HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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 too intense to be willing to play UO.
I can generally get behind that even if I disagree with some specifics. I don’t think many people who would possibly classify themselves as “pvpers” would be able to handle UO. That game was rather intense.
I only use PvPer and PvEer in relation to MMORPGs specifically.
Gotcha
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.
Probably story mode only players but I do agree no one uses PvX qualifiers in those games. In StarCraft 2 I guess the co-op mode is pretty PvE-y
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.
Roger roger
Also, while you seem to have no issue with the PvP ruleset Ashes offers, I do. Especially in the Open Seas.
True, understood, and yeah I agree. Somewhere around this place I commented about how I think the current explanation of the open seas qualifier will have negative consequences and what I hope it eventually will be adjusted to.
Just as I have a problem with the red=dead mentality in faction owpvp games, I believe the current way open seas is going based off of our current information will devolve into something similar. I feel like if they don’t want it to be as punishing they could adjust open seas corruption or something but that’s really a nuanced debate for another day.
So... it appears to me that you do fit within my binary categories.
Still disagree but that is something I do feel I am more unique with than your average person. When you ask someone what music they like the default can commonly be “oh I like everything”, but when you start talking to that person it becomes apparent “oh no there’s actually lots of things you don’t like”. I am not that person. I say I like everything, and I mean that with high probability anything you put on I will find enjoyment in it. Doesn’t matter if that’s death metal, or classical, country or techno.
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.
Roger roger. I think there’s still more room for nuance within the general concepts here, but I can respect that as your personal perspective.
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.
This is true that I am not representative of that group, but I am someone who earnestly feels it is beneficial for my experience, and the game as a whole to attempt to find a reasonable common ground with that group, while not pushing past the lines in the sand of “non-consensual PvP can happen”, and on the opposite side “there are significant consequences to non consensual PvP”. I do personally believe that there can be a sweet spot that does not alienate either side except the most die hards of each. That belief can be viewed as very self serving though because as I said I could land on either side of this spectrum depending on the day but regardless I think it would be helpful for long term retention.
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
I think this was kind of my original point. The pvper/PvEer labels feel too broad, and those concerned about non-consensual pvp, and those that aren’t concerned about it within the context of this game are not necessarily strictly pve/pvp players. If I was to play retail WoW right now I would be right there with you on the idea of owpvp in that context because I feel that owpvp in retail is more pointless than it’s ever been in WoW history. If I was to play retail right now I would be doing it for the PvE raiding, dungeons, mythics and questing, and I would enjoy that. Hopefully that helps to make more sense out of my position in relation to yours on this.
In terms of Hardcore Challenge v Casual Challenge. It's a spectrum, so... of course there can be people in the middle.
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.
I generally agree. Specifically that is one of the reasons why I have continued to have so much faith in Steven’s vision. To me it seems like he is trying to hit the middle ground. Some things lean more one way or another, and I can agree that recent clarifications have leaned more towards that hardcore end.
You can call it naivety(not saying you did btw), but it feels to me like he is trying his best to thread that needle to make an mmorpg world that a wide array of players on that spectrum can enjoy. Where it ends up on the spectrum, time will tell.
0
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
How does processing up till level 3 in a node, apartments, inns, node marketplaces, node player shops, etc not fit into this logic. Those are literally “tiers below that” with “that” being freehold processing/shops/farming/decorating/etc.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I generally agree. Specifically that is one of the reasons why I have continued to have so much faith in Steven’s vision. To me it seems like he is trying to hit the middle ground. Some things lean more one way or another, and I can agree that recent clarifications have leaned more towards that hardcore end.
You can call it naivety(not saying you did btw), but it feels to me like he is trying his best to thread that needle to make an mmorpg world that a wide array of players on that spectrum can enjoy. Where it ends up on the spectrum, time will tell.
Oh! I have faith in Steven's vision. It's just not the kind of MMORPG I like to play.
And, he frequently says that Ashes is not made for everyone and he thinks it's not wise to try to make a game for everyone.
He's not wrong about that.
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.
How does processing up till level 3 in a node, apartments, inns, node marketplaces, node player shops, etc not fit into this logic. Those are literally “tiers below that” with “that” being freehold processing/shops/farming/decorating/etc.
Processing isnt the only function of freeholds.
If it were literally all they could do, I'd have less of an issue.
I've said before that blocking top tier processing is fine, the problem is when you also block other things in with top tier processing.
This applies to anything. If players can block others from content, that blockade should only prevent players from doing the content the blockade was set up to block.
If you want to give players the ability to blockade others in regards to processing, that's not only fine, but great. However, the act of blocking someone from processing shouldnt also block them from animal husbandry, or farming, or running a tavern, or the aspects of freehold use that impact the land management system
If Intrepid wants each of these things to be on the list of activities that players can block one another in, that's fine. However, each should be it's own thing - if I want to block you from processing (which realistically should be broken down in to school processing profession), then I should be able to. If I want to block you from farming, I should also be able to, but that should require a completely different activity from me. I shouldnt be able to do one thing to block you off from both
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
How does processing up till level 3 in a node, apartments, inns, node marketplaces, node player shops, etc not fit into this logic. Those are literally “tiers below that” with “that” being freehold processing/shops/farming/decorating/etc.
