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
But we actually don't know that. I believe in one thing and that is disparity of thought & preferences.
What kills longtime PvP in any game is the realization of whatever players that the system somehow does not favour them while doing so for others.
And then they start feeling stupid for participating regardless.
I doubt that people stop playing PvP because "they are bad" or lose too much in it.
If that would be so then games like HotS or LoL would have died years ago.
But people come back for quick shortwhile, even when the game and their own style does not favour them.
Probably due to a belief in that the rng gods are fair enough for them to accept participation.
However in MMO's, you have automatically different demographics of PvP enjoyers.
Cause it is just that big of a game genre. Multi Massive is in the "MMO" for a reason.
Most people just fail to realize this since BG's in WoW for example were relatively quickly filled up with up to 40vs40 players, among a playerpool of thousands on each server back then.
So even if people stopped participating, for a few weeks or even months, there was always enough replacement cannonfodder to fill in for them, so they did not became noticable.
However WoW did not had XP punishment in the game, or the possibility to lose your entire housing when your node gets destroyed/conquered by another group of players and this worrys me greatly.
People can accept loss & failure.
As long as the consequences are not too gruesome.
Games who have extreme consequences like that, only have elitist playerbases which are always... very tiny.
And when the financial situation of Ashes gets dire because it caters too much to this little demographic of players and not enough to more casual players, then the last hope for the MMO world in form of Ashes will have truly been the flop & false hope that haters proclaim it always was for years on end already.
I have a hunch Intrepit might not realize this, or focusses too much on being hardcore just for the sake of it cause they think this is "cool".
You remember the old RPG forums in which we RP'd.
We were Elitist back then and you know how that went and ended.
With tons of people who couldn't keep up and became inactive cause they could not endure it anymore that their posts looked like pebbles beside our diamond posts.
Lets face it that was just the truth.
People want to PLAY a game though. Not work hard for it.
And so I recommend to hand out servertypes for different player demographics alltogether.
At least two types! Lets say the type where one most probably plays 8 hours a day regularly and or only 4 hours each day.
At least these two!
So that the nolifers and "pro's" get their fill but not on the cost of the more casual players.
Let the permaplayers fight each other and have a tense time, just the same as the more casual player groups.
And, when it comes to the concept of Massively Multiplayer, for Steven, that primarily means massive PvP battles, hopefully reaching and exceeding 250 v 250 PvP battles.
I think most MMORPG gamers are not aware of the type of RP you reference.
In the early days of the Ashes Forums, we had several prolific posters who represented RPers who play on RPG servers in the manner you suggest.
But, whenever they asked Steven how he planned to support RP, he would say something like, "Oh! Of course we will support RP. In Taverns."
As far as I can tell, Steven considers RP to be talking with an RPG dialect while he's PvPing or playing a form of Table-Top RPG as a parlor game in a Tavern.
The contingent of players who RPed in MMORPGs on RPG servers left a few years ago, after they realized Steven doesn't seem to even comprehend what their style of RP is. When they asked Steven specific questions about how Ashes will support them, he just seemed bewildered.
Steven is a gamer who was able to wrangle enough funds and inspire enough experienced game devs to create an MMORPG that best fits his specific playstyle.
Which is also one of the reasons why the Ashes game design does not include separate servers.
MMORPGs attract many different RPG playstyles.
It's not as simple as Casual-Time v Hardcore-Time.
There is also Casual Challenge v Hardcore-Challenge.
I am a Casual-Challenge/Hardcore-Time player.
Steven is designing Ashes for gamers with a Hardcore-Challenge playstyle because that best fits Steven's playstyle.
Which is why Ashes is now so heavily focused on Risk v Reward (rather than Meaningful Conflict).
Risk v Reward is now the 2nd Design Pillar (if not the 1st).
Steven wants gamers playing Ashes to have to work hard for their Rewards.
Especially in the West, PvPers and competitive gamers are very likely to be anti-P2W.
I would not call shutting down 10 years after launch a failure, though.
Especially since it seems like it's just being shut down in the West.
Our Rooms are next to each other
I dare say Planetside II has lost that Gamble. The Game somewhat managed to held itself for 10 Years, tho ... ... ... ... ... but damn so many People will never trust that Company again. Me included. ^.^
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
100%
"Meaningful" conflict huh? I remember Alliance & Horde players cleaving each others skulls appart in openworld PvP just for the sake of it. Good old times man. This rush is something I will never feel again probably.
But my point was and is always about the longevity of Ashes, which I now came to worry over inevitably.
