    But... game devs are going to be trying to design content that is targeted for Hardcore Challenge players or Casual Challenge players. Therefore, it becomes possible to guage towards which end a game skews.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    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
    For most players, it does.

    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?

    you can have content for every type of player, but not all content will be available to all players at the same time in a game where there is scarcity and you have to fight over resources. its like saying oh this is a pvp survival mmorpg but everybody has access to every gatherable and you dont have to fight over it.

    every game is designed differently. just because other games were made in a way that everybody had everything, doesn't mean they were right or wrong.

    also, back to definitions. what is rp?

    rp isnt just logging in and being like "hail my liege, thou are welcome to my tavern, feel free to drinketh and eateth as much as you fancy". there are so many elements that are present in a rpg (not just talking like you are someone else), and all you and other people are seeing is "oh i cant farm tomatoes or run a tavern". this is either cherry picking or ignorance.

    but you probably disagree with this. if you do, please explain to me what is rp.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    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
    For most players, it does.

    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?

    you can have content for every type of player, but not all content will be available to all players at the same time in a game where there is scarcity and you have to fight over resources. its like saying oh this is a pvp survival mmorpg but everybody has access to every gatherable and you dont have to fight over it.

    every game is designed differently. just because other games were made in a way that everybody had everything, doesn't mean they were right or wrong.
    You can't have content for every player, but you can have as much content for as many players as possible while still maintaining your core game concept.

    The suggestion I have put forward a number of times in relation to allowing players with freeholds to sell the ability to place a smaller freehold on the land they have the rights to does not alter any of the games core game concepts, adds content for more players, and gives those that get a freehold an additional aspect to it's ownership.

    It is at this point that there becomes no real reason to not do something along these lines.
    also, back to definitions. what is rp?

    rp isnt just logging in and being like "hail my liege, thou are welcome to my tavern, feel free to drinketh and eateth as much as you fancy". there are so many elements that are present in a rpg (not just talking like you are someone else), and all you and other people are seeing is "oh i cant farm tomatoes or run a tavern". this is either cherry picking or ignorance.

    but you probably disagree with this. if you do, please explain to me what is rp.

    Literally none of this matters to the discussion at all. Not even a little bit.

    The reason it doesn't matter is because Steven has - in the past - talked about the RP concept of player run taverns being one potential use of freeholds.

    That is what matters. Defining that does not.
Sign In or Register to comment.