This isn't a change. Back in 2017 we have quotes that sieging a castle for the first time would be extremely difficult and would take as many resources as comparable to leveling a metro. By the time metros would appear, there would be 50s in game.
It's new. I'm aware of the old quote(s).
Kickstarter stated that Ashes doesn't have an Endgame - which is the primary reason I was interested in Nodes.
Castles being Level 50-55 and Freeholds being Level 50 means that Ashes very clearly has Endgame.
How do you define end game?
To me it seems that you identify things/mechanics you like and if those things are available only after you leveled up rather than during the entire journey, you call them end game.
If that is the case, then to prevent such an "end game", one should first think how to make the game interesting with an endless / very long leveling system. Once that solution is found, the leveling can still be reduced to an arbitrary duration depending on outside world constraints.
But AoC was never designed to be like that even though I see some attempts.
Players have a max level which we reach fast.
Nodes level fast too.
Why would I be going out of my way to genocide weaker mobs and get less stuff.
Not necessarily less, but simply different. Lower lvl mobs might drop stuff that's not dropped at higher lvls. Or they'd drop stuff in bigger quantities than high lvl mobs do. And when highbies can't just go genocide a field of lowbie mobs for their special mats, the game has a nice way of promoting cross-lvl trading and makes money flow downward.
Overall people should get full rewards from anything they kill, else to start to ask the question if you are going to put limits on content why not just scale all mobs to players at this point.
Well, we'll just have to disagree on that point and see what Intrepid do.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
How do you define end game?
To me it seems that you identify things/mechanics you like and if those things are available only after you leveled up rather than during the entire journey, you call them end game.
If that is the case, then to prevent such an "end game", one should first think how to make the game interesting with an endless / very long leveling system. Once that solution is found, the leveling can still be reduced to an arbitrary duration depending on outside world constraints.
But AoC was never designed to be like that even though I see some attempts.
Players have a max level which we reach fast.
Nodes level fast too.
In this case, I'm calling it Endgame in the sense of "Endgame is the real game."
To be more precise - my gripe, here, is that Ashes is designed for "Max Level to be the real the game."
Which should not really be a thing in any RPG.
Adn it would not be a thing in Ashes if Freeholds and Castles were not restricted to only become available after characters reach Max Level.
But... it's not actually going to affect my gameplay because I'm not really going to be playing.
We already know that I'm not the Target Audience - it just makes it more clear that Ashes is not the game I perceived it to be based on the Kickstarter and Jeffrey Bard's descriptions of the game design.
Why would I be going out of my way to genocide weaker mobs and get less stuff.
Not necessarily less, but simply different. Lower lvl mobs might drop stuff that's not dropped at higher lvls. Or they'd drop stuff in bigger quantities than high lvl mobs do. And when highbies can't just go genocide a field of lowbie mobs for their special mats, the game has a nice way of promoting cross-lvl trading and makes money flow downward.
Overall people should get full rewards from anything they kill, else to start to ask the question if you are going to put limits on content why not just scale all mobs to players at this point.
Well, we'll just have to disagree on that point and see what Intrepid do.
In a game about needing different mats and such and whatever else they might include i don't see a world where they say you don't gets items from lower level mobs.
Issue also isn't avoided you have a low level alt to farm mobs and over gear them, and have your high level to pk people using decs and such so you get all the stuff. You would be just adding weird complications that lead to the devs with the idea of strong level scaling.
But i guess we will see if they change how things are later on i doubt it thought. People would complain if some special event pops up and the game is like ya you can't get loot.
This could be another interesting thread you could start to see how people will respond to it.
How do you define end game?
To me it seems that you identify things/mechanics you like and if those things are available only after you leveled up rather than during the entire journey, you call them end game.
If that is the case, then to prevent such an "end game", one should first think how to make the game interesting with an endless / very long leveling system. Once that solution is found, the leveling can still be reduced to an arbitrary duration depending on outside world constraints.
But AoC was never designed to be like that even though I see some attempts.
Players have a max level which we reach fast.
Nodes level fast too.
In this case, I'm calling it Endgame in the sense of "Endgame is the real game."
To be more precise - my gripe, here, is that Ashes is designed for "Max Level to be the real the game."
Which should not really be a thing in any RPG.
Adn it would not be a thing in Ashes if Freeholds and Castles were not restricted to only become available after characters reach Max Level.
But... it's not actually going to affect my gameplay because I'm not really going to be playing.
We already know that I'm not the Target Audience - it just makes it more clear that Ashes is not the game I perceived it to be based on the Kickstarter and Jeffrey Bard's descriptions of the game design.
I'll agree here because of something really specific that I've been thinking on.