People cannot be predicted that much anyway of course. When I would be right, I'd say WoW should have died years ago but people play it out of all kinds of reasons.
Mostly addicted one's I bet.
But Ashes of Creation is different.
It does not have that big hype culture community like the Warcraft universe has.
Or the fact that people invested so much time into WoW that they fear to quit now, thinking they will have nothing left after it.
We all know it that Ashes has only one thing going for itself which no MMO ever had before.
And that is the highly reactive gameworld to the actions of the players themself, which is just so fascinating.
BUT... that can become a doubleedged sword quite quickly too.
And that is if people start feeling way too inferior to other guilds, probably consisting out of nolifers.
People quit games over this and those who remain are the most ugly and toxic gamers you see in all games or gamemodes within such games.
# "Sea of Thieves hourglass mode"
I experienced more toxicity, hatred and profanity in half a month of playing this mode, than in 5 years prior to the mode COMBINED and that is telling something.
People can try to ignore it or act like they do not understand what I am saying.
But I doubt anyone wants Ashes to become "the most toxic MMO" that has ever existed.
And if elitists will be too powerful, this is what WILL happen most probably.
Hence my suggestion to give the nolifers a server where it will make sense to play +4 hours, or +8 hours and up to infinity and more, within a single day without experiecning a heavy restriction.
As in... if your playtime exceeds +4 hours for the 4 hours servertype, or 8 hours servertype and more, that you simply cannot gain any experience anymore, or ressources etc. *for that remaining reallife day!*
I say give players the ability to choose between such servertypes.
They will make their choice, will have to live with it and cannot blame anyone anymore what happens afterwards on their server.
And the probability of people experiencing PvP on an even playingfield will maximize.
If not this might become a sh*tshow with the occasional, pitiful slaughters, potentially followed up by massive ragequits, followed up by stuff no one wants to see.
I had deathtreats and more thrown at me in WoW already in 2005/2006.
And nowdays people are even crazier than ever before.
The best worse case is a ragequit and one subscriber lost forever.
The darker cases we do not even wanna know about.
Nothing speaks against the different servertypes.
Only elitists would hate them, thinking it might deprive them from overly easy victorys.
For instead of facing dozens of casuals they might only encounter guilds of equal skill and nolife'ness as themself which makes every battle actually exciting.
But I say more fighting less gloating.
Make people work for it indeed. Not just in a PvE sense.
Casual players should not become "mobs" for the psychos of every MMO.
I enjoyed Shadowlands quite a bit.
And I love Dragonflight - and it’s the Seasonal Battlepasses which lure me back at max level.
I expect to be playing MMORPGs with minimal PvP and enticing Battlepasses.
I’m currently working through the Fortnite Battlepass, before I return to the Nightingale Early Access.
New World Battlepasses are also fun.
While I agree with your sentiment of Ashes becoming a toxic waste pool of those who no-life, get the best equipment, and gatekeep others via gearing and otherwise, I don't think spending server costs for "nolifers" is a realistic, nor a good alternative. I think they just need to design the game so that the longevity of Ashes isn't at a risk. Which means tighter gear scaling and not constantly creating vertical progression grind loops.
And for everyone else saying "WELL HORIZONTAL PROGRESSION SUCKS ASS TOO", I'm not suggesting that horizontal progression needs to be the alternative either. With Intrepid's node system there should be enough variable progression in the world where horizontal progression isn't necessary. However, I do think vertical character progression is better than gear progression and at that point the question is "to what limit?"
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Current Member of the Gray Sentinels.
I actually love this idea, or something along these lines.
It'd never happen of course (what people want in the short term rarely aligns with what they would have preferred in hindsight over the longer term).
WoW's recent "Seasons of Discovery" has effectively done something similarish with the staged level caps. Max 25, then 40 etc.
Allowing those with more time / more hardcore to go mad gearing up, pvping, making alts etc.. while those with less time can play their main and not fall too far behind the rest.
I think it's a great idea personally.
WoW's fanbase would never have voted for that but it's been mad popular.
doesn't risk vs reward makes the conflict meaningful? in almost every game, risk vs reward exists, its just not presented at a surface level like it is in ashes, aka the company CEO specifically mentioning the term.
anyways, can you give examples of what a meaningful conflict should be like?
Node A and B border each other. They are also at the same tier, competing to advance to become the top node and not become the vassal of the other.
