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example, take phone's voice commands ("ok google", "hey siri", etc) they were originally made for people with disabilities.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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I did so for my own entertainment Noaani, is that ok?
Of course it's ok - I never said or suggested it wasn't.
I simply reminded you - due to you seeming to be surprised by the post getting a reply - that others are free to reply to posts you make for your own entertainment.
If that was something you had not actually forgotten, then great!
I did so for my own entertainment Noaani, is that ok?
Of course it's ok - I never said or suggested it wasn't.
I simply reminded you - due to you seeming to be surprised by the post getting a reply - that others are free to reply to posts you make for your own entertainment.
If that was something you had not actually forgotten, then great!
Lol was I surprised? Trust me, quite the opposite.
Christ talking to you is unbearable <--- *** in my opinion ***
It's like an AI with abrasion turned up to the max.
Anyway, I apologise to the others for derailing the conversation, and will leave it here. As you were, Noaani.
Comments
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...
Ahhh, ok. This is a hardcore mmo.
Ashes is just old school.
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. 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.
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
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.
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). 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.
@Depraved your statement has now been validated by Noaani.
You may proceed.
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.
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.
Of course it's ok - I never said or suggested it wasn't.
I simply reminded you - due to you seeming to be surprised by the post getting a reply - that others are free to reply to posts you make for your own entertainment.
If that was something you had not actually forgotten, then great!
Lol was I surprised? Trust me, quite the opposite.
Christ talking to you is unbearable <--- *** in my opinion ***
It's like an AI with abrasion turned up to the max.
Anyway, I apologise to the others for derailing the conversation, and will leave it here. As you were, Noaani.
lmao I'm ded 😭😭😭