I realized that when I play an MMO, I want to have 'one adventure per level' at lower levels, and 2-3 adventures per level at higher levels (but at higher levels, sometimes the adventure isn't related to gaining more levels.
I don't like quests that give EXP moreso because sometimes they aren't adventures, if a game could manage it consistently I doubt I'd mind, so looking forward to that.
Since 'an adventure' to me, takes about 90 minutes, and if we assume that my playblock is 3 hours or so, then I can level twice a day, early on, and this feels right. When I can't play for as long, I still level once a day, and I get my one adventure.
Games that push me to endgame and put all the meaningful adventures there, lose some charm to me, and end up with decision bloat or arcane progression paths at that 'endgame'. So in the end, I have 'learned' why I subconsciously agree with both 'long leveling' and certain parts of what Dygz says. Not because I dislike games that don't have this structure, it's that I have no reason to play an MMORPG that doesn't offer it, that's just a competitive or social fix I can get much better somewhere else.
That said, I still don't think that this datapoint implies a change to 'things being at Endgame', I'll believe that when I see that my group can't kill 10+ level enemies anymore. Because if they can, all this means is 'level 35-40 Raids who try really hard to gear up and learn coordination would be able to get Castles', which I think slots in perfectly, unlike the Freehold one where it is (as of this writing) a hard 'you must be this tall to ride'.
Even if you make changes to artificially reduce this gap that they rightfully aquired by grinding like maniacs (why should it be reduced by the way again? Cause you feel it's unfair? Then grind more.) they will still come out on top and still get a castle first and take advantage of it.
It is kinda funny that you had the same misconception about the OP as Mag did. Guess my writing style really ruffles pvpers' feathers. Good to know
I've already explained why it should be shorter and I've also said that I expect, and am fully fine with, hardcores to get the castle, but I'm sure that this concept is too difficult for you to comprehend cause you're afraid of the game preventing you from dominating a bit too much.
ok so 99% o the game doesnt require you to be level 50 and because 2 things require you to be level 50 this is one of those games that starts at "endgame" or max level?
also, its silly to think that there wont be an endgame...unless you are playing an infinite runner.
you can still do things that don't require level 50, but some do. doesn't mean you need to rush to 50 if you don't want to, but at some point you will hit 50, then you cant level anymore and you just do the things you want to do.
How do you define end game?
To me it seems that you identify things/mechanics you like and if those things are available only after you leveled up rather than during the entire journey, you call them end game.
If that is the case, then to prevent such an "end game", one should first think how to make the game interesting with an endless / very long leveling system. Once that solution is found, the leveling can still be reduced to an arbitrary duration depending on outside world constraints.
But AoC was never designed to be like that even though I see some attempts.
Players have a max level which we reach fast.
Nodes level fast too.
In this case, I'm calling it Endgame in the sense of "Endgame is the real game."
To be more precise - my gripe, here, is that Ashes is designed for "Max Level to be the real the game."
Which should not really be a thing in any RPG.
Adn it would not be a thing in Ashes if Freeholds and Castles were not restricted to only become available after characters reach Max Level.
But... it's not actually going to affect my gameplay because I'm not really going to be playing.
We already know that I'm not the Target Audience - it just makes it more clear that Ashes is not the game I perceived it to be based on the Kickstarter and Jeffrey Bard's descriptions of the game design.
Is ok for me if you don't play the game as long as you are here on the forum and you will test Alpha 2 to give feedback and then you will also log in once in a while to socialize and you will also explore the map, as much as you can
So a better experience for you is an mmo where the leveling never stops and developers can add content frequently enough so that by you have something to do.
That can still happen in AoC because we will have enough slots for additional characters.
The castle sieges were not added for those who want to have a journey. They could be but not with 45 days of leveling.
I can play both kind of mmos, with 2-3 weeks leveling or with 18 months leveling.
You too. The content is the same. You explore, you get or create stories... You will see enough sieges with the 2nd alt when you level it (in the parallel universe where you play the game).
Or was you planning to grab one of those 5 castles while still having your starting gear?
ok so 99% o the game doesnt require you to be level 50 and because 2 things require you to be level 50 this is one of those games that starts at "endgame" or max level?
To me it's more about the general implication of these two (massive btw) features being tied to lvl50.
Also, I didn't even touch on this before in this thread, but thinking about L2's castle/fortress sieges reminded me of another important part of the equation. Guards. Iirc we'll be able to hire guards in Ashes as well, and if mobs that control the castle are lvl50 be default, I feel like it would be only logical if guards were lvl50 as well.