Node A gatherers are extracting resources so they can be provided back to the node to advance. Node B players camp and kill the Node A gatherers to prevent those mats from contributing to A, and redirect them to B.
good example. is there a lack of risk and reward there? seems to me it isnt.
Objective-based PvP combat is Meaningful Conflict.
RPGs provide rewards for Quests.
I don't really perceive that as risk v reward - although it's possible to do that.
I perceive that as reward for completed tasks.
I completed a task for someone - it would be nice to have a reward.
Also, RPGs tend to "reward" encounters with xp. And the xp allows characters to improve their skills and abilities.
I play RPGs to move through the lives of heroic protagonists in a Fantasy novel.
I don't play RPGs to compete with others. I don't play RPGs so I can become rich.
I play RPGs so I can help people and towns survive threats. And, sure, it's nice to get some helpful stuff in return for my help.
Even in real life, I consider myself to be Chaotic Good. My RPG characters are almost always Chaotic Good.
And Good characters do what they do to altruistically help others, rather than being motivated by greed.
Help because it's Good to help others - and you have the skill set to help others.
Rather than being motivated primarily by the rewards. Although, again, rewards can be nice.
My favorite form of PvP is Town/City Defense.
Where I am primarily focused on defending the Town (objective) - because that is what Good characters do.
In that scenario, I don't necessarily care if the threat is PvE or PvP. And I don't particularly care about the Rewards. I also don't really care about the "Risk".
What I care about is the storytelling experience of my Chaotic Good character doing something Good to help others.
And then... after about an hour... I'll be ready to move onto some other storytelling experience that is more Casual-Challenge than PvP combat.
For certain, Threats are a key aspect of RPGs.
I'm not sure that is quite the same thing as Risk.
D&D has Encounters with various Challenge Ratings. And defeating the Encounters will have associated rewards. I'm not sure those Encounters are quite the same thing as Risk.
If it's combat, I typically try to use Charisma Skills or Stealth to bypass the combat.
In MMOs - I will kill stuff in order to obtain the Resources I need especially to enhance Stealth.
Nightingale is not an RPG, but...
Although, I typically strive not to attack stuff that won't attack me first, I will proactively kill Bugs that would attack me on sight. Primarily because Bug parts will increase Stealth rating.
I'll also kill Harpies when I want gear that shows my character got their Stealth rating from Harpies, specifically.
I wanted my Druid character's Druid outfit to be Green. Which meant I had to kill Grendels in order to obtain Grendel Thread - the only component that provides a solid green color to cloth.
My pal, Taradyn, asked me how I was able to get green cloth and I explained.
She said, "Oh! Well. I don't want to have to kill Grendels because I only kill things that attack me first."
I told her, "I feel the same way, but... it's more important that my Druid character wears green, so I just RP in my head that I didn't kill any Grendels and I got the green cloth some other way."
Killing the Grendels was a pretty low Challenge. I would not call it at all risky.
A bit time consuming to find some Grendels to kill and collect a sufficient amount of Thread.
And... it still felt very rewarding to have my character looking the way I wanted her to look.
Mostly because I accomplished my goal - even though Green Thread is a bit Uncommon.
"Risk" was irrelevant to my enjoyment of that pursuit.
I consider Sieges and Caravans to be Meaningful Conflict. (Per the Kickstarter video)
I am a Niküa and in order to complete my Racial Progression, there has to be a Niküa Metro on the server.
But my server does not have a Niküa Metro.
Which means I will have to Siege a Metro in order to try to build a Niküa Metro.
Participation in the Siege really has little to do with loving PvP and everything to do with the inherent conflict that arises from having 9 Races and only 5 Metros.
Similarly, a Science Metro recently appeared on the server and added the Fast Travel Super Power.
But, most of the gamers on the server don't want the server to have any Fast Travel, so they Siege that Metro in order to at least destroy the Fast Travel Service Building - if not destroy the entire Science Metro.
Or could be the reverse: The server does not have a Science Metro, but some Guilds on the server want to add Fast Travel, so they Siege one of the 5 existing Metros in order to try to build a Science Metro.
Participation in the Siege really has little to do with loving PvP and everything to do with the inherent conflict that arises from having 4 Node Types and only 5 Metros.
No guarantee that all 4 Node Types will always have a Metro on the server - a server could have 5 Metros with only 3 Node Types or 5 Metros with only 2 Node Types - even possibe to have 5 Metros with only 1 Node Type.
As opposed to Steven's obsession with PvP because "No Reward is worthwhile without significant Risk".
