Asmon day 1 in Verra after his first Death

We all know what's going to happen when Asmongold dies in Ashes.

The immediate response will be. "Steven will need to remove death penalties, and not drop any loot on death".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSVrrdUEkw4

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

We all know what's going to happen when Asmongold dies in Ashes.

The immediate response will be. "Steven will need to remove death penalties, and not drop any loot on death".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSVrrdUEkw4

but you are wasting time playing any video game...maybe except if you are making money out of them. even if he lost progress, he would still be making money from his viewers...what he said made no sense.

Sorry dude, your post made no sense here.

You aren't wasting time playing a game, you are using that time for entertainment. Entertainment is not wasted time.

If you do not find having to redo progression to be entertaining, then time spent redoing progression is not time spent being entertained - thus it then becomes time wasted.

entertainment is necessary. if you see it from that angle, then you are right, you arent wasting time (maybe if you played 15 hours every day?). but from a productive point of view, its a waste of time.

games can be beneficial for brain development because of the problem solving aspects of them, but only up to a certain point. you could just play basketball instead, or soccer and you would still be entertained and get better benefits.

if the claim is that they arent a waste of time because they are entertaining, then losing progress shouldn't matter. I'm sure you are as old as me or even older. don't tell me you weren't entertained back in the day when you played nes and snes, even if you died before saving (or didn't write down your last password) and lost progress?

if the game is entertaining enough, you can still be entertaining if you lose progress. at the end of the day, you will be making much more progress than you would be losing. that risk is also part of the fun btw, but maybe not for everyone.

asmongold is also making money even if he loses progression, so he might not be wasting his time anyways...

Aszkalon

hleV wrote: »

He's 34.

Hence my Point. Asmo told once how much his "Reflexes and Skill" has gone down compared to more than a handful of Years ago. For some People it happens sooner, for some later. Genetics is unfair as well.

blat

Aszkalon wrote: »

hleV wrote: »

He's 34.

Hence my Point. Asmo told once how much his "Reflexes and Skill" has gone down compared to more than a handful of Years ago. For some People it happens sooner, for some later. Genetics is unfair as well.

He seems like a decent chap and he's done alright for himself but yeah, doesn't seem the biggest winner in the genetic lottery.

Dripyula

Yeah, I remember that stream too in which Asmon sighed and lowkey confessed how it bothers him that he cannot focus as good anymore as he could when he was 10 years younger.
" Things in combat go pass me which I would have easily focussed on while doing other things.
I choke battles, die stupidly, get called a bad gamer and it bothers me a lot. But what can you do? "

And I have the exact same problem. More or less. Anyone can beat Malenia, Blade of Miquella.
Question is only how much time someone wants to invest until they become 'Let Me Solo Her'.

But about the topic

I said this in another topic already and I will say it in this one too, different server types could not necessarily "solve the problem" but at least provide some insight data in what the modern MMO audience/s truly prefers.

Lord Stevens vision asside. Developer ambitions asside and especially that - I too was once one of 3 leaders of a roleplay rpg forum many years ago - and I know what it means to rule with an ironfist and not buckle when it comes to cling to an unmoving set of ideals and rules.
It worked for a while but in the long run it destroyed and snuffed out the will of the playerbase to stay.

In D&D terms: I wasn't a bad DM. But I was also not a very good one either.
Nowadays I regret that I had not compromised more and thought I could just make people love my vision and sooner or later adapt to the vision I had for the rpg forum.
It wasn't a tyranny with me on the throne.
But yeah in hindsight... I feel like I failed the biggest part of the community.
For my own elitist few players and mindset. We also were on a powertrip and had a superiority complex.
009.jpg?locale=de

I think a good service provider is someone who does not necessarily gives the customers what they need.
But meets them halfway at least. Not to forsake the innitial vision but to compromise of course.
Otherwise the resulting success becomes a gamble.
The MMO genre is an "old gamer" genre.
And older people are quick to forsake their games for all kinds of reasons.

I don't think this vision should change that only a laughable amount of players can have permanent flightmounts for example. But I wouldn't be surprised to know that in it's entirety, about +21% more players would have played Ashes of Creation in total, if flightmounts would have been available to all of them.
Maybe not always too.
But maybe... just maybe... ever so often for a short amount of time.
It is not about envy towards other people. But also simply the vision of freedom and the view.
Damn I really hope there will be gliders in the game that you can launch upwards and then you can glide for about +5 minutes straight or something if you know what you're doing.
This will keep people playing.

