Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Loss and Limitations and Scarcity and why they are good
Zipp_Adoudel
Member
I have been following the game development for a year. Over the year I have seen talk about the 5 pillars of design and what Steven and Interpid want to do with the game. The vision that they have. They desire they want to create for the individual and the collective to influence the story. They want to create conflict because people don't want to engage in flat entertainment.
Imagine WoW where you are max level, there are no dungeons because everyone gets along. You could run around collecting skins, or mounts, or cooking items but why would you want to.
I came from Eve Online, where the sandbox nature of the game drew me in. I could fight in huge battles. I could be a spy and try and steal all my riches. I could mine and build my ships. The problem with Eve the last few years is that conflict has been reduced to personal vendettas, not resources, not locations. Basically bad "your momma jokes."
Most of the game is one of two big coalitions. For those unfamiliar with the term, its a group of alliances basically. Not supported in the game, so purely on paper. Resources are not confined to a particular spot. What is available to one group is equally available to the other. Each group has there own infrastructure.
There was a full on war 2 years ago where one side marched against the other. Wanna know how it ended? The everyday players got tired of the months long siege and quit playing. A month after the fight, the map looks the same as before.
Why do I tell you this? I see everyone so up in arms about freeholds. The idea of nodes and freeholds are permanent fixtures in the game is the wrong mindset. "Once it gets level 6 it will never go away. Once I buy it, I should be able to defend it." That's the wrong idea in this game. The players are the asset. Their choices make the story. I have made a ton of friends in Eve. Hell, I won a trip to Iceland because I played Eve. Eve has a history that was made because players lost things. Friendships were made in the heat of battle.
I see tons of posts about how ashes might not be for certain people. The fact of it is Ashes is for anyone who wants to be part of the story. You will make friends. You will make enemies. You will get spoils of war. You will also lose things. The friendships will be what pick you up after a devastating loss. Your friends will be there to help rebuild and to continue the story.
Conflict is what will drive the game. The have and the have nots will cause conflict to arise. Is it solved with a treaty, or a sword? That is you choice.
If you have a story that made you want to keep playing because of a loss, comment on this thread.
Imagine WoW where you are max level, there are no dungeons because everyone gets along. You could run around collecting skins, or mounts, or cooking items but why would you want to.
I came from Eve Online, where the sandbox nature of the game drew me in. I could fight in huge battles. I could be a spy and try and steal all my riches. I could mine and build my ships. The problem with Eve the last few years is that conflict has been reduced to personal vendettas, not resources, not locations. Basically bad "your momma jokes."
Most of the game is one of two big coalitions. For those unfamiliar with the term, its a group of alliances basically. Not supported in the game, so purely on paper. Resources are not confined to a particular spot. What is available to one group is equally available to the other. Each group has there own infrastructure.
There was a full on war 2 years ago where one side marched against the other. Wanna know how it ended? The everyday players got tired of the months long siege and quit playing. A month after the fight, the map looks the same as before.
Why do I tell you this? I see everyone so up in arms about freeholds. The idea of nodes and freeholds are permanent fixtures in the game is the wrong mindset. "Once it gets level 6 it will never go away. Once I buy it, I should be able to defend it." That's the wrong idea in this game. The players are the asset. Their choices make the story. I have made a ton of friends in Eve. Hell, I won a trip to Iceland because I played Eve. Eve has a history that was made because players lost things. Friendships were made in the heat of battle.
I see tons of posts about how ashes might not be for certain people. The fact of it is Ashes is for anyone who wants to be part of the story. You will make friends. You will make enemies. You will get spoils of war. You will also lose things. The friendships will be what pick you up after a devastating loss. Your friends will be there to help rebuild and to continue the story.
Conflict is what will drive the game. The have and the have nots will cause conflict to arise. Is it solved with a treaty, or a sword? That is you choice.
If you have a story that made you want to keep playing because of a loss, comment on this thread.
7
Comments
The reason I am up in arms about the freeholds isn't that I am afraid of loss, it's that a lot of people won't have anything to lose really, because freehold acquisition is limited to such a small percentage of the playerbase, and those that do lose it have to potentially wait a very long time to have anything of real value to lose again.
