Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
I will say that community and pvp are big for me. That players who haven't played with a group In a while regularly should try to get outside their comfort zone. At least try here and there, never know what you will find.
Nodes progression occurs regardless of Groups.
Enough people will Group that the those who participate in Caravans and Sieges outside of Grouping will be icing on the cake
If you are not in a Group, you will not the protection a Group offers. Which should be a viable choice - just not the optimal choice. People can still communicate via Discord without being in a Group.
In the grand scale of things, number of participants is more important than who is Grouped.
Depends on what the specific goals are - and which specific outcomes are desired.
One part among a collection should be OK.
For community based content, most communication will happen in game, not over Discord. Discord will be for groups that play together often - guilds, friends, things like that. Actually, this is untrue. 8 players operating at 150% of the efficiency of their individual class will perform as well as 12 players soloing.
150% uplift for being in a group is being conservative - in some games that focus more on grouping it is more like 250 - 300% (I expect Ashes to be closer to this end of the scale). This is talking about experience gain rates or drop value - the two things that pertain to this discussion. One part among a collection is ok at times, but it is not doing the thing well.
That's how it used to be back in the days.
I played The First Descendant yesterday. The lack of chat interaction is really sad. I was only able to make conversations with a couple of players. Others are silent. Granted, the game is not an MMO. Still, the social hubs exists for socializing. If not, why even bother making a social hub with tens of players in considering you're the Main Character/The Hero in the story anyway?
What's the purpose of socializing via the FD social hub when people can socialize via Twitch or Discord?
I haven't played FD, so I have no clue what that answer might be.
I also don't know why being "The Hero" of the story is a factor determining whether players talk with each other in a video game.
I also don't know why being forced into a Group would determine whether or not I talk to other players.
Playing Solo is not the same thing as being non-social. You don't have to join a Group to talk to other players.
For clarity's sake, I'm a solo gamer. I'm disabled and can't work, so I spend the beyond vast majority of my exorbitant free time putzing around in video games, especially MMOs, doing things on my own because "online at the same time as my friends" would require them to have eight extra hours in the day that they don't. So I'm doing stuff on my own as my disability allows, because there's literally no way to get a consistent group going for the timeframe that I'm playing at, and I've played a lot of games over the past two decades because of this. Some that are more solo focused, some that are more group focused.
With that in mind, I've seen a lot of games completely fail to stick the landing because they've successfully ignored what makes actually good games successful - you have to focus on a tight, exact idea of what you want the game to be and who you want to play it, and then make allowances for other types of players to have easier access to the structure they've built, either through support tools or a strong onboarding system.
AoC has never made a secret of the fact that it's catering to a social aspect many MMOs have abandoned in the pursuit of solo casual play. Part of the reason the game still heavily appeals to me as a solo player is because of the structure easing the ability for people like me to find groups and friends, or at least social circles, that exist outside the standard out of game circle of friends. Forming relationships and working with people because the game doesn't just demand you do so, but eases you into doing so.
That's what makes for good group content. If they can pull that off, if they can ensure that everybody has an opportunity to group up, then there's very little reason to make this a solo show in the first place.
its not that complicated to give systems that dont force you on a discord server were you are basically forced into politics most people give 0 fck's about ?
You don't have to engage with the political system of your node. You don't have to fight its wars. You don't have to accept any quests laid out by it. If your life starts getting disrupted because the node you were part of did something you don't agree with, you can pack up and leave. The node system is there to facilitate the baseline structure of the game itself, but it's strictly a facilitator. If you don't like what the node is doing to your gameplay, you literally have the option of picking another node to live in.
If you want to just PvE and not worry too hard about things, find yourself a divine node. They seem to have a heavy emphasis on PvE and NPC society structures, like joining a church or thieves' guild. It'll keep you out of the line of fire as much as is possible in this kind of game.
And if even that isn't enough for you... why are you playing ashes, when you dislike the core premise?
You are not forced onto any discord server either. If you want to be a loner its totally possible, but the gameplay will be limited for you. Its all up to you, but they should not have to change the entire premise of the game because people want to play a single player game in a game designed for group play. Discord does have its downfalls, but overall I think its a huge benefit for guild/group coordination.
Fact is ... ...
... ... it WILL* be both.
Players will most likely be able to play quite the many Areas/Contents of Verra alone. But they WILL* be forced to group and band together at some points of time.
Why ?
Because no - single - player - can defend his Caravan Wagon against +12 People attacking it.
Because no - single - player - can defend himself usually - against several Gankers/Playerkillers.
Because no - single - player - can defend his Node against a Siege of +100 to +200 People/Attackers.
Because no - single - player - can try to beat Worldbosses. At least not on the same (Expansion)-Level.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Currently no guild !! (o_o)
It is possible to play Ashes Solo.
And... so far... there is no forced Grouping in the design - except Guild Wars and Castle Sieges.
semantics. You typed words....
The 12 Bandits do not have to be in a Group. The multiple defenders do not have to be in a Group.
Players do not have to be in a Group to defend Greens against gankers.
Players do not have to be in a Group to participate in Node Sieges.
Players do not have to be in a Group to help defeat a World Boss.
It's possible for several Solo players to defeat a World Boss. There is nothing forcing players to be in a Group to defeat a World Boss.
You also typed words.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Currently no guild !! (o_o)
Reflecting on the early days of MMOs, where forming groups was integral to progressing through dungeons and raids, I agree that it created a unique social dynamic. It was more than just completing objectives; it was about building relationships and camaraderie with fellow players.
While convenience tools like group finders have their place, they can sometimes detract from the social interactions that define MMO experiences. The sense of accomplishment and shared adventure that comes from assembling a team and tackling challenges together is irreplaceable.