To reach for the skys... if only for a little bit. Exploration and an amazing view.
Just like when I walljumped up on +70° degree high walls in WoW Classic in the 2004... and saw objects from up close which others only saw briefly from automatic flightpaths.
Ahhh the good old times.
Before flyingmounts actually made it easier for everyone to reach these places.

CROW3

Meh, he'll do what he does. The death penalty has been one of the constant 'knowns' of Ashes for what will be almost a decade by production launch. Literally the only perspective I'd find valuable in this thread would be Asmon himself.

Aszkalon

CROW3 wrote: »

Meh, he'll do what he does. The death penalty has been one of the constant 'knowns' of Ashes for what will be almost a decade by production launch. Literally the only perspective I'd find valuable in this thread would be Asmon himself.

I personally just hope the "Death Penalties" will not be to severe. I can see why some People are so afraid of PvP and why Corruption exists so that Gankers are countered by something.

Slaieth

You lose gear and xp when you die in this game?

Azherae

Slaieth wrote: »

You lose gear and xp when you die in this game?

Just XP.

You have to kill someone else who doesn't fight back, first, to lose any gear.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Vyril wrote: »

We all know what's going to happen when Asmongold dies in Ashes.

The immediate response will be. "Steven will need to remove death penalties, and not drop any loot on death".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSVrrdUEkw4

but you are wasting time playing any video game...maybe except if you are making money out of them. even if he lost progress, he would still be making money from his viewers...what he said made no sense.

Sorry dude, your post made no sense here.

You aren't wasting time playing a game, you are using that time for entertainment. Entertainment is not wasted time.

If you do not find having to redo progression to be entertaining, then time spent redoing progression is not time spent being entertained - thus it then becomes time wasted.

entertainment is necessary. if you see it from that angle, then you are right, you arent wasting time (maybe if you played 15 hours every day?). but from a productive point of view, its a waste of time.

games can be beneficial for brain development because of the problem solving aspects of them, but only up to a certain point. you could just play basketball instead, or soccer and you would still be entertained and get better benefits.

Up to this point, I mostly agree.

I will say that having spent a decade playing competitive team sport (basketball and rugby), the benefits of such sports are indeed potentially better, but the possible life long issues are also potentially far more serious. Amature sport can be dangerous, and if there is a safer way to get the best aspect of it, then I am all for it.

That is what MMORPG's offer, imo.

if the claim is that they arent a waste of time because they are entertaining, then losing progress shouldn't matter. I'm sure you are as old as me or even older. don't tell me you weren't entertained back in the day when you played nes and snes, even if you died before saving (or didn't write down your last password) and lost progress?

if the game is entertaining enough, you can still be entertaining if you lose progress. at the end of the day, you will be making much more progress than you would be losing. that risk is also part of the fun btw, but maybe not for everyone.

You got it right here with the last 5 words.

Maybe not for everyone.

Asmon knows that isn't him. We know that isn't him. He shouldn't play this game, and nor should anyone else that thinks the way he does. This game isn't for them.

The real question then becomes; how big a proportion of the population does that exclude?

CROW3

Slaieth wrote: »

You lose gear and xp when you die in this game?

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Death_penalties

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

The real question then becomes; how big a proportion of the population does that exclude?

it excludes as many people as any other product, game, etc. you don't make something for everyone, you make something for a group. that group can be big or small. niches can be big or small but everything is a niche.

take the best mmorpg you can think of, there are more people not playing that game than people playing it. take the most popular mmorpg or even game, there are more people who arent interested on it than people who are. excluding isn't a bad thing, but you rather focus in a group and people who arent in that group can still benefit from it.

example, take phone's voice commands ("ok google", "hey siri", etc) they were originally made for people with disabilities. their focus was people with disabilities and not just every single disability, but rather certain disabilities. they were excluding people with certain disabilities and people with no disabilities. is that a bad thing? people who weren't in that target group still ended up benefiting from it. those who want to use that functionality do, and those who don't, don't.

ashes doesnt have to focus on hardcore top end pvers, there's no reason for it. the same way eq doesnt have to focus on hardcore top end pvpers. there's no reason for it. they focus on their target.

and yeah if asmon doesn't wanna play, fine by him. i was just pointing out that his logic made no sense to me...