I am a hardcore player myself, and I can realistically put in around 70 hours a week on average if the game is fun and engaging. The game can only be fun and engaging with a large playerbase that are happily able to participate in all the core systems, including processing, animal husbandry, farming and running a business. Especially my casual brothers and sisters in arms, who typically thrive doing those things.
One of the things that Eve did great when I played (and hopefully still do well) was not artificially/arbitrarily limiting what players could do or access. Especially the casual players. From day 1 in Eve, a casual player has access to all the typical content that a casual player wants to do. Mining, running missions, ratting, trading, hauling goods, pvp. Obviously at a very low level at first. If they put in the effort and aren't afraid of the risks, there are very few things they can't achieve without running into this arbitrary limit of having to be one of the low percentage of players who get full access to a lot of basic and vital game content.
It's super unlikely a casual player commands a dreadnaught or titan, but that's more like a casual in Ashes getting a legendary item. It's possible with the right connections and/or RMT, but unlikely otherwise. In both games.
In many ways Eve Online is a lot more casual friendly than Ashes is looking to become with the current freehold plans, because Eve Online doesn't hardcap who gets to participate in the game content the same way.
Like you wrote about the months long siege, players will simply quit, and that will hurt the game and subsequently my enjoyment of it.
Intrepid really needs to rethink this Exclusivity approach, IMO. Let casual players have a lot easier access to casual-style gameplay. Give them something to lose and fight over, without it requiring months or years and a lot of luck or RMT to regain it.
as for people claiming the game will fail / players will quit because of if, they are just saying it out of frustration for their own expectations and entitlement. As Steven himself said: "Freeholds are a privilege, not a right."
And you're back to spouting your usual BS strawman arguments about the reasons other players don't like this change to the freehold system.
The ever-present chance to lose something mats, xp, gear (for you red folks) is going to help the world feel dangerous to wander and explore. We get a world that doesn’t hold your hand, or hand you rewards for trivial investments.
And it’s about time.
You literally the first one that came in here to comment your BS for the 50th time, I suggest blocking me if you don't want to hear the reality, I'll keep making sense, sorry.
Eve doesnt allow the casual player to do everything. If you dont have structures, you cant do reactions. That makes t2 production impossible. That's one example.
You can casually play Eve if you have a group of people to help you out. Same will go with Ashes. The scarcity of freeholds will cause groups to fight each other. Conflict will drive the story.
Is it really so hard to understand my point here? I never said casuals should be able to do everything at all levels solo. T2 production is not solo-casual style gameplay obviously. There is a lot of solo-casual stuff you can do in Eve Online, but obviously it's more fun with others and you can do more. I am not talking specifically about solo-casual stuff.
The system Ashes is currently suggesting is much more limited is my point. There aren't multiple tiers to it. That's what I would like to see though. Give people a way in and let them participate so they can work their way up and feel some skin in the game along the way, instead of 10% haves and 90% have-nots.
Yes, then let people have something to lose other than whatever mats they have on them, which is nothing in the big scheme of things. In Eve you can at least lose your ship.
The only special activity they lock you out of is tavern management, but I don't know what that could be even compared to. That's a very special kind of gameplay and I dunno how you can "casualize" it.
You are correct in a casual cant do everything by them selves. They wont be able to defend a node by themselves if they get citizenship, which they will. They won't be able to solo a dungeon, or a world boss. Should there be instanced world bosses so casuals can do them at their leasure?
You are correct that they cant do everything and that's ok. There will be a ton that casuals will be able to do.
There will also be everything, or almost everything, that a casual will be able to do with a dedicated group.
Well, just in case...
Who benefits from the design type where content (not rewards, just content) is gated by one's ability to convince others to effectively give you things until the point where you achieve parity with them?
In general I've only ever perceived the gatekeepers as the ones who benefit. The other benefit, of feeling accomplished because you were able to put in effort and gain things (at the level before achieving parity) happens on your own, regardless of social strata in the game's system.
So I've never considered choosing to build/play something where person A has to 'give' person B things.