Now I'd hope that this is not the case or maybe there's a scale of "their lvl depends on how much you pay them" or smth, but, again, it's about the implication.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Is ok for me if you don't play the game as long as you are here on the forum and you will test Alpha 2 to give feedback and then you will also log in once in a while to socialize and you will also explore the map, as much as you can
So a better experience for you is an mmo where the leveling never stops and developers can add content frequently enough so that by you have something to do.
It's fine for Leveling to stop.
Level Cap is OK.
But, restricting content like Freeholds and Castle Sieges to Max Level gameplay is what causes gamers to perceive Leveling as a grind that is just a needless time sink impeding them from playing the "real game".
I can play both kind of mmos, with 2-3 weeks leveling or with 18 months leveling.
You too. The content is the same. You explore, you get or create stories... You will see enough sieges with the 2nd alt when you level it (in the parallel universe where you play the game).
Or was you planning to grab one of those 5 castles while still having your starting gear?
I'd rather be focused on one MMORPG that is so immersive I don't want to play other MMORPGs.
And, I'd rather play MMORPGs where Leveling reflects the Hero's Journey and is the bulk of the gameplay - rather than MMOs where the "real game starts at Max Level".
I'd much prefer Leveling one character to max take 3-18(+) months, rather than 3-4 weeks.
I don't know what you mean by "The content is the same."
Again, the reveal that The Ancients who own the Castles will be Level 50-55 doesn't affect my gameplay at all because the Open Seas is already the dealbreaker which means I won't be participating in Sieges in any case.
It's just that the reveal that Castle Sieges start at Level 50, in addition to Freeholds, makes it more clear that I'm not in the Target Audience for Ashes.
So a better experience for you is an mmo where the leveling never stops and developers can add content frequently enough so that by you have something to do.
It's fine for Leveling to stop.
Level Cap is OK.
But, restricting content like Freeholds and Castle Sieges to Max Level gameplay is what causes gamers to perceive Leveling as a grind that is just a needless time sink impeding them from playing the "real game".
I agree that it is a matter of perception, but I disagree that it is an issue.
imagine you could get to max level, but now you have to spend 45 days of doing quests, walking around all over the map collecting book pages to get a skill and then it gets nerfed the next day (fuck u eso), you have to unlock skills, get gear, etc, and meanwhile, you cant do certain content. isn't it the same?
should we just eliminate all progression and let people have access to everything on day 1? then people who like progression would complain... why people complain about levels but not about another type of progression to access content? that's so irrational.
as soon as you buy the game, you have access to it, but there are some stuff that require you to progress first. you wont go into a war without training as a soldier first. you wont go to the area with the strongest mobs in assassins creed as soon as you start or you'd die.
even the hero when he goes on his hero journey isn't at max power when he starts. he makes friends and enemies along the way, learns new things, becomes stronger, works on his weaknesses, etc. if the hero ends his journey the same way he started, he might as well not have had any journey at all.
even perseus didn't go after medusa at level 1. he had to get some levels (grow up), learn how to use a sword, get a sword, get athenas shield, hermes sandals and hades cap. he had to wait for the right moment and then cut her head off to return victorious.
I can play both kind of mmos, with 2-3 weeks leveling or with 18 months leveling.
You too. The content is the same. You explore, you get or create stories... You will see enough sieges with the 2nd alt when you level it (in the parallel universe where you play the game).
Or was you planning to grab one of those 5 castles while still having your starting gear?
I'd rather be focused on one MMORPG that is so immersive I don't want to play other MMORPGs.
And, I'd rather play MMORPGs where Leveling reflects the Hero's Journey and is the bulk of the gameplay - rather than MMOs where the "real game starts at Max Level".
I'd much prefer Leveling one character to max take 3-18(+) months, rather than 3-4 weeks.
I don't know what you mean by "The content is the same."
Again, the reveal that The Ancients who own the Castles will be Level 50-55 doesn't affect my gameplay at all because the Open Seas is already the dealbreaker which means I won't be participating in Sieges in any case.
It's just that the reveal that Castle Sieges start at Level 50, in addition to Freeholds, makes it more clear that I'm not in the Target Audience for Ashes.
<< I don't know what you mean by "The content is the same." >>
Let's say you and me enjoy things in an mmo which are not what others consider as important.
If such a thing is exploring the map, that can happen no matter how long the leveling up is.
And if I want to explore slowly, I will do it as slow as I want. I sometime have reasons to not discover everything and let that experience for later, when friends join or I make a new alt, new race etc.
You like to do that fast. These are activities which others might dismiss but are the same no matter if leveling is 2 weeks or 2 years.
Or role playing.
I could be concerned about Steven's profit or player retention but making the game is his business and hobby.
So I am not concerned about those players who want to see a siege within the first 4 weeks after the official release. The game is for players who know they will and know why they will pay a subscription for a few years.
