Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
I understand, that's what my whole "this game should not have content not designed around me or I won't play" point was about.
The land is your game to explore, forget about the seas. (If you felt safe on land which you said that 99% of the time is still not good enough for you, which is fair if thats how you feel.)
I don't think you quite understand what I was saying here. I meant Ashes' version of endgame, not a typical version, which is about opening up new play loops and ramping up complexity as you progress, which is exactly what you described about becoming more complex challenges. My comment to Azherae does not contradict this, and was about doing exactly that, with early game content allowing for more specialized experiences, and later content ramping in complexity and challenge, and requiring overlapping experience between a variety of systems more emergently. This is about taking systems that players were already engaging with, and combining them and increasing the challenge. I don't consider this "significantly different from adventuring early game" and it doesn't sound like you consider it to be that way either.
Yes I understand that. The point is that the intent is for it to not be worth most of the time per Steven's own comments. That is not a matter of debate and more a matter of testing and iteration. Yes, you can still have people who ignore this but if it is a bad strategy to go corrupt just cuz you feel like pvping, then most players won't do it, because players naturally try to optimize things and if this hurts their performance in the long run, or even better, hurts their ability to engage more proficiently in more grand pvp experiences down the road, then its not going to happen often. Yes, you will have a sub-set of players who go corrupt anyway, but it will be a very small percentage of players, and a very small percentage of the play time, due to the time sink and inconvenience, and this will not have even remotely of a major impact on a pve purist's experience in corruption enabled areas.
Again, my main point was that if Ashes had enough content then a lot of players should be happy to come over and "repeatedly play through the first 5 levels" because that could be a lot more content than what you realize. And once again, this doesn't have to be a "first 5 levels" thing, you can still play the way you want to play and specialize, even if you have to have a bit of overlapping knowledge about a variety of game systems. Its not like you are going to be forced to bounce between proficiently playing every system in the game, for the majority of the time, maybe for very challenging end-game level stuff, which would be a small percentage of content.
Lets look at the individual things you have claimed to believe;
Lower level content/characters will have a system outright preventing PvP.
Players will happily leave their existing MMORPG to play a game that they only intend on participating in lower level content with.
Ashes will have enough lower level content to keep these players happy.
Ashes will have high enough quality of lower level content to keep these players happy.
The node system advancing and replacing that initial lower level content with higher level content won't cause these players to leave the game.
Your argument requires all of the above to be true. If any one of them is not true, your entire argument colapses in on itself.
Truth is, none of the above will be true. I'm not saying one or two won't be true and so your thought here doesn't quite work - I am saying literally none of the above will be true and so that thought is a non-starter.
My Bartle Score is:
Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
So, “forget about the Seas” is not something that fits my primary playstyle goals. If I can’t explore the entire map, I will just play a game where I can explore the entire map without having to deal at all with non-consensual PvP.
I’m not really going to play an MMORPG that includes non-consensual PvP.
So, The Open Seas is an automatic deal-breaker for me.
I’m not really a fan of the Corruption system, but I was willing to attempt that compromise when it was stated that Ashes has no permanent areas free from the Corruption mechanic. And when it seemed that Ashes would be the first new MMORPG released between 2017 and 2020.
Adding a large permanent region that auto-flags for PvP teams the deal and makes Ashes too much like games I have no interest in playing.
You focus on the concept of being “safe on land”.
I don’t play MMORPGs that do not allow me to explore the entire map free of non-consensual PvP. Because I am an explore first and foremost and I abhor non-consensual PvP.
“Safe on land” is an irrelevant concept.
It’s not really a matter of “safety”.
I just don’t want to experience non-consensual PvP. I want more control over when I engage in PvP than some other gamer deciding I must engage in PvP - even when I’m not in the mood for PvP.
When I’m not in the mood for PvP, I might be willing to oblige for about 10 minutes. But that’s it. After that, I’m going to become enraged.
And PvPers don’t have the courtesy to care about that, so I prefer not to play on the same servers as PvPers - especially if there is no manual PvP Toggle where there is a flag that allows me to be immune from PvP attacks when I’m not in the mood for PvP attacks.
You could, perhaps, colloquially use the term “safe”, but “free” is the more apt term because it’s really a matter of freedom of choice.
I understand what you were saying.
I don’t agree with what you were saying.
There really is no “version of Endgame” in the Ashes design.
We’re doing the same stuff at max Adventurer Level that we’re doing right after Character Creation: Progressing and Destroying Nodes.
In the mid-range, we get the addition of Secondary Archetypes, but other than that…
We are always Progressing and Destroying Nodes and participating in Sieges and Caravan Raids and Social Orgs and Religions and Crafting and Naval Warfare.
I guess Freeholds don’t open until some people reach max Adventurer Level, but they can give access to Level 1 player characters, so that’s not really Endgame.