Processing isnt the only function of freeholds.
If it were literally all they could do, I'd have less of an issue.
I've said before that blocking top tier processing is fine, the problem is when you also block other things in with top tier processing.
This applies to anything. If players can block others from content, that blockade should only prevent players from doing the content the blockade was set up to block.
If you want to give players the ability to blockade others in regards to processing, that's not only fine, but great. However, the act of blocking someone from processing shouldnt also block them from animal husbandry, or farming, or running a tavern, or the aspects of freehold use that impact the land management system
If Intrepid wants each of these things to be on the list of activities that players can block one another in, that's fine. However, each should be it's own thing - if I want to block you from processing (which realistically should be broken down in to school processing profession), then I should be able to. If I want to block you from farming, I should also be able to, but that should require a completely different activity from me. I shouldnt be able to do one thing to block you off from both
The reality is that you are not completly blocked off. You have avenues. You can join the family or you can join the guild. You can be a citizen. Those are the easy paths. Or you can raise an army and take it from them. That is another option. Unless you are trying to play solo and do not want to do any of these things then its going to be a rough go as this game pushes toward group involvement. Also there will be many freeholds out there, not just the ones that possibly will cut people out of the loop. Personally I would think that would be a bad move for the crafters to be able to sell their wares being they would have a bad reputation.
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.
How does processing up till level 3 in a node, apartments, inns, node marketplaces, node player shops, etc not fit into this logic. Those are literally “tiers below that” with “that” being freehold processing/shops/farming/decorating/etc.
Processing isnt the only function of freeholds.
If it were literally all they could do, I'd have less of an issue.
If you want to give players the ability to blockade others in regards to processing, that's not only fine, but great. However, the act of blocking someone from processing shouldnt also block them from animal husbandry, or farming, or running a tavern, or the aspects of freehold use that impact the land management system
If Intrepid wants each of these things to be on the list of activities that players can block one another in, that's fine. However, each should be it's own thing - if I want to block you from processing (which realistically should be broken down in to school processing profession), then I should be able to. If I want to block you from farming, I should also be able to, but that should require a completely different activity from me. I shouldnt be able to do one thing to block you off from both
*wake up, pulls up Artisan class wiki*
That was my point though. Steven directly referenced farming and animal husbandry in a quote:
“The intent is that there are also public spaces where animal husbandry and farming can be utilized... Those systems provide opportunities for players who might be more solo-oriented, aren't a part of a family, don't think they'll be able to acquire a freehold, but still want to participate with those particular particular types of professions. But they may not do it at a mastery level as a result; but they'll still have access to lower-tier versions of that so that they can progress through that particular profession up to a degree.”[40] – Steven Sharif
Animal husbandry is a processing profession btw.
Apartments and inns can provide housing for storage and decorating and what not so not exclusive to freeholds.
Player stalls and market places provide a place to set up a shop and sell your goods so not exclusive to freeholds.
I could be forgetting a feature but the only thing that I can think of that is actually blocked by freeholds are tavern games, but a quick wiki search to make sure says that they can also be present in nodes.
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.
How does processing up till level 3 in a node, apartments, inns, node marketplaces, node player shops, etc not fit into this logic. Those are literally “tiers below that” with “that” being freehold processing/shops/farming/decorating/etc.
Processing isnt the only function of freeholds.
If it were literally all they could do, I'd have less of an issue.
If you want to give players the ability to blockade others in regards to processing, that's not only fine, but great. However, the act of blocking someone from processing shouldnt also block them from animal husbandry, or farming, or running a tavern, or the aspects of freehold use that impact the land management system
If Intrepid wants each of these things to be on the list of activities that players can block one another in, that's fine. However, each should be it's own thing - if I want to block you from processing (which realistically should be broken down in to school processing profession), then I should be able to. If I want to block you from farming, I should also be able to, but that should require a completely different activity from me. I shouldnt be able to do one thing to block you off from both
*wake up, pulls up Artisan class wiki*
That was my point though. Steven directly referenced farming and animal husbandry in a quote:
“The intent is that there are also public spaces where animal husbandry and farming can be utilized... Those systems provide opportunities for players who might be more solo-oriented, aren't a part of a family, don't think they'll be able to acquire a freehold, but still want to participate with those particular particular types of professions. But they may not do it at a mastery level as a result; but they'll still have access to lower-tier versions of that so that they can progress through that particular profession up to a degree.”[40] – Steven Sharif
Animal husbandry is a processing profession btw.
Apartments and inns can provide housing for storage and decorating and what not so not exclusive to freeholds.
Player stalls and market places provide a place to set up a shop and sell your goods so not exclusive to freeholds.
I could be forgetting a feature but the only thing that I can think of that is actually blocked by freeholds are tavern games, but a quick wiki search to make sure says that they can also be present in nodes.
Im going to go over each of your points here.
Public use processing equipment is not really satisfactory. It goes up to level 30 out of 50 - that is what tier three means. Players should not be cut off in this manner. Players should have access to all materials and crafting stations to get them up to being able to make entry level gear for level capped players. It is ok to then *start* to make things harder from that point on, but a simple "you have access until level 30 and then no access at all without a large guild" is not good design. That progression, that work you need to put in, it needs to be gradual, not sudden.