I think adjusting the game design to try to lure more at release is not a wise approach.
But if the leveling would take longer, then it would make sense to think how to make such a game mechanic available at intermediate leveling stages too because the long time subscribers need it.
About freeholds I cannot say much. One freehold can be shared with 7-8 other players and there will be about 1000 freeholds. Could be that freehold owners will look for others to join and use them too. If you have access to them, then the only drawback might be that you cannot apply your cosmetic and become attached to the way you place the buildings. Or maybe we will be able to share freehold cosmetics.
Even story lines can be made available after a short level up if the game designer wants, instead of giving experience after each story quest. They those stories could be about a new environment like a new node rather than about the character progression. Even though the story of the character grows, the level doesn't.
While I agree that it's irrational, people complain about other limitations before they can participate in what they consider 'real content' too, it's just an audience thing.
I've met people who play MMOs for whom there probably is no such thing as 'real content', literally everything is just an 'annoying timesink' between them and their dopamine hit of getting an item or winning a fight.
AFK style Mobile MMOs didn't take off hard for no reason.
Therefore the issue is that for many games, leveling is either 'an afk Journey with minimal real work', or 'beneficial to be done as efficiently as possible while skipping as much other content as possible in the meantime'.
An endgame top-heavy game has this issue more. Any incentive to skip middle content such as leveling by 'knowing you will get better tangible rewards by doing it faster', is rough sell for some, and when your better tangible rewards are 'competed for' and 'at max level', it's even worse.
BDO Season server 1-56 with storyline is 4 hours, 2 or 3 if you know what you're doing.
If you skip storyline and know how to gear up without storyline gear, some people can do it in one hour. Now, BDO isn't usually a good example for nearly anything, but this is just another one of those 'yeah, don't care, where is the real game at?', and for anyone who does it, it's absolutely justified.
If Ashes has anyone that gets to level 50 in 2 weeks and meaningfully benefits from that, and from then on, everyone is pressured to aim for that, then it will also be 'justified'.
I really hope that Castles are more about information, safe stockpiles, and stable political power.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 1
I don't know what you mean by "imagine you could get to max level".
If it's an RPG, I should be spending years ever-questing.
Additionally, I should be experiencing The Hero's Journey over the course of many in-game years.
The Hero's Journey means you start as a peon and gradually gain heroic skills and abilities.
Eliminating all progression is not an RPG. That is some other game genre.
Could be a fun game, sure.
I enjoy New World - it's not an RPG.
I enjoy Nightingale - it's not an RPG.
But, when I want to play an RPG I want to play an RPG.
And, when people say they are developing an RPG, I want them to develop an RPG.
MMORPGs aren't supposed to have an Endgame - that's really been a limitation of tech and tools and allowing gamers to race to Max Level. So, the primary appeal of Ashes for me was that Ashes does not really have an Endgame - with part of that meaning that it's not designed such that "the real game starts at Max Level".
P2W is not an issue for me. I have no problem with P2W.
Because I am non-competitive.
I can understand why P2W would be an issue for competitive gamers.
But, Freeholds and Castles being Level 50 content is basically a deviation from the Kickstarter and feels to me like gamers with a different playstyle might feel if Steven suddenly announced that Ashes now has P2W.
Same for the additition of the Open Seas.
At the same time - most of the demos we've seen have been fairly generic MMORPG gameplay.
We haven't seen much of Nodes - which intended to be a major selling-feature.
And we haven't really seen anything of Augments.
(We also haven't seen the Dunir in-game in the last 3 years.)
Ashes looks like it will be a great, modern-day successor of Lineage II and ArcheAge (and Fanstasy version of EvE). Which is wonderful for the fans of those games.
That's just not the game that I became interested in playing based on the Kickstarter and first 5 years of development.
When I want to actually play an MMO RPG, I will probably play a different game.
Keep in mind that Perseus is a demi-god. He doesn't truly follow the Hero's Journey of being a mortal peon and gradually becoming a hero.
In D&D, it typically takes several years to Level a character to Demigod levels - as opposed to racing to Demigod levels in a handful of months.
The Kickstarter videos indicated that you basically do the same stuff at Max Level that you do at Lower Levels. That stuff is just more challenging (difficult).
You don't reach Max Level and then start doing different gameplay that you weren't doing previously.
There will be Dungeons and Raids for all levels.
There will be Node Wars and Guilds Sieges for all Levels.
Freeholds would be something you could do at least by mid-levels.
And Castle Sieges and Caravans also something that could be started by mid-levels.
Rather than being required to wait to Max Level to start specific types of gameplay.