Slaieth

CROW3 wrote: »

Slaieth wrote: »

You lose gear and xp when you die in this game?

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Death_penalties

Ahhh, ok. This is a hardcore mmo.

CROW3

No. MO2 is a hardcore mmo.

Ashes is just old school.

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

The real question then becomes; how big a proportion of the population does that exclude?

it excludes as many people as any other product, game, etc.

This isn't true - different products with different properties exclude different amounts of people.

Nutto, for example, exclused many people because many people think it's properties make it disgusting. Chocolate excludes only a few people, as most people find its properties pleasant.

Depraved wrote: »

take the best mmorpg you can think of, there are more people not playing that game than people playing it.

Sure.

But if you are talking about every person on the planet, you are having an unconstructive discussion. In such a discussion, something that would exclude 0.001% of that group could be make or break for the game (that is a bit over 750,000 people).

This really isn't a helpful scale to be talking about.

ashes doesnt have to focus on hardcore top end pvers, there's no reason for it.

No one is saying they should.

Depraved

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

The real question then becomes; how big a proportion of the population does that exclude?

it excludes as many people as any other product, game, etc.

This isn't true - different products with different properties exclude different amounts of people.

Nutto, for example, exclused many people because many people think it's properties make it disgusting. Chocolate excludes only a few people, as most people find its properties pleasant.

Depraved wrote: »

take the best mmorpg you can think of, there are more people not playing that game than people playing it.

Sure.

But if you are talking about every person on the planet, you are having an unconstructive discussion. In such a discussion, something that would exclude 0.001% of that group could be make or break for the game (that is a bit over 750,000 people).

This really isn't a helpful scale to be talking about.

ashes doesnt have to focus on hardcore top end pvers, there's no reason for it.

No one is saying they should.

1- I realized I worded that incorrectly. i didn't mean it excludes the same amount of numbers, I meant it excludes people at the same rate? (I guess that's the right word). what I'm trying to say is that people will be excluded (regardless of numbers) and that doesn't make a product bad.

2- we could just talk about the gamer population then...but if you included those 750,000 you would have to make things that those 750k like and in return another 750k? might dislike and not play. example open world PVP vs no open world PVP. bottom line is, when you add things to include a group, you automatically exclude another group.

3- no but you always go there and talk about how top raiders wont play cuz they are excluded, so I thought you would go there this time as well, or at least you were thinking about it

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

The real question then becomes; how big a proportion of the population does that exclude?

it excludes as many people as any other product, game, etc.

This isn't true - different products with different properties exclude different amounts of people.

Nutto, for example, exclused many people because many people think it's properties make it disgusting. Chocolate excludes only a few people, as most people find its properties pleasant.

Depraved wrote: »

take the best mmorpg you can think of, there are more people not playing that game than people playing it.

Sure.

But if you are talking about every person on the planet, you are having an unconstructive discussion. In such a discussion, something that would exclude 0.001% of that group could be make or break for the game (that is a bit over 750,000 people).

This really isn't a helpful scale to be talking about.

ashes doesnt have to focus on hardcore top end pvers, there's no reason for it.

No one is saying they should.

1- I realized I worded that incorrectly. i didn't mean it excludes the same amount of numbers, I meant it excludes people at the same rate? (I guess that's the right word). what I'm trying to say is that people will be excluded (regardless of numbers) and that doesn't make a product bad.

Indeed. Every product - including chocolate - will exclude a portion of the population. This is now a correct statement as far as I can see.

The point I was making was - you will exclude people no matter what, but if you are making a commercial product, you need to ensure you are not excluding so many people that your product is no longer financially viable.

2- we could just talk about the gamer population then...but if you included those 750,000 you would have to make things that those 750k like and in return another 750k? might dislike and not play. example open world PVP vs no open world PVP. bottom line is, when you add things to include a group, you automatically exclude another group.

Even 750,000 players is not an appropriate scale to talk about in terms of population with Ashes.