Sure, animal husbandry is a processing class (as is farming), but animal husbandry has it's own unique gameplay loop to it - to the point where it will have to have it's own UI elements. That is why it is worth singling out along with farming (I'll get to that soon).
As to appartments and Inns - first off, Inns are out of the question as being relavent. Intrepid lists them as being temporary housing.
Appartments offer the basics of having storage space, but not much more. Decorating an instanced appartment isn't really the same gameplay experience as decorating a part of the games world space.
Player stalls and markets offer a place to sell, not a place to set up a shop. Again, different experiences.
As to your assumption that you are not missing any freehold features, I suggest looking at the land management page on the wiki to see it's connection with farming - do a search for the word "freehold" if you like, though the appropriate part of the page should be right near the top.
0
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
*sips coffee*
Public use processing equipment is not really satisfactory. It goes up to level 30 out of 50 - that is what tier three means. Players should not be cut off in this manner.
Sure, animal husbandry is a processing class (as is farming), but animal husbandry has it's own unique gameplay loop to it - to the point where it will have to have it's own UI elements. That is why it is worth singling out along with farming (I'll get to that soon).
-we have no idea on the relevance of tier 3 mats. I’m vanilla WoW there were quite a few classes BiS gear from lower levels. If this was the second or 3rd expansion of this game I would be more concerned but it’s not even out yet.
Gonna be honest I’m not entirely seeing your land management point your trying to make from reading the wiki. Crop rotations maybe? Idk. Most of the land management seems relevant to out in the world resources. More than happy to be directed to what I’m missing though.
Appartments offer the basics of having storage space, but not much more. Decorating an instanced appartment isn't really the same gameplay experience as decorating a part of the games world space.
-agreed it is not the same But it sounds like a tier of that to me.
Player stalls and markets offer a place to sell, not a place to set up a shop. Again, different experiences
-One better that I actually forgot in relationship to player shops/stalls: “Certificates from economic node metropolises allow placement anywhere in the world.[3][5]”
This is Nikua player shop concept art:
Looks pretty shoppy to me.
Public use processing equipment is not really satisfactory. It goes up to level 30 out of 50 - that is what tier three means. Players should not be cut off in this manner.
Sure, animal husbandry is a processing class (as is farming), but animal husbandry has it's own unique gameplay loop to it - to the point where it will have to have it's own UI elements. That is why it is worth singling out along with farming (I'll get to that soon).
-we have no idea on the relevance of tier 3 mats. I’m vanilla WoW there were quite a few classes BiS gear from lower levels. If this was the second or 3rd expansion of this game I would be more concerned but it’s not even out yet.
Yeah, but WoW had absolutely horrible design in literally every aspect - especially at launch. We shouldn't be assuming that Ashes horrible game design in relation to freeholds will be fixed by copying horrible game deisgn from WoW.
This isn't just about gear though, it means a person working a processing class has a hard stop at level 30, and needs to be in a large guild to progress.
This is just bad game design that there is no excuse for.
-One better that I actually forgot in relationship to player shops/stalls: “Certificates from economic node metropolises allow placement anywhere in the world.[3][5]”
Those certificates require a metropolis level economic node. Not a suitable substitution.
Gonna be honest I’m not entirely seeing your land management point your trying to make from reading the wiki. Crop rotations maybe? Idk. Most of the land management seems relevant to out in the world resources. More than happy to be directed to what I’m missing though.
Crop rotations on freeholds increase an areas land health value (a concept I hope is just never added to the game).
A higher land health value increases the respawn rate of resources and mobs.
This means guilds will want freeholds in areas they want to farm for materials or certificates, meaning they will want even more freeholds than they would have (my current estimate is that an average guild of about 60 people will want 35 - 50 freeholds).
Where does the notion come from that "Journeyman" associates with a level cap come from? I haven't found anything in the wiki that states that Journeyman proficiency looks an artisan out of recipies beyond level 30 and it feels much more intuitive to have quality caps.
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2023
Not talking about in WoW specifically but why is lower tier things being relevant a bad thing? I personally think it’s bad game design to have only the highest of the highest tier of everything being relevant. I could get deeper into that regarding what percentage of power gear will be for a player and how that can potentially increase or decrease the relevance of lower tier high grade mats but that’s way too much assuming without having more data.
The wiki says specifically in regards to farms that you may have to get rid of some pests or rotate crops. Just to make sure we are clearer on what a crop rotation is, because gardening irl is one of my biggest hobbies, that means that I don’t plant tomatoes in the same place I planted tomatoes last year. If I do the soil is more likely to have been depleted of the soil resources that tomatoes use so I won’t get as good of a harvest, and I increase the likelihood of pests.
“Land management mechanics are available for gathers”
“The spawn rate of resources in a given area is influenced by how players are interacting with those resources.[19][18]
Drawing excessive amounts of resources may have a deleterious effect on the land health value for that area.[19][18]”
Presumptive without a hard clarification but that reads to me as the trees, the ores, the flowers out in the world are effected by this.