So, yeah... we might not cut off Medusa's head at Level 10, but we probably cut off some Kobold heads and Orc heads and Minotaur heads by Level 25. We can probably cut off Medusa's head by Level 40 and we're probably cutting off Dragon heads (with the help of a Raid) at Level 50. Rather than being restricted to wait until Level 50 to begin chopping off heads.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
While I agree that it's irrational, people complain about other limitations before they can participate in what they consider 'real content' too, it's just an audience thing.
I've met people who play MMOs for whom there probably is no such thing as 'real content', literally everything is just an 'annoying timesink' between them and their dopamine hit of getting an item or winning a fight.
AFK style Mobile MMOs didn't take off hard for no reason.
Therefore the issue is that for many games, leveling is either 'an afk Journey with minimal real work', or 'beneficial to be done as efficiently as possible while skipping as much other content as possible in the meantime'.
An endgame top-heavy game has this issue more. Any incentive to skip middle content such as leveling by 'knowing you will get better tangible rewards by doing it faster', is rough sell for some, and when your better tangible rewards are 'competed for' and 'at max level', it's even worse.
BDO Season server 1-56 with storyline is 4 hours, 2 or 3 if you know what you're doing.
If you skip storyline and know how to gear up without storyline gear, some people can do it in one hour. Now, BDO isn't usually a good example for nearly anything, but this is just another one of those 'yeah, don't care, where is the real game at?', and for anyone who does it, it's absolutely justified.
If Ashes has anyone that gets to level 50 in 2 weeks and meaningfully benefits from that, and from then on, everyone is pressured to aim for that, then it will also be 'justified'.
I really hope that Castles are more about information, safe stockpiles, and stable political power.
MMOs have a variety of genres.
It's like American Football, Soccer, Rugby and Kickball
Some people may like to play all of them.
Some people may like to play Soccer rather than American Football.
Some people may prefer to American Football.
When I want to play American Football, I want to play American Football.
Especially, I don't want to find out the American Football game I was hoping to play is really going to be Soccer.
Of course, the Soccer fans will be happy they get to play Soccer. Especially if finding a good Soccer game is rare.
Maybe Sieges could start from around LvL 42 to 45 already ? I am not so sure about LvL 35 and upwards.
But then again Chances are that for once, my gutfeeling might not be on point. Ashes is so different from all other Games i usually take my guesses on.
Maybe Sieges could start from around LvL 42 to 45 already ? I am not so sure about LvL 35 and upwards.
But then again Chances are that for once, my gutfeeling might not be on point. Ashes of so different from all other Games i usually take my guesses on.
That would sound about right to me, especially if the inner stronger mobs were around level 55.
That's just about the point where I feel like you have to be really good to stretch yourself up to a 13 level gap, and would probably die a few times before you got it down.
So, NiKr, would you take that, actually, or still feeling it would be too much of an endgame push? My feeling would be that all the economic parts work out fine if the super hardcore start trying for Castles at 42-44. Sure, I'd like some similar content before that, but technically, what would be really good is if the Castles start with all three of their 'Village Nodes' active, and the enemies there are level 40+.
Then players would have the same experience. Each week, they 'siege' one of the 3 Castle nodes, and maybe level up as they do so, but could start that process at level 30+. I'd consider that a nice, organic experience overall.
So, NiKr, would you take that, actually, or still feeling it would be too much of an endgame push?
This would mostly depend on level speed scaling and general "gear acquisition vs gear requirement" balancing, but yeah I think 42-44 would be fine, cause I'd imagine that would be somewhere around 60% of the overall leveling time, unless Intrepid go for a more linear growth of XP requirements per lvl.
I'd obviously prefer if it was still a bit earlier, but then we'd have discussions of "what kind of ability distribution do we have and what % of our final skillset would we have at lvl35" and stuff like that. So I think early-mid 40s would be a fine compromise that makes things a bit easier.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Let's say you and me enjoy things in an mmo which are not what others consider as important.
You already lost me here because you say MMO, rather than MMORPG.
And part of my issue is that too many gamers really only care about the MMO part and don't care very much about the RPG part.
Steven being a prime example of that - probably as opposed to Jeffrey Bard.
If such a thing is exploring the map, that can happen no matter how long the leveling up is.
And if I want to explore slowly, I will do it as slow as I want. I sometime have reasons to not discover everything and let that experience for later, when friends join or I make a new alt, new race etc.
You like to do that fast. These are activities which others might dismiss but are the same no matter if leveling is 2 weeks or 2 years.
So.... here, you seem to describe RPG playstyle preferences.
But, this is not the same thing as features and designs that are fundamentally important for RPGs, specifically.