Then we agree that Ashes does not have an Endgame.
👍🏾
I just now realized that for 10 years I've been saying that I like PvP sometimes, but that's not quite accurate.
I can enjoy Town/City Defense for up to about 1 hour out of an 8-hour play session.
And I can tolerate PvP combat during that hour, but really I'm more focused on supporting the defenses of the town rather than the PvP combat. I'm usually striving to ignore the actually PvP combat as much as possible.
Then, once I've had my fill of that gameplay, I attempt to toggle of PvP and return to whatever my actuall game session goals were for the day - and I don't want other players derailing me from achieving those goals with PvP combat.
I might be OK with up to a 10 minute derail - but on servers where Open World PvP is the default flag (attackable), there is no guarantee that it would just be a 10 minute derail.
Sieges and Caravans are forms of PvP I can enjoy for up to an hour. But, it's really the defense I'm interested in - I just don't necessarily care during that hour whether the attacks are PvE or PvP. After that hour, I'm going to want to return to gameplay that is more chill adnd casual-challenge than PvP combat.
Corruption was always a fairly skeptical compromise that I was willing to test because Lineage II fans believe Corruption will be enough of a ganking deterrent to make everyone comfortable except for players who want 0% PvP encounters.
The Open Seas having no Corruption breaks that compromise of being able to punish those who force me into gamplay I'm not in the mood for with Corruption.
Players who prefer PvE servers and engage in PvP sometime when they are in the mood could try AoC and realize that they actually like playing AoC, even if they have not played those other old MMOs which you say that give a similar experience.
If IS will rely only on corruption to balance the rate of how many players become red, we will see them popping up more often in areas where epic tier resources spawn.
And because the game does not throw the high tier resources at the player-base, players will fight over them.
Relying on corruption to be protected probably will not be effective when groups have players with rare gear ready to sacrifice themselves.
Player flagging rules do not flag healers when they support flagged players in their own team.
They remain green and can even pick up the epic drops from a killed player.
The only way to take back those resources is to kill them and becoming red.
If a solo explorer with a Killer 0% Bartle Score ends up in those places, and runs through an active battle, chances are it will be killed.
But if Steven wants, he can create a safer zone for PvE in divine nodes.
To become mayor in those nodes, you have to show that you are a good PvE player
Divine node mayors are elected based on the citizen who earns the most PvE favor with the node.[12][70][71][3]
Most of the devotion-oriented tasks are going to be on an individual basis and won't utilize outside support.[72]
That means 25% of the nodes could give some form of PvE content to their citizens and their vassals.
And the divine metropolis would be their best reward.
IMO these ultra stringent, prissy requirements are the antithesis of MMO gameplay, especially "PvX".
I have goals too but the game meanders.. side quests happen, you bump into someone and group for a bit, help someone out, and yes get caught up in a bit of PvP here and there.
Imagine if I as a PvPer had similar expectations; "I can tolerate a few mobs for quests that reward items that might be useful in PvP, then once I've had my fill I don't want any more mobs derailing my goals with PvE combat."
The game is not about catering to any individual's convenience, it's a diverse, varied world where things will happen TO you, with inconvenience built-in!
Non-combatants who heal, buff, or otherwise interact with combatants or corrupted players will be flagged as combatants.[21][22][23][24]
Yeah of course. To me it's not just the wrong game, but the wrong genre to be having such ultra specific requirements.
Also, the devs for Lineage II, ArchAge and EvE are currently developing MMORPGs that have a lesser focus on PvP than their previous games because they have determined that most MMORPG fans prefer PvE.
People who prefer to play MMORPGs on PvE and RP servers are highly unlikely to enjoy the Ashes PvP ruleset.
Ashes is not designed for their playstyle. And playstyles rarely change to a significant degree.
But... people are free to try Ashes and see if they like it.
Most likely these people will be playing other games that fit their playstyle better than what Ashes offers.
Ashes is not made for everyone.
Agreed. The only issue I have here is when people are too quick to write it off, is all.
They're clearly not going for the extreme pvp end of the spectrum (eg: wow pvp server, kill anything, repeatedly, no repercussions), that much is very clear so IMO players of all/most types should at least give it a chance.
I know you're on the very extreme end of PvE-er and so the Open Seas thing is already a deal breaker for you, as you like to explore. Fair enough.
But I think it's gotta be fair to say that most players who aren't at either extreme shouldn't write it off too soon.
IMO with the corruption mechanic, they've at least confirmed their intent to find some kind of balance.
Fair?
That balance needs to be toward the PvP side, by design, so it isn't unreasonable to accept that PvP-averse players won't want to play.
Some people want to randomly log in and fish. Some people attack them for fishing. For anyone who experiences 'I want to fish today' and gets killed at their first four choices of fishing spot, it's not weird that they stop wanting to play.