Not a suitable substitution
Those are the out in the world ones, can be purchased by citizens or non citizens, and if it’s a certificate from an economic metro you can(based on current information) buy it at the economic node, and then place it anywhere in the world.
Before that though:
They “Can be rented at locations near the unique building in an economic node[11] or in Marketplaces.[12]”
“Marketplaces are constructible node buildings that are available for placement by mayors of any Town (stage 4) node or higher. These are distinct from a market, which is the unique node building that unlocks at Village (stage 3) of Economic nodes.[1]” and these to appear to be tied to citizenship of that node to participate in them.
my current estimate is that an average guild of about 60 people will want 35 - 50 freeholds
If 60 people are able to sustainably handle the freehold taxes of 35-50 freeholds not even taking into consideration the bidding process levers then there is something off with the levers in my opinion. With how hard family and guild access to freeholds have been pushed I think it would be pretty safe to say that they don’t expect 58-83% of a 60 person guild to have their very own freehold.
As I’ve said in other threads, 3-5 freeholds for a guild to max out every single processing profession at the same time and I certainly hope they balance the levers of taxation/permits to promote building up your land not building out your land. If you up that to about 7-8 to include farm land you could max out every processing class, some left over for some housey shit or a tavern/inn, and everyone in the guild would have access to it.
But now we are debating numbers that we really have to wait and see because we are so far off from each other in what we think will be possible within the systems they construct. If taxation and bidding gates are done incorrectly you could have a situation where that number is the whole 60 can get and maintain one, or it’s so restrictive that you can’t even support that 3-5 range I stated. We will see.
Plus we get a nodes showcase this month. Hopefully it will provide some answers to those node related questions.
Where does the notion come from that "Journeyman" associates with a level cap on items produced, rather than a quality cap? I haven't found anything in the wiki that stats that Journeyman proficiency looks an artisan out of recipies beyond level 30.
Steven said level 30 in the livestream with whoever it was with recently.
Where does the notion come from that "Journeyman" associates with a level cap on items produced, rather than a quality cap? I haven't found anything in the wiki that stats that Journeyman proficiency looks an artisan out of recipies beyond level 30.
Steven said level 30 in the livestream with whoever it was with recently.
Plus we get a nodes showcase this month. Hopefully it will provide some answers to those node related questions.
You seem to be missing the big picture.
All of those things we are talking about here - they are all things that are blocked by one action from other players.
I'm fine with most of those things being blocked in some manner, but that many things being blocked by one action is outrageous.
Farming, alchemy, cooking, milling, metalworking, weaving, tanning masonry, animal husbandry, shops, taverns, world space to decorate, land management effects - all of it blocked in one action.
If someone wants to block me from alchemy, they should be able to. However, the action that blocks me from that should not also block me from animal husbandry. If they want to block me from that as well, they should have to partake in some other blocking action.
This isn't an acceptable game design, and I simply can't see how anyone could think it is. Like, I can't even imagine the perspective one has to take to think it acceptable that so much content should be able to be blocked just via freeholds - a thing that top end guilds have so many reasons to want.
Also, 60 people will be able to pay for 60 freeholds if they had them. Freeholds will - for the most part - be a money making asset.
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.
This is enough for me tbf. Just the acknowledgement that it might be an issue for a lot of players.
It tells me they will either adjust, or that they acknowledge the problem, but won't do anything about it due to it going against their core design principles or whatever. Both are better than just being left in between and in the dark.
Again, my solution would be similar to yours. Add different tiers/sizes of Freeholds.
Freeholds themselves shouldn't be some prestigious trophies, but getting the highest level of Freehold with all the buildings, etc., should.
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Plus we get a nodes showcase this month. Hopefully it will provide some answers to those node related questions.
You seem to be missing the big picture.
All of those things we are talking about here - they are all things that are blocked by one action from other players.
I'm fine with most of those things being blocked in some manner, but that many things being blocked by one action is outrageous.
Farming, alchemy, cooking, milling, metalworking, weaving, tanning masonry, animal husbandry, shops, taverns, world space to decorate, land management effects - all of it blocked in one action.
If someone wants to block me from alchemy, they should be able to. However, the action that blocks me from that should not also block me from animal husbandry. If they want to block me from that as well, they should have to partake in some other blocking action.
This isn't an acceptable game design, and I simply can't see how anyone could think it is. Like, I can't even imagine the perspective one has to take to think it acceptable that so much content should be able to be blocked just via freeholds - a thing that top end guilds have so many reasons to want.
Also, 60 people will be able to pay for 60 freeholds if they had them. Freeholds will - for the most part - be a money making asset.
So, what is stopping you from getting your own freehold? What is stopping you from joining a freehold and becoming a citizen? Do you mean that you want freeholds to be public assets that anyone can use? If that is the case then they would have to have a fee attached for use as the freehold owner pays taxes on the lands and the citizens contribute to the taxes.
Freeholds themselves shouldn't be some prestigious trophies, but getting the highest level of Freehold with all the buildings, etc., should.
Indeed.
0
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2023
Personally I think you are missing the bigger picture and talk about systems within their own bubbles without appreciating the effects other systems and game design will have on whatever system you’re talking about. Many of your assumptions of how something will play out seems based on previous games you’ve played that do not contain many of AoCs systems, and definitely don’t contain them all together. I think it’s fine to draw comparisons, but once again this is a different game, with different systems, done in a different way(even though there may be similarities).