"You like to do that fast" does not really apply to me, but I can see how you could misconstrue that if you paraphrase what I've previously written. (Kinda like The Telephone Game)
I like to explore first and foremost so that I can look at the map and decide where I want to Level day-to-day.
I also like my character's Race to standout in the Starting area, so I first run from my Race's starting area to the starting area of a different Race.
And, each time I level, I uncover as much of the map as possible until I run into mobs that can one-shot me.
Then, I quest from place to place around that uncovered section of the map until I level again.
Uncovering the map is not always fast. And, I might also decide to go have fun near starting areas and help newbies for a few hours.
"The first thing I do each time I level is uncover as much of the map as possible" is not quite the same thing as "I like to explore fast."
Typically in RPGs, the map is uncovered - you can buy an outdoors map that will have placenames and POIs, etc. You probably have to make an indoor map of Dungeons.
How quickly players want to explore really has nothing to do with what I've said - as far as I can tell.
Might be that someone else can craft and share a better analogy.
Where exploration conflicts in Multiplayer Online RPGs traditionally pop up is when you have an ESAK in the same group as a KASE or an AKSE. The KA and/or AK wants a META speed run, while the ES or SE want to take the time to explore every nook and cranny - at least before leaving the area.
I don't see how that relates to the devs of an MMORPG designing the game such that you have to wait to Max Level before you can begin specific categories of gameplay activities.
"Max Level is the real game" is also probelamatic for RP.
But, RP was already killed off in MMORPGs 10+ years ago - and I don't expect it to return.
Most gamers playing MMOs have exceddingly scant interest in RP.
I could be concerned about Steven's profit or player retention but making the game is his business and hobby. So I am not concerned about those players who want to see a siege within the first 4 weeks after the official release.
The issue isn't wanting to see a Siege...
The issue is having categories of content that are gated until Max Adventurer Level.
Especially for a game that claimed at Kickstarter that Ashes will not really have an Endgame because Ashes doesn't have categories of content that are gated until Max Adventurer Level.
There are things the Kickstarter claimed Ashes would not have - that caused be to back the development... and now 5-7 yers later, it turns out Ashes will have some things they claimed they wouldn't.
And I'm just saying those affect me the same way games with P2W affect Steven.
Just as Steven was hoping to have a game with no P2W, I was hoping for a game that was not designed in any way that supports the concept of "Max Level is the real game".
The game is for players who know they will and know why they will pay a subscription for a few years.
I think adjusting the game design to try to lure more at release is not a wise approach.
But if the leveling would take longer, then it would make sense to think how to make such a game mechanic available at intermediate leveling stages too because the long time subscribers need it.
About freeholds I cannot say much. One freehold can be shared with 7-8 other players and there will be about 1000 freeholds. Could be that freehold owners will look for others to join and use them too. If you have access to them, then the only drawback might be that you cannot apply your cosmetic and become attached to the way you place the buildings. Or maybe we will be able to share freehold cosmetics.
If such a thing is exploring the map, that can happen no matter how long the leveling up is.
And if I want to explore slowly, I will do it as slow as I want. I sometime have reasons to not discover everything and let that experience for later, when friends join or I make a new alt, new race etc.
You like to do that fast. These are activities which others might dismiss but are the same no matter if leveling is 2 weeks or 2 years.
So.... here, you seem to describe RPG playstyle preferences.
But, this is not the same thing as features and designs that are fundamentally important for RPGs, specifically.
"You like to do that fast" does not really apply to me, but I can see how you could misconstrue that if you paraphrase what I've previously written. (Kinda like The Telephone Game)
I like to explore first and foremost so that I can look at the map and decide where I want to Level day-to-day.
I also like my character's Race to standout in the Starting area, so I first run from my Race's starting area to the starting area of a different Race.
And, each time I level, I uncover as much of the map as possible until I run into mobs that can one-shot me.
Then, I quest from place to place around that uncovered section of the map until I level again.
Uncovering the map is not always fast. And, I might also decide to go have fun near starting areas and help newbies for a few hours.
"The first thing I do each time I level is uncover as much of the map as possible" is not quite the same thing as "I like to explore fast."
Typically in RPGs, the map is uncovered - you can buy an outdoors map that will have placenames and POIs, etc. You probably have to make an indoor map of Dungeons.
How quickly players want to explore really has nothing to do with what I've said - as far as I can tell.
Might be that someone else can craft and share a better analogy.
Where exploration conflicts in Multiplayer Online RPGs traditionally pop up is when you have an ESAK in the same group as a KASE or an AKSE. The KA and/or AK wants a META speed run, while the ES or SE want to take the time to explore every nook and cranny - at least before leaving the area.