In Ashes of Creation, I hope to see a balance where solo play is viable but where the game also encourages and rewards cooperation. This could involve scaling difficulty or unique rewards for group activities, ensuring that both casual and dedicated players find value in teaming up.
Ultimately, MMOs thrive on community, and creating opportunities for meaningful player interactions can enrich the game world and player experience alike. I look forward to seeing how Ashes of Creation embraces this aspect of MMO heritage.
You're not making any effort to understand the people you're talking to. Try and reply to palabana's comment, and you'll understand what P0GG0 and Dygz are saying.
Signed,
a fellow group-gameplay main.
Ok, tell me what you want me to think. Put your thoughts in my head please.
(...which are, as I have tried to highlight, so you'll actually pay attention, instead of retreating in your dogmatic scripts, fully in favour of game design that demands grouping - in fact, they only serve to make groping better, and more pervasive.)
Its kind of funny, really, your statement. You say that we are over the edgy individualist banter but you make statements with the classic passive/aggressive tone to them. "so you'll actually pay attention, instead of retreating in your dogmatic scripts,". I'll be civil if you are civil. What dyggs replied to me was not helpful, it was splitting hairs on my statement. This is what he said: "It is not possible to play Ashes Single Player.
It is possible to play Ashes Solo." So that's why I said. "You said words". Because he knew what I meant, and had to say...something I guess. It did not contribute to the conversation, so that's why I replied the way I did to him. I understand the arguments in this thread. I just happen to disagree with some of them. You make it sound like I have to agree with *said comments* or I am wrong. It's not a right or wrong thing. It's opinion on what you think about being forced to group. As I stated before, you are not forced to group in any way or fashion. What I am saying is that there will be parts of the game that you will not be able to do without being in a group. That is the design of the game. The game is built on group content, at least for the higher level content.
It's insane how much effort you put into responding and how little effort you put into interpreting. Dygz is telling you that it's possible to successfully ("Successfully" meaning productive and efficient) play Ashes as a socially active player as part of "the group" without "being grouped," (and no, this is not just about whether you're partied up, it's about the difference between Discord & guild groups, and naturally formed ad-hoc groups.) and the argument has been that the game design should encourage player interaction in order to encourage group integration of such players.
If anything, your comment was the one that didn't contribute anything, because you failed to address that argument which was plastered all over this page.
Bro, I exclusively play in full-time guilds, learn to read. You're fighting windmills.
Again, you are being hostile. I am just answering my opinion. I understand his point. I am saying its virtually impossible though. Yes, you can get 20 individual, non grouped people to kill a world boss. How likely is that. Ok, maybe it might happen once or twice, but it is possible, just not probable. It will be very difficult without coordination. You won't get the bard buffs. You won't get group buffs. You won't have the communication, unless you are in voice, but its stated that some people should not be forced to use discord, so that probably is out.
As far as the original comment goes, I like the convenience of group finders. It takes a meaningless activity of spamming area chat or guild chat for an hour trying to find a 5th. There are a lot of rose colored glasses about looking for a group the old way in this forum.
It's only a meaningless activity of spamming area chat, if the game design doesn't naturally encourage community interaction.
In a good group-centric game, you'll be encouraged to interact and talk with people while you're doing things on your own. You transition into group activity by being efficient and by being in the same place as other people trying to benefit from the efficiency of doing things as a group.
(This is in circumstances where you don't happen to be running around with your guild because they happen to be engaged in different activities. And if you're constantly with a guild member or friend at the cost of efficiency, this system might not be for you as much, but you still benefit from being surrounded by a community that's encouraged to interact when an opportunity to get more XP/loot in a larger group presents itself.)
I've played a multitude of MMOs from the 90s to today. Some have had group finders and some have not. Sometimes it is easy to find a group without a group finder. There may be a pile of people waiting at the entrance to a dungeon, or maybe I dont care particularly about what I do so I'll just join a random group. But you cannot say that sometimes it isn't easy.
If you have ever played those games you would know that it could easily take 30 or more minutes to find a full party for something. Sometimes you wont fill the party at all and the group will disband or go do other things. I just PERSONALLY prefer the ease of automation. Time is more valuable to me now than 20 years ago. I have a job and family that I want and need to spend time with. If I can cut 30 minutes of nothing out of my game time to do stuff that I actually want to. Sign me up.
I have played those games. I've played several games that had under a hundred concurrent players in the same realm talking to each other in local-only chat. All of them different levels. Take a guess how inconvenient it is to find a good match for grouping up there.
Yet I still appreciated the groups I did find in those games infinitely more than any of my social interactions in games with L4G tools, where all relationships are essentially relegated to existing guild relationships and temporary dungeon groups where your party members are essentially stat sticks you carry with you until you're done.
In games without L4G, the need to communicate your expectations/desires/strategy bonds you together, and when you've found someone who plays the same way you do and has the same objective you have, it's the biggest dopamine rush.
I'd rather play a game that lets me arrange 10 lifelong memories a month, interspersed between inconvenient communication efforts during inefficient solo farming, than a game that feeds me an endless convenient supply of guaranteed "optimal progression" and "personal achievements." L4G games severely reduce the opportunities for those moments by locking everyone into their hamster wheel of existing streamlined communities and gameplay loops.
I reserve convenience, efficiency, and streamlined failsafes for guaranteed success for my real life job, so I don't starve when a project fails. Gaming is for high risk, high reward. And part of that risk is risking your time to potentially be wasted, in exchange for amazing memories when things do work out.
It also keeps chat cleaner and more organized.