Those people are just 'not wanting to play', in advance.
And that, yes, Ashes strives to be an MMO OWPvP game first with some RPG elements.
Rather than an MMO RPG first with some PvP.
The foundation of RPGs is cooperative play that is PvE with less than 1% PvP.
Yeah. Which is why people who discover Ashes tend to first inquire about separate servers dedicated to the different playstyles. Instead of expecting the diverse playstyles to have fun playing together with just one PvP ruleset.
Originally, in WoW and EQ/EQ2, PvX was a label for guilds who enjoy PvE and also enjoy PvP. They do a mix of both rather than focusing mostly on PvP or focusing mostly on PvE.
But, the Ashes fans who loved playing Lineage II and ArcheAge seem to consider the WoW and EQ/EQ2 servers to be PvE servers with some PvP - and not "true" PvX.
They want PvP to infuse all aspects of gameplay - which, from my perspective, is actually more PvP than on a WoW/EQ/EQ2 PvP server. And I already don't enjoy playing MMORPGs on PvP or PvP-Optional servers.
But... the Lineage II, ArcheAge players who are fans of Ashes have unwavering faith that Corruption will mitigate the concerns of players who don't absolutely hate PvP 100%. They believ that everyone else will be fairly comfortable playing the Ashes PvP ruleset and realize how fun it is to play their vision of "PvX".
Which remains unlikely. If that were likely, the Lineage II, ArcheAge and Eve devs would not have chosen to lessen their foci on PvP gameplay.
I disagree.
Ashes caters to Steven's playstyle - which favors the fans of Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE, exclusively.
Ashes does a poor job of catering to diverse playstyles. Which is OK. Because Steven does not truly have a goal of catering to diverse playstyles.
Inconvenience and things happening TO you is irrelevant to this discussion.
That can be accomplished strictly via PvE.
The issue here is really how much PvP is too much PvP for the average MMORPG fan.
Which is signifcantly different than how much PvP is too much for an MMO OWPvP fan.
And, The Open Seas introduces a large, permanent region of the map thatflags auto-consent PvP -which is an automatic deal-breaker for me.
Ashes is clearly not designed for my playstyle.
But that only became evident once Jeffrey Bard, the orginal Lead Game Designer, left Intrepid and Steven took the reigns as Acting Lead Game Designer and introduced the Open Seas. Which is a direct contradiction to his original claim that unlike ArcheAge and EvE, Ashes would only have one PvP ruleset across the entire map.
Just sounds like semantics to me. Endgame as in max level, is what i was talking about. If we agree that its about increasing the compexity of play loops are already experiencing, then we agree on "the version if endgame Ashes has" in terms of the max level experience, it sounds like its just a matter of what we are calling that experience.
Endgame is not really synonymous with Max Level.
Endgame eventually emerged as a common game state when players reached Max Level.
But, Endgame is actually the state of the game when new content ends and players are stuck repeating the same content (Dungeons and Raids) ad nauseum while they wait for new content to be added.
Endgame became a thing once experienced MMORPG players learned how to race to max level in a few weeks, where they would then be stuck with nothing to do for 2+ years until the devs could release an Expansion with new content. When you are stuck at max level with the same content for 2+ years - yes, it feels like Endgame is the real game. Because most of the time playing is spent waiting for the Expansion.
That doesn't happen at Max Level in Ashes.
And Max Level gameplay in Ashes is not significantly different than gameplay before Max Level.
Really the only significant change in gameplay occurs at Mid-Adventurer Level, when Secondary Archetypes become available.
So, no, it's not just a matter of what we are calling the experience.
In Ashes, the Max Level experience is pretty much the same thing as the Mid-Level experience.
And new content continues to appear (and disappear) as different Nodes rise and fall and as different Races and Mayor Councils and Monarchs implement different Services in their Nodes. New content also appears and disappears as the in-game seasons change. And as the Events system is impacted by player behavior.
And as the devs introduce new content via quarterly updates.
Didn't quite say that, I said 99% of the time corruption should prevent non-consensual pvp, so of course there will be a sub-set of more extreme players who get killed one time by a player who made a bad decision to go red, and the extreme player might quit the game.
Didn't quite say that either, I said it is going to be a tough sell regardless, but that some players mighht consider through having a decent incentive such as quantity and quality content that allows them to play in their purist playstyle, be it through a lit of dynamic low level content, or high level content where they can still specialize even if there is a bit of a learning curve in overlapping gameplay systems.
I made it very clear several times that this is not what I was saying, so im not sure if you are trying to "straw man" me or if you are just not fully reading my comments, but ill say it again. I was saying what Ashes would need to do, rather than what we know they are actually going to do.
Same thing for this, didn't say anything about what they will do, just what they should do.