I don't see how that relates to the devs of an MMORPG designing the game such that you have to wait to Max Level before you can begin specific categories of gameplay activities.
I could be concerned about Steven's profit or player retention but making the game is his business and hobby. So I am not concerned about those players who want to see a siege within the first 4 weeks after the official release.
The issue isn't wanting to see a Siege...
The issue is having categories of content that are gated until Max Adventurer Level.
Especially for a game that claimed at Kickstarter that Ashes will not really have an Endgame because Ashes doesn't have categories of content that are gated until Max Adventurer Level.
There are things the Kickstarter claimed Ashes would not have - that caused be to back the development... and now 5-7 yers later, it turns out Ashes will have some things they claimed they wouldn't.
And I'm just saying those affect me the same way games with P2W affect Steven.
Just as Steven was hoping to have a game with no P2W, I was hoping for a game that was not designed in any way that supports the concept of "Max Level is the real game".
That is indeed a bad feeling when one supports a game and ends up a different one or is abandoned before is finished.
It can happen even during Alpha 2 that things are balanced in an unexpected way and the game will not end up as some expect now.
But back to this 45 days leveling stage. Would you want to be even shorter? You said these days it is expected to be half of this.
castles are content made for the sweatiest of the hardcore players, as it should be
would love if players accepted that not every content is meant for every type of player, and stopped asking to lower the bar for stuff to try and make casuals or "semis" happy, that's what new world did with daily sieges that were inclusive, look how that turned out
I accepted that I won't ever be a rank 1 arena player in AoC, even tho I'd love to, because I wont practice 8h a day for that, and I'm not here asking for skills to be balanced like FF14, only one weapon type allowed or CCs to be disabled for arenas so I get a better chance of competing for those,
It truly feels like "pvpers" don't understand nuance. I guess I should've just outright said "HARDCORES WILL GET THE FIRST CASLTES AND IT IS AS IT SHOULD BE" in the OP, though I feel like even that would still fly over their heads.
Comments
How do you define end game?
To me it seems that you identify things/mechanics you like and if those things are available only after you leveled up rather than during the entire journey, you call them end game.
If that is the case, then to prevent such an "end game", one should first think how to make the game interesting with an endless / very long leveling system. Once that solution is found, the leveling can still be reduced to an arbitrary duration depending on outside world constraints.
But AoC was never designed to be like that even though I see some attempts.
Players have a max level which we reach fast.
Nodes level fast too.
Well, we'll just have to disagree on that point and see what Intrepid do.
To be more precise - my gripe, here, is that Ashes is designed for "Max Level to be the real the game."
Which should not really be a thing in any RPG.
Adn it would not be a thing in Ashes if Freeholds and Castles were not restricted to only become available after characters reach Max Level.
But... it's not actually going to affect my gameplay because I'm not really going to be playing.
We already know that I'm not the Target Audience - it just makes it more clear that Ashes is not the game I perceived it to be based on the Kickstarter and Jeffrey Bard's descriptions of the game design.
In a game about needing different mats and such and whatever else they might include i don't see a world where they say you don't gets items from lower level mobs.
Issue also isn't avoided you have a low level alt to farm mobs and over gear them, and have your high level to pk people using decs and such so you get all the stuff. You would be just adding weird complications that lead to the devs with the idea of strong level scaling.
But i guess we will see if they change how things are later on i doubt it thought. People would complain if some special event pops up and the game is like ya you can't get loot.
This could be another interesting thread you could start to see how people will respond to it.
I'll agree here because of something really specific that I've been thinking on.
I realized that when I play an MMO, I want to have 'one adventure per level' at lower levels, and 2-3 adventures per level at higher levels (but at higher levels, sometimes the adventure isn't related to gaining more levels.
I don't like quests that give EXP moreso because sometimes they aren't adventures, if a game could manage it consistently I doubt I'd mind, so looking forward to that.
Since 'an adventure' to me, takes about 90 minutes, and if we assume that my playblock is 3 hours or so, then I can level twice a day, early on, and this feels right. When I can't play for as long, I still level once a day, and I get my one adventure.
Games that push me to endgame and put all the meaningful adventures there, lose some charm to me, and end up with decision bloat or arcane progression paths at that 'endgame'. So in the end, I have 'learned' why I subconsciously agree with both 'long leveling' and certain parts of what Dygz says. Not because I dislike games that don't have this structure, it's that I have no reason to play an MMORPG that doesn't offer it, that's just a competitive or social fix I can get much better somewhere else.
That said, I still don't think that this datapoint implies a change to 'things being at Endgame', I'll believe that when I see that my group can't kill 10+ level enemies anymore. Because if they can, all this means is 'level 35-40 Raids who try really hard to gear up and learn coordination would be able to get Castles', which I think slots in perfectly, unlike the Freehold one where it is (as of this writing) a hard 'you must be this tall to ride'.