If anything I consider it to be even more egregious. You're not only getting a consolation prize without being strong, you're getting it not necessarily off any merit, but from 'whoever you can convince to give it to you'.
This is why megaguilds are successful.
Alright, thank you for the data.
It's a little hard to do a direct comparison like that, because the way you acquire access to a freehold and the way you acquire access to a structure required to do T2 production in Eve are very different. For example, there isn't an arbitrary hard cap on the amount of structures you can place in Eve, unlike in Ashes, but player politics and such play a large role in whether or not you get to keep it intact. There is no bidding system either, in the same sense. This in and of itself makes a huge difference.
There is also farming and animal husbandry that are very unlikely to be able to be done to any great extent outside a freehold. A few potted tomato plants in an apartment isn't going to satisfy people who want to farm. And there are other businesses than a tavern obviously, selling goods and services, and from what it sounds like so far, I think the taverns and businesses are casual friendly to run, just not to acquire.
Finally, we still need some confirmation about the whole journeyman/lvl 30 thing Steven was talking about. If it really ends up being so you can only do up to lvl 30 processing stuff in nodes, that just makes it worse. In Eve Online, the T1 stuff is still very useful late-game because of the cost-efficiency, accessibility or niche applications. I hope the low level stuff in Ashes is also very useful late-game.
In one sense you are 100% correct. If you want to only farm in AoC as a casual, it will be very difficult. If all you are doing as a casual is logging into a game, getting on an instanced freehold to farm, and selling your goods, you aren't a person that is contributing to the community.
If you are saying that whole parts of the game will be inaccessible, you are incorrect.
Could you detail what a processor or farmer should perceive as 'the rest of the game'?
Processing and farming is part of the game, a small part.
Yes, I expected that you wouldn't care as much about the involvement of players who desire this as their primary, but I would still like to know what else you consider to be 'the rest of the game' that a person such as that should desire to interact with.
Is it that you basically don't care if the players with those primary interests play? I know this is hyperbole, but I would like to keep the post short.
As for businesses and sales - stalls and shops. Iirc those can be accessed somewhat easily. And they could be considered the casual version of "providing services to other players", though still kinda different from taverns.
And L2 had uses for low tier mats and afaik SWG had that kind of design for their crafting system as well. So casuals could still make their relative profits w/o going up in tiers.
It always comes down to ambitions and ability to meet them. As long as t3 processing in a node can take up 1-2h of gameplay - majority of casual processors should be ok with it.
It seems like you are going to Ford and complaining that the f350 cant fly.
Though even with that meaning, I'd imagine that the game's economy would track that kind of thing and would adjust accordingly. Not like we'll ever have instanced FHs either way.
Hm...
@NiKr @Nerror is it worth me putting effort into getting more data here, or are you two good?
You arent changing my mind on this. I dont need to change yours. I was mearly pointing out that keeping freeholds scarce is a good thing.
I'm not trying to change your mind. I agree with your perspective, let's say for example that I agree with your post title.
I wanted to know if I disagree with your reasonings, but I haven't got a clear enough idea of them to tell, so I was asking.
I'm good to leave it here.
That sounds like something for the ultra-ultra-casuals with maybe 10 minutes per day to play, including waiting for the game to lead. You don't breed "a cow". You don't farm 5 tomato plants, wipe the sweat off your brow and call it a hard, honest days work.
This is why I am advocating for something in the middle, like the old freehold sizes, or even smaller houses with a little land. Multi-tiered access, instead of all or nothing.
We'll have to see how low-level mats fit into it all. I hope they are important late-game. If not, casual processors will not be happy I am pretty sure.
What @NiKr said
I'm gonna be obnoxiously arrogant here and point out that you're both having a conversation that is too speculative AND far enough below the level of concreteness required for anything that you're wasting your own time.
The OP gave a layman's argument for a part of the game they don't even consider important and ended up causing you to operate on the same level in discussion. We've got better things to do in like 10m, namely arguing over how poorly/amazingly the Cleric is implemented.
I personally hope that loss of HP, limitations via debuffs, and scarcity of Mana are all key points.