Please note I’m not saying that what you are saying is impossible to ever happen, but that is why everything has so many levers. To attempt to make these worst case scenarios you speak of less likely.
You seem to be able to accept that corruption levers can be tuned to achieve the desired level of corrupted players they want, but believe that many other levers they put in place to be incapable of also achieving their desired outcome.
The size of a freehold, the amount of freeholds available based on node stage, the types of nodes, the resources near by, the world size, what nodes even advance creating unexpected ZoI boundaries and the levers put in place all contribute to the viability of guilds achieving that many freeholds especially at that guild size.
Our main differing opinion appears to be that you think there is an extremely high chance for organized people to abuse the system to the detriment to others, and I think, especially after doing some min-maxy math, in context with the levers in place, that there is an extremely high chance this level of blocking can be severely limited.
Until we have additional data, and probably in game experience with the systems I do not feel comfortable saying either of our extremes are accurate. You may feel differently however and that is fine.
Where does the notion come from that "Journeyman" associates with a level cap on items produced, rather than a quality cap? I haven't found anything in the wiki that stats that Journeyman proficiency looks an artisan out of recipies beyond level 30.
Steven said level 30 in the livestream with whoever it was with recently.
I think he is referring to what Steven says at around 12 minute mark in this video.
Processing leaves the node at around level 30. so They were discussing if they should reduce lvl to acquire freeholds from lvl 50 so it becomes seamless.
This doesn't mean gear to make is capped at lvl 30 by the way.
One of my big takeaways from that Kaos and Lace interview is that Steven seems to equate "risk vs. reward" with "exclusivity". Or perhaps rather that arbitrarily hard-capped exclusivity is an inherent part of it. It certainly explains some of the design choices.
So if all this time when Steven has talked about risk vs. reward as a core pillar of the game, what he really meant was exclusivity as a core pillar of the game, it explains a lot and might be the reason so many players are upset with the whole "freeholds are a privilege" thing, that seemingly came out of the blue.
People like risk vs. reward systems, and often say so and they agree loudly with that core game pillar. If Steven misinterprets that as people liking arbitrarily hard-capped exclusivity, it's no wonder we are here now.
When I think of risk vs. reward, arbitrarily hard-capped exclusivity doesn't comes to mind as the first concept or reward. Or even in the top five.
It's fair to consider naturally occurring exclusivity as a by-product of risk vs. reward, because people can fail at a difficult task which has a cost associated with it, but that's not what we are seeing with the currently proposed freehold system.
There is no risk involved in acquiring a freehold, only great reward. It's not difficult, it just requires time to grind. The risk only comes into play if you fail to defend a node siege, but that is a different system that has much wider implications and risks involved than just freeholds, and it's a risk you share with a much wider audience.
To get back to the point of the OP, I agree that final judgement definitely comes much later after things have been tested. With that said, there are also some things that cannot be tested in A2, and that is player behaviour when it comes to scarcity. We won't see that until release. Nothing is on the line for players in A2, because all progress will be wiped anyway. Perhaps several times.
At release all bets are off, and that is the first time we will actually see how freehold scarcity affects the game. That's where the final judgement comes, and by then it might be too late if Intrepid completely misses the mark and can't adjust quickly. One of the things they can't adjust quickly is the amount of available freeholds. Things they can adjust quickly are the amounts of bound currency vs. gold required, as well as things like allowing or disallowing player sales of freeholds.
I would say progression matters more than content. if you cant progress by doing A, just do B.
from steven comments, everything indicates that players and groups of all sizes will have things to do in verra all the time. if you cant get that rare flower because a guild is controlling the spawn, then farm something else with your group, sell it, and buy the flower.
if your goal is to complete as much content as possible, then this probably isnt for you, and not because players will kill you and wont let you do the content, but because all the content wont be available all the time because of node progression, although node progression depends on players and where they decide to level up.
so even if you made everything available to everybody, freeholds, guild halls, etc. people who wants to complete all the content wont be able to, because not all nodes can be level 6.
and thats ok...there are multiple progression paths, just pick one.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2023
It feels to me like Risk v Reward actually means PvP for commensurate rewards.
Steven says of the Open Seas that with greater opportunity and unique treasures, we of course have to have heightened PvP.
He says (greater) Risk, but it's really less risk because the death penalties are at least half-Normal, even if you don't fight back.
(Also, I would say Hardcore Challenge gamers revel in the Risk v Reward systems...)
Comments
I can generally get behind that even if I disagree with some specifics. I don’t think many people who would possibly classify themselves as “pvpers” would be able to handle UO. That game was rather intense.
Gotcha
Probably story mode only players but I do agree no one uses PvX qualifiers in those games. In StarCraft 2 I guess the co-op mode is pretty PvE-y
Roger roger
True, understood, and yeah I agree. Somewhere around this place I commented about how I think the current explanation of the open seas qualifier will have negative consequences and what I hope it eventually will be adjusted to.
Just as I have a problem with the red=dead mentality in faction owpvp games, I believe the current way open seas is going based off of our current information will devolve into something similar. I feel like if they don’t want it to be as punishing they could adjust open seas corruption or something but that’s really a nuanced debate for another day.