You are right in that adding one feature or system may attract a group at the expense of making a different group not interested in the game - the thing to keep in mind though is that these groups differ in composition based on what it is you are talking about.

Sure, open world PvP attracts some players and renders others as not at all interested. However, other systems such as the family summons also renders some of those that are interested in open world PvP as being no longer interested. Same with potential item drop on death while corruption - there are people that are interested in open world PvP, family summons but not at all interested in the game because of that. The converse isn't really true, there aren't people out there that have looked at the PvP aspect of the game, been uninterested in it, but then suddenly been interested in the game due to the family summons. There aren't really people that were not interested in the game but then finding out that you could drop items on death while corrupt suddenly makes them interested.

Then you have the larger systems where players in positions of power can exhert control over players in lesser positions (this game has a number of these), that is also a system that will turn away large numbers of people, but only appeal to a very small number - and once the game goes live that number will decrease when people find out that they aren't able to get themselves in to those positions of power.

So, as well as groups differing in composition (by which I mean just because two people are in one group in one scenario, doesn't mean they are in the same group in another scenario), these groups are also asymetrical (meaning groups on either side of a system or mechanic are not necessarily the same size).

3- no but you always go there and talk about how top raiders wont play cuz they are excluded, so I thought you would go there this time as well, or at least you were thinking about it

Those people have abandoned any interest in the game.

Intrepid could decide to take a full 180 and aim for a full raid progression MMORPG, and they still not attract even a glance over at all from those players - or at least not the ones I know. This is easily the biggest of those asymmetrical groups of MMO players out there, and Steven (not Intrepid - Steven) has alienated them completely already.

---

Lets look at some of these asymetrical systems Intrepid has already decided on.

Open world PvP - that turns away more people than it attracts as is evidenced by how much more popular PvE is over PvP in regards to MMORPG's.

Corruption even existing - that is turning away a number of people that would have been interested in a more open PvP focused game, but is only attracting a small number of people that would otherwise not have been interested.

Item drop on death while corrupt - this is basically an extension of the above, it is turning away a few people that want more open PvP, but it isn't attracting people to the game.

Material and glint drop on death - this isn't attracting anyone that wouldn't have been interested in the game without it, but it is turning some people away that would have otherwise been interested.

The freehold info dump we recieved last year didn't make anyone that wasn't interested in the game suddenly interested, but it did turn away a whole subsection of potential players (it basically turned away anyone that was interested in Ashes primarily for crafting, with the seeming exception of people that already have a guild to support them).

Open PvP oceans didn't cause anyone not interested in Ashes to suddenly be interested, but did cause some people that were interested to no longer be.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying any of these decisions need to be changed - indeed I believe most of them should not be. What I am saying is that each of these decisions shapes the final playerbase. If we assume the initial potential playerbase consists of PvP MMORPG players, then each of those decisions above has chipped off a small amount of that potential playerbase.

I'm not advocating any change, nor expecting anyone from Intrepid to read this - I'm simply pointing out that all decisions have the potential to lower the games potential playerbase, and Intrepid has already made a number of decisions that - due to that asymmetry above - has lowered the games potential playerbase by a lot.

blat

Noaani wrote: »

Indeed. Every product - including chocolate - will exclude a portion of the population. This is now a correct statement as far as I can see.

@Depraved your statement has now been validated by Noaani.
You may proceed.

Noaani

blat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Indeed. Every product - including chocolate - will exclude a portion of the population. This is now a correct statement as far as I can see.

Depraved your statement has now been validated by Noaani.
You may proceed.

Depraved and I have been discussing and debating on this forum for years. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree.

One this that is absolutely true though - he doesn't need your help with anything here.

blat

Noaani wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Indeed. Every product - including chocolate - will exclude a portion of the population. This is now a correct statement as far as I can see.

Depraved your statement has now been validated by Noaani.
You may proceed.

Depraved and I have been discussing and debating on this forum for years. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree.

One this that is absolutely true though - he doesn't need your help with anything here.

What are you even on about, did I offer help? I was making a funny, primarily for my own entertainment.

Noaani

blat wrote: »

What are you even on about, did I offer help?

You offered what can either be considered instruction or advice - both of which are forms of help.

If you did so for your own entertainment, great! Just be aware that posts made for your own entertainement are still open for other people to reply to.

Child Item