The potential is there for both the quantity and quality "low level content" through the node system, the size of Verra, and the dynamic nature of the content, as well as the additional content available for the players who get invested enough to accept a bit of a learning curve as they progress to late game in their preferred play loop.
Well, potentially yes, but not all players of course. There is always the possibility for player loss at any amount of friction, but there should be a decent amount of players who would be willing to progress with the node and accept the learning curve, or those who will just relocate to other areas if they don't want to do any of the easier content in that area anymore. This, I imagine, is a primary goal of alpha 2 testing to tweak things in a way that will ensure a healthy number of players are retained though this progression path. Obviously this is dependent on the quantity and quality of said content, which Intrepid may, or may not, actually provide enough of to satisfy these players.
We are talking about the same thing, I don't think you actually disagree with what I was saying to Azherae.
I was simply talking about the progression experience going from more simplistic individual play loop options that are available, and ramping up into more emergent experiences and challenges utilizing said play loops in a way that is "not significantly different from adventuring early game". Which it sounds like you agreed already on these points so I don't think you actually disagree, it was just a matter of words being used.
Okaaay. But that makes it an inherently moot point.
I think might be the crux of it. And I don't even disagree, fully.
For me, games as a whole are about challenge and ever since PCs and networks have been up to it; the pinnacle of that challenge is an element of competition vs others.
An opinion of course, I know that's not the way you see it. Point being maybe this is the core difference behind these debates.
I think a lot of gaming history was down to technical limitations. Eg: noone would dream up a game full of instanced content, we only expect that now because we're used to it, but it existed primarily to manage load and it's simply easier to design. Lazy even.
I love WSG in WoW (instanced pvp, capture the flag) - but there's nothing remotely immersive about repeatedly queueing up for a game that plays out Ad infinitum. They've just decided to artificially inject a bit of content into the game.
Even separating servers by PvP / PvE feels like a bit of a hack to workaround the game's inability to accommodate all. Although I do agree sometimes this is/was a necessary workaround.
Cmon Dygz you know I was talking about corruption enabled areas if im talking about corruption's effecriveness as a deterrent, obviously. I shouldn't have to reframe that every time I make that point this late into the discussion, especially when that was directed to Noanni.
Not sure what this is even referring too. How is it a moot point to say what Intrepid should do is different then what they might actually do.
The picture shows only "attacks". I was looking for such a statement... next time I'll use the search function.
The gameplay does become more complex, but not more emergent, once a character hits Mid Level and Secondary Archetypes become available.
And... again... sure. Freeholds become available for ownership once a character hits Max Level, but...
You don't have to be Max Level to do stuff on a Freehold and it's not possible for all Max Level characters to own a Freehold.
So, that's not really the gameplay changing significantly once your character hits Max Level.
Thats because you are looking at it through your lens of how you view corruption. My point to Azherae was that since corruption should deter most non-conensual pvp in corruption enabled areas, then the areas where it is becomes strategically worth it to go corrupt (such as highly contested areas) would create those more emergent pvp+pve scenarios and political counterplay measures, which I was saying would likely occur at later levels of progession where the rewards are highly sought after by competitive players.
You get it, though.
The problem is your perspective on something really complicated is... I wanna say 'underthought'?
Do y'all really want an essay on this, though?
I can split it up into like 200 tweet-length posts.
EDIT: Just to be clear, that wasn't a jab or a misjudgement, moreso speaking 'to everyone'. I know that you, @Ace1234, are the absolute last person on this forum who one could think 'has a short attention span'. I've parsed your posts.
Data shows that players who can grind through quests and collect achievements many years long, will do that. They are loyal because once they started they cannot stop.
AoC tries to be different, by emphasizing collaboration: even if you do not join a guild you will still be part of a node.
So PvE players who can sometime PvP, will have an environment where they PvP not to "dominate others" as you said, but with a better, more meaningful reason, to protect their node (and parent nodes if they like them).
They will become PvX players.
I think you cannot speak for all players who play on PvE servers, if they can and do PvP sometime.
This is flawed reasoning relative to basic MMO sociology.
Believing in this is why 'PvP' MMOs usually fail no matter how clean they think their designs are. 'PvP' and 'PvX' MMOs, as a concept, are so deeply flawed at the fundamental level once they try to go past like, Regnum Online tier, that they tear themselves apart.
Survival games do it correctly. MMOs by their nature almost cannot. Please do not let Intrepid continue rolling along in their 'faith that people just need to give it a chance'. The flaws run deep.
Haha, thats the nicest thing anyones ever said to me
I sure hope not!
Anyway, I'm seriously asking. I can do it here, I can make a Splinter Thread, I can 'rein in my arrogance and perceive that people don't really care', I can 'accept that throwing thought-starters at people can't generally change their ingrained perceptions'...
If I can help almost anyone by summarizing my years of 'studying' I'm all for it, but I'd rather do it when I think it will actually help.