Still disagree but that is something I do feel I am more unique with than your average person. When you ask someone what music they like the default can commonly be “oh I like everything”, but when you start talking to that person it becomes apparent “oh no there’s actually lots of things you don’t like”. I am not that person. I say I like everything, and I mean that with high probability anything you put on I will find enjoyment in it. Doesn’t matter if that’s death metal, or classical, country or techno.
Roger roger. I think there’s still more room for nuance within the general concepts here, but I can respect that as your personal perspective.
This is true that I am not representative of that group, but I am someone who earnestly feels it is beneficial for my experience, and the game as a whole to attempt to find a reasonable common ground with that group, while not pushing past the lines in the sand of “non-consensual PvP can happen”, and on the opposite side “there are significant consequences to non consensual PvP”. I do personally believe that there can be a sweet spot that does not alienate either side except the most die hards of each. That belief can be viewed as very self serving though because as I said I could land on either side of this spectrum depending on the day but regardless I think it would be helpful for long term retention.
I think this was kind of my original point. The pvper/PvEer labels feel too broad, and those concerned about non-consensual pvp, and those that aren’t concerned about it within the context of this game are not necessarily strictly pve/pvp players. If I was to play retail WoW right now I would be right there with you on the idea of owpvp in that context because I feel that owpvp in retail is more pointless than it’s ever been in WoW history. If I was to play retail right now I would be doing it for the PvE raiding, dungeons, mythics and questing, and I would enjoy that. Hopefully that helps to make more sense out of my position in relation to yours on this.
I generally agree. Specifically that is one of the reasons why I have continued to have so much faith in Steven’s vision. To me it seems like he is trying to hit the middle ground. Some things lean more one way or another, and I can agree that recent clarifications have leaned more towards that hardcore end.
You can call it naivety(not saying you did btw), but it feels to me like he is trying his best to thread that needle to make an mmorpg world that a wide array of players on that spectrum can enjoy. Where it ends up on the spectrum, time will tell.
How does processing up till level 3 in a node, apartments, inns, node marketplaces, node player shops, etc not fit into this logic. Those are literally “tiers below that” with “that” being freehold processing/shops/farming/decorating/etc.
And, he frequently says that Ashes is not made for everyone and he thinks it's not wise to try to make a game for everyone.
He's not wrong about that.
in the game now? what game? You are so quick to be an authority, you don't even realize how ridiculous it is.
or... are you breaking an NDA?
Hope everyone has a chance to check it out
RPPvP'ers rise up!
Dude, that vernacular is perfectly acceptable as a colloquialism for saying in the game as we currently understand it.
What is your problem here?
Processing isnt the only function of freeholds.
If it were literally all they could do, I'd have less of an issue.
I've said before that blocking top tier processing is fine, the problem is when you also block other things in with top tier processing.
This applies to anything. If players can block others from content, that blockade should only prevent players from doing the content the blockade was set up to block.
If you want to give players the ability to blockade others in regards to processing, that's not only fine, but great. However, the act of blocking someone from processing shouldnt also block them from animal husbandry, or farming, or running a tavern, or the aspects of freehold use that impact the land management system
If Intrepid wants each of these things to be on the list of activities that players can block one another in, that's fine. However, each should be it's own thing - if I want to block you from processing (which realistically should be broken down in to school processing profession), then I should be able to. If I want to block you from farming, I should also be able to, but that should require a completely different activity from me. I shouldnt be able to do one thing to block you off from both
The reality is that you are not completly blocked off. You have avenues. You can join the family or you can join the guild. You can be a citizen. Those are the easy paths. Or you can raise an army and take it from them. That is another option. Unless you are trying to play solo and do not want to do any of these things then its going to be a rough go as this game pushes toward group involvement. Also there will be many freeholds out there, not just the ones that possibly will cut people out of the loop. Personally I would think that would be a bad move for the crafters to be able to sell their wares being they would have a bad reputation.
You will find that he does it no matter how much you point it out. XD
Yeah, I don't care about people arguing literally unimportant things.
Oh noes! I used words that someone else wouldn't use, to get across a message that everyone understood!
*wake up, pulls up Artisan class wiki*
That was my point though. Steven directly referenced farming and animal husbandry in a quote:
“The intent is that there are also public spaces where animal husbandry and farming can be utilized... Those systems provide opportunities for players who might be more solo-oriented, aren't a part of a family, don't think they'll be able to acquire a freehold, but still want to participate with those particular particular types of professions. But they may not do it at a mastery level as a result; but they'll still have access to lower-tier versions of that so that they can progress through that particular profession up to a degree.”[40] – Steven Sharif
Animal husbandry is a processing profession btw.
Apartments and inns can provide housing for storage and decorating and what not so not exclusive to freeholds.
Player stalls and market places provide a place to set up a shop and sell your goods so not exclusive to freeholds.
I could be forgetting a feature but the only thing that I can think of that is actually blocked by freeholds are tavern games, but a quick wiki search to make sure says that they can also be present in nodes.
Im going to go over each of your points here.