*RAWR*
so basically personal preference.
ffa can be meaningful. i mean you get things for winning...meaningful doesn't always mean capture the flag or king of the hill.
anyways, you help in town defense because that's what good people do..so you get the satisfaction of helping, don't you? if you didn't get any personal satisfaction and felt good, you wouldn't do it. I'm sure you wouldn't help people if it made you feel bad...your reward is the positive emotion you feel, plus there are tangible rewards for it (like not getting your town destroyed). maybe you don't care about material rewards, but that doesn't make a bad person of someone who does and it doesn't make the fight less good.
you wanna siege a metro and destroy the progress of hundreds if not thousand players so you can get an achievement for nikua racial progression. very altruistic indeed.you arent motivated by greed, you just want the achievement. so your personal feelings are more valid than others?
there are different degrees of meaningfulness btw, and different levels of rewards. some people will prefer a certain level more than others, and that's fine. some people care about risks and just because you don't, doesn't mean what they want is less valid, or bad design, or not meaningful.
edit:
even in those metro sieges, even if people arent doing them for the love of PVP (many are) there are risk and rewards...even if you did it only for the racial progression, that's literally the reward. if there was no racial progression, you wouldn't do it. I'm I correct? since you don't wanna do that for the love of PVP...you would only do it for the reward of the racial progression...and there are also risks associated with that...can you see the contradiction here?
Feels to me as though this is semantics.
You can call a Primary Archetype a Class if you wish.
Even though in Ashes, a Class is specifically defined as the combination of Primary Archetype + Secondary Archetype.
In the Ashes Kickstarter, Meaningful Conflict is defined as the objective-based PvP combat from Castle Sieges, Node Sieges, and Caravans, which catalyze change in the world around you.
The FFA PvP in the Open Seas does not catalyze change in the world.
So, yes, you could subjectively perceive FFA PvP in the Open Seas as meaningful to you.
But, it doesn't fall under the objective Ashes definition of Meaning Conflict, which catalyzes change in the world around you.
Well, I would say because that's what D&D characters with a Good Alignment would do.
And because that's what the Good heroes in most Fantasy novels would do.
In real life I sometimes help people even when it makes me feel bad.
But at that point you seem to be conflating Good with good.
And then you begin discussing "bad" instead of contrasting Good Alignment with Neutral and Evil Alignments.
I'm pretty sure we agree that caring about material rewards does not make a person bad.
Of course, I did not reference "bad" people - so that point is moot.
I didn't say anything about trying to gain an "Achievement".
Rather, I gave an example of a Niküa striving to complete their Racial Progression.
Racial progression unlocks perks and Augments - along with other attributes that build your character to perform in the manner you wish the character to perform.
Similar to completing Class progression.
In D&D terms, a Niküa who chose to Siege a Metro for personal gain might be pushed from a Good Alignment towards a Neutral Alignment. Whether they reach a Neutral Alignment or even dip over to an Evil Alignment depends on how consistently they focus on pursuing selfish gains, rather than altruistic gains.
Characters should have character flaws. Well-designed characters are not always perfect saints.
"Just want the Achievement" is your concept which actually has nothing to do with anything I've said.
Also, it's not possible for one Niküa to successfuly Siege a Metro. There would likely have to be hundreds of other player characters on the server also interested in having a Niküa Metro in order to initiate any kind of successful Metro Siege. And then a sufficient number of Niküa striving to build a Niküa Metro to actually be able to complete the goal of establishing a Niküa Metro.
So, I don't agree that "personal feelings" is a valid description of the motivation.
Racial/Cultural goals is much more accurate. And, again, falls under the Ashes concept of Meaningful Conflict: Participation in the Siege really has little to do with loving PvP and everything to do with the inherent conflict that arises from having 9 Races/Cultures and only 5 Metros.
Ashes defines Meaningful Conflict as:
The objective-based PvP combat from Castle Sieges, Node Sieges, and Caravans, which catalyze change in the world around you.
So, while you are correct in your observation about degrees of meaningfulness and different levels of rewards and... we agree...
It remains a moot point. And really has nothing to do with anything I've said.
I might be pursuing a Reward, but I would not care anything about the "Risk", based on the Ashes mechanics.
(Other than... what Steven means by "Risk" seems to always be PvP.)
This would be similar to the example I gave about the Grendel Thread.
There was no risk whatsoever when I hunted Grendels for Grendel Thread. Guaranteed win for the combat.