Public use processing equipment is not really satisfactory. It goes up to level 30 out of 50 - that is what tier three means. Players should not be cut off in this manner. Players should have access to all materials and crafting stations to get them up to being able to make entry level gear for level capped players. It is ok to then *start* to make things harder from that point on, but a simple "you have access until level 30 and then no access at all without a large guild" is not good design. That progression, that work you need to put in, it needs to be gradual, not sudden.
Sure, animal husbandry is a processing class (as is farming), but animal husbandry has it's own unique gameplay loop to it - to the point where it will have to have it's own UI elements. That is why it is worth singling out along with farming (I'll get to that soon).
As to appartments and Inns - first off, Inns are out of the question as being relavent. Intrepid lists them as being temporary housing.
Appartments offer the basics of having storage space, but not much more. Decorating an instanced appartment isn't really the same gameplay experience as decorating a part of the games world space.
Player stalls and markets offer a place to sell, not a place to set up a shop. Again, different experiences.
As to your assumption that you are not missing any freehold features, I suggest looking at the land management page on the wiki to see it's connection with farming - do a search for the word "freehold" if you like, though the appropriate part of the page should be right near the top.
-we have no idea on the relevance of tier 3 mats. I’m vanilla WoW there were quite a few classes BiS gear from lower levels. If this was the second or 3rd expansion of this game I would be more concerned but it’s not even out yet.
Gonna be honest I’m not entirely seeing your land management point your trying to make from reading the wiki. Crop rotations maybe? Idk. Most of the land management seems relevant to out in the world resources. More than happy to be directed to what I’m missing though.
-agreed it is not the same But it sounds like a tier of that to me.
-One better that I actually forgot in relationship to player shops/stalls: “Certificates from economic node metropolises allow placement anywhere in the world.[3][5]”
This is Nikua player shop concept art:
Looks pretty shoppy to me.
This isn't just about gear though, it means a person working a processing class has a hard stop at level 30, and needs to be in a large guild to progress.
This is just bad game design that there is no excuse for.
Those certificates require a metropolis level economic node. Not a suitable substitution.
Crop rotations on freeholds increase an areas land health value (a concept I hope is just never added to the game).
A higher land health value increases the respawn rate of resources and mobs.
This means guilds will want freeholds in areas they want to farm for materials or certificates, meaning they will want even more freeholds than they would have (my current estimate is that an average guild of about 60 people will want 35 - 50 freeholds).
Where does the notion come from that "Journeyman" associates with a level cap come from? I haven't found anything in the wiki that states that Journeyman proficiency looks an artisan out of recipies beyond level 30 and it feels much more intuitive to have quality caps.
The wiki says specifically in regards to farms that you may have to get rid of some pests or rotate crops. Just to make sure we are clearer on what a crop rotation is, because gardening irl is one of my biggest hobbies, that means that I don’t plant tomatoes in the same place I planted tomatoes last year. If I do the soil is more likely to have been depleted of the soil resources that tomatoes use so I won’t get as good of a harvest, and I increase the likelihood of pests.
“Land management mechanics are available for gathers”
“The spawn rate of resources in a given area is influenced by how players are interacting with those resources.[19][18]
Drawing excessive amounts of resources may have a deleterious effect on the land health value for that area.[19][18]”
Presumptive without a hard clarification but that reads to me as the trees, the ores, the flowers out in the world are effected by this.
Those are the out in the world ones, can be purchased by citizens or non citizens, and if it’s a certificate from an economic metro you can(based on current information) buy it at the economic node, and then place it anywhere in the world.
Before that though:
They “Can be rented at locations near the unique building in an economic node[11] or in Marketplaces.[12]”
“Marketplaces are constructible node buildings that are available for placement by mayors of any Town (stage 4) node or higher. These are distinct from a market, which is the unique node building that unlocks at Village (stage 3) of Economic nodes.[1]” and these to appear to be tied to citizenship of that node to participate in them.
If 60 people are able to sustainably handle the freehold taxes of 35-50 freeholds not even taking into consideration the bidding process levers then there is something off with the levers in my opinion. With how hard family and guild access to freeholds have been pushed I think it would be pretty safe to say that they don’t expect 58-83% of a 60 person guild to have their very own freehold.
As I’ve said in other threads, 3-5 freeholds for a guild to max out every single processing profession at the same time and I certainly hope they balance the levers of taxation/permits to promote building up your land not building out your land. If you up that to about 7-8 to include farm land you could max out every processing class, some left over for some housey shit or a tavern/inn, and everyone in the guild would have access to it.
But now we are debating numbers that we really have to wait and see because we are so far off from each other in what we think will be possible within the systems they construct. If taxation and bidding gates are done incorrectly you could have a situation where that number is the whole 60 can get and maintain one, or it’s so restrictive that you can’t even support that 3-5 range I stated. We will see.
Plus we get a nodes showcase this month. Hopefully it will provide some answers to those node related questions.
Steven said level 30 in the livestream with whoever it was with recently.
I'll look that one up, thanks
All of those things we are talking about here - they are all things that are blocked by one action from other players.
I'm fine with most of those things being blocked in some manner, but that many things being blocked by one action is outrageous.
Farming, alchemy, cooking, milling, metalworking, weaving, tanning masonry, animal husbandry, shops, taverns, world space to decorate, land management effects - all of it blocked in one action.
If someone wants to block me from alchemy, they should be able to. However, the action that blocks me from that should not also block me from animal husbandry. If they want to block me from that as well, they should have to partake in some other blocking action.
This isn't an acceptable game design, and I simply can't see how anyone could think it is. Like, I can't even imagine the perspective one has to take to think it acceptable that so much content should be able to be blocked just via freeholds - a thing that top end guilds have so many reasons to want.
Also, 60 people will be able to pay for 60 freeholds if they had them. Freeholds will - for the most part - be a money making asset.
This is enough for me tbf. Just the acknowledgement that it might be an issue for a lot of players.
It tells me they will either adjust, or that they acknowledge the problem, but won't do anything about it due to it going against their core design principles or whatever. Both are better than just being left in between and in the dark.
Again, my solution would be similar to yours. Add different tiers/sizes of Freeholds.
Freeholds themselves shouldn't be some prestigious trophies, but getting the highest level of Freehold with all the buildings, etc., should.
So, what is stopping you from getting your own freehold? What is stopping you from joining a freehold and becoming a citizen? Do you mean that you want freeholds to be public assets that anyone can use? If that is the case then they would have to have a fee attached for use as the freehold owner pays taxes on the lands and the citizens contribute to the taxes.
Please note I’m not saying that what you are saying is impossible to ever happen, but that is why everything has so many levers. To attempt to make these worst case scenarios you speak of less likely.
You seem to be able to accept that corruption levers can be tuned to achieve the desired level of corrupted players they want, but believe that many other levers they put in place to be incapable of also achieving their desired outcome.
The size of a freehold, the amount of freeholds available based on node stage, the types of nodes, the resources near by, the world size, what nodes even advance creating unexpected ZoI boundaries and the levers put in place all contribute to the viability of guilds achieving that many freeholds especially at that guild size.
Our main differing opinion appears to be that you think there is an extremely high chance for organized people to abuse the system to the detriment to others, and I think, especially after doing some min-maxy math, in context with the levers in place, that there is an extremely high chance this level of blocking can be severely limited.
Until we have additional data, and probably in game experience with the systems I do not feel comfortable saying either of our extremes are accurate. You may feel differently however and that is fine.
He didn't even give a link for it....
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GwpWmmIq2cg&t=1915s&ab_channel=KaosandLace
I think he is referring to what Steven says at around 12 minute mark in this video.
Processing leaves the node at around level 30. so They were discussing if they should reduce lvl to acquire freeholds from lvl 50 so it becomes seamless.
This doesn't mean gear to make is capped at lvl 30 by the way.
So if all this time when Steven has talked about risk vs. reward as a core pillar of the game, what he really meant was exclusivity as a core pillar of the game, it explains a lot and might be the reason so many players are upset with the whole "freeholds are a privilege" thing, that seemingly came out of the blue.
People like risk vs. reward systems, and often say so and they agree loudly with that core game pillar. If Steven misinterprets that as people liking arbitrarily hard-capped exclusivity, it's no wonder we are here now.
When I think of risk vs. reward, arbitrarily hard-capped exclusivity doesn't comes to mind as the first concept or reward. Or even in the top five.
It's fair to consider naturally occurring exclusivity as a by-product of risk vs. reward, because people can fail at a difficult task which has a cost associated with it, but that's not what we are seeing with the currently proposed freehold system.
There is no risk involved in acquiring a freehold, only great reward. It's not difficult, it just requires time to grind. The risk only comes into play if you fail to defend a node siege, but that is a different system that has much wider implications and risks involved than just freeholds, and it's a risk you share with a much wider audience.
To get back to the point of the OP, I agree that final judgement definitely comes much later after things have been tested. With that said, there are also some things that cannot be tested in A2, and that is player behaviour when it comes to scarcity. We won't see that until release. Nothing is on the line for players in A2, because all progress will be wiped anyway. Perhaps several times.
At release all bets are off, and that is the first time we will actually see how freehold scarcity affects the game. That's where the final judgement comes, and by then it might be too late if Intrepid completely misses the mark and can't adjust quickly. One of the things they can't adjust quickly is the amount of available freeholds. Things they can adjust quickly are the amounts of bound currency vs. gold required, as well as things like allowing or disallowing player sales of freeholds.
from steven comments, everything indicates that players and groups of all sizes will have things to do in verra all the time. if you cant get that rare flower because a guild is controlling the spawn, then farm something else with your group, sell it, and buy the flower.
if your goal is to complete as much content as possible, then this probably isnt for you, and not because players will kill you and wont let you do the content, but because all the content wont be available all the time because of node progression, although node progression depends on players and where they decide to level up.
so even if you made everything available to everybody, freeholds, guild halls, etc. people who wants to complete all the content wont be able to, because not all nodes can be level 6.
and thats ok...there are multiple progression paths, just pick one.
Steven says of the Open Seas that with greater opportunity and unique treasures, we of course have to have heightened PvP.
He says (greater) Risk, but it's really less risk because the death penalties are at least half-Normal, even if you don't fight back.
(Also, I would say Hardcore Challenge gamers revel in the Risk v Reward systems...)