Next to 0 chance of losing anything in any way - except for some time waiting for enough Grendels to spawn so I could collect all the Thread I needed to complete the Druid Bundle.
That being said...
Again, I never said that Sieges have 0 Risk.
What I said is that Steven, after Jeffrey Bard left Intrepid, has become obsessed with Risk v Reward and rarely mentions Meaningful Conflict.
Instead Steven focuses almost exclusively on his vision of Risk v Reward which he defines as: "No Reward is worthwhile without significant Risk".
But, sure...
How individual players and gamers feel about Steven's vision of Risk v Reward will depend on playstyle preferences.
Could it just be a matter of scale?
This difference between "Meaningful Conflict" vs "Risk v Reward", played out via the examples of objective-based combat eg: Castle/Node sieges & Caravans vs OWPvP.
I do agree OWPvP in a vacuum isn't comparable in terms of meaning, but I guess my expectation of Ashes "PvX" is that the game is sufficiently rich for there to be meaning in every activity.
IE: PvP won't be shoved into a headless-chicken mode instanced free-for-all, but will revolve around resources & the economy (at least).
So I guess what I'm saying is meaningful conflict can be found at every scale, from castle sieges down to 1v1 OWPvP. Hopefully.
(I also agree that meaningful conflict is a preferable driver for PvP).
EDIT: realised this is very close to or the same as the below comment about degrees of meaningfulness, which I think you both agree on.
It's more about whether or not the PvP catalyzes change in the world around you.
Meaningful Conflict actually changes the available content in the world.
Risk v Reward doesn't really change the content that becomes available in the world.
Here's the EQNext version of Meaningful Conflict:
The Dark Elves of Silverspine establish a base where they create Shadow Pits that convert Life magic into Shadow energy, which strengthens their gear and Shadow spells. Shadow energy also fuels Stealth abilities.
The Dark Elves siphon Life magic from Dryads in Kithicor Forest.
The Druids of Kithicor, who value Life magic, must protect the Dryads from the Dark Elves - especially because the depletion of Life magic cause Blight throughout the Forest.
What players would later discover, if too many Dryads are killed, is that the Dryads have been holding back banished Shadow Demons who wish to destroy all life. Siphoning too much Life magic will release the Shadow Demons who will permanently destroy all Life in that area and trek as far across the globe as they can.
At that point, the devs expect that Dark Elf player characters would probably want to ally with the Druid player characters in order to banish the Shadow Demons.
Because the Shadow Demons kill anything living - including Dark Elves.
I typically rely heavily on Stealth in order to explore as much of the world as quickly as possible. I expect that I would want to side with the Dark Elves to strengthen my Stealth magic with Shadow energy.
I wouldn't really care about the ramifications for the Dryads. (This proved to be true when I massacred Harpies in Nightingale so that I could increase my Stealth rating.)
The defenders of the Dryads won't care that I'm really just trying to strengthen my Stealth magic.
Where I typically am not interested in PvP combat, the PvP Conflict pushes me into encounters where I'm likely to get involved in PvP combat even while I'm really just pursuing PvE content. I actually just want to augment my Stealth, but doing so conflicts with the players in Kithicor. And ultimately could damage regions outside of Kithicor, even Silverspine...though we won't know the full ramifications initially.
Even though normally I'm a pacifist carebear, if I have to kill some player characters to strengthen my Stealth abilities...well, some player characters might just have to die.
Oooops!
Same on the flip side if I'm playing a Kithicor Druid who is trying to prevent Blight in the Forest. If I have to kill some player character Dark Elves to prevent Blight from spreading throughout the Forest... well, some player character Dark Elves will just have to die.
In Ashes, that kind of conflict is going to be driving PvP combat.
That's what we will be encountering way more than random PKers --
I'm just trying to focus on PvE to strengthen my Stealth augments, but I get attacked by other player characters. Technically, that's a legitimate attack.
It's Meaningful Conflict, not just people out to gank other player for giggles and loot.
Similar to my example of killing the Grendel Shamans for Grendel Thread in order to dye my outfit Green, killing Dryads probably wouldn't have much Risk.
We now know that, in Ashes, Land Management might also be a form of Meaningful Conflict.
Because stripping an area of Resources might actually catalyze change in the world - beyond just,
"I got here first! It's my Camp! I'm going to KoS anyone who tries to Gather in my Camp!"
There is literally Objective meaning, rather than Subjective meaning to the conflict.
Because the results can actually change the world significantly - rather than just two players.
The scale of the combat might just be 1v1, but the ramifications could be regional or even global.