It truly helps keep us here.
I'm too busy with my portfolio adjustments right now, most i can do is comment on threads than lead them.
It is kinda funny that you had the same misconception about the OP as Mag did. Guess my writing style really ruffles pvpers' feathers. Good to know
I've already explained why it should be shorter and I've also said that I expect, and am fully fine with, hardcores to get the castle, but I'm sure that this concept is too difficult for you to comprehend cause you're afraid of the game preventing you from dominating a bit too much.
also, its silly to think that there wont be an endgame...unless you are playing an infinite runner.
you can still do things that don't require level 50, but some do. doesn't mean you need to rush to 50 if you don't want to, but at some point you will hit 50, then you cant level anymore and you just do the things you want to do.
Is ok for me if you don't play the game as long as you are here on the forum and you will test Alpha 2 to give feedback and then you will also log in once in a while to socialize and you will also explore the map, as much as you can
So a better experience for you is an mmo where the leveling never stops and developers can add content frequently enough so that by you have something to do.
That can still happen in AoC because we will have enough slots for additional characters.
The castle sieges were not added for those who want to have a journey. They could be but not with 45 days of leveling.
I can play both kind of mmos, with 2-3 weeks leveling or with 18 months leveling.
You too. The content is the same. You explore, you get or create stories... You will see enough sieges with the 2nd alt when you level it (in the parallel universe where you play the game).
Or was you planning to grab one of those 5 castles while still having your starting gear?
I hate him too.
Also, I didn't even touch on this before in this thread, but thinking about L2's castle/fortress sieges reminded me of another important part of the equation. Guards. Iirc we'll be able to hire guards in Ashes as well, and if mobs that control the castle are lvl50 be default, I feel like it would be only logical if guards were lvl50 as well.
Now I'd hope that this is not the case or maybe there's a scale of "their lvl depends on how much you pay them" or smth, but, again, it's about the implication.
We're on the same page.
It's fine for Leveling to stop.
Level Cap is OK.
But, restricting content like Freeholds and Castle Sieges to Max Level gameplay is what causes gamers to perceive Leveling as a grind that is just a needless time sink impeding them from playing the "real game".
Alts are irrelevant to my issue with the Level restriction for Castles and Freeholds.
These days 45 days is about double the typical Leveling time in an MMORPG.
I'd rather be focused on one MMORPG that is so immersive I don't want to play other MMORPGs.
And, I'd rather play MMORPGs where Leveling reflects the Hero's Journey and is the bulk of the gameplay - rather than MMOs where the "real game starts at Max Level".
I'd much prefer Leveling one character to max take 3-18(+) months, rather than 3-4 weeks.
I don't know what you mean by "The content is the same."
Again, the reveal that The Ancients who own the Castles will be Level 50-55 doesn't affect my gameplay at all because the Open Seas is already the dealbreaker which means I won't be participating in Sieges in any case.
It's just that the reveal that Castle Sieges start at Level 50, in addition to Freeholds, makes it more clear that I'm not in the Target Audience for Ashes.
I agree that it is a matter of perception, but I disagree that it is an issue.
imagine you could get to max level, but now you have to spend 45 days of doing quests, walking around all over the map collecting book pages to get a skill and then it gets nerfed the next day (fuck u eso), you have to unlock skills, get gear, etc, and meanwhile, you cant do certain content. isn't it the same?
should we just eliminate all progression and let people have access to everything on day 1? then people who like progression would complain... why people complain about levels but not about another type of progression to access content? that's so irrational.
as soon as you buy the game, you have access to it, but there are some stuff that require you to progress first. you wont go into a war without training as a soldier first. you wont go to the area with the strongest mobs in assassins creed as soon as you start or you'd die.
even the hero when he goes on his hero journey isn't at max power when he starts. he makes friends and enemies along the way, learns new things, becomes stronger, works on his weaknesses, etc. if the hero ends his journey the same way he started, he might as well not have had any journey at all.
even perseus didn't go after medusa at level 1. he had to get some levels (grow up), learn how to use a sword, get a sword, get athenas shield, hermes sandals and hades cap. he had to wait for the right moment and then cut her head off to return victorious.
Let's say you and me enjoy things in an mmo which are not what others consider as important.
If such a thing is exploring the map, that can happen no matter how long the leveling up is.
And if I want to explore slowly, I will do it as slow as I want. I sometime have reasons to not discover everything and let that experience for later, when friends join or I make a new alt, new race etc.
You like to do that fast. These are activities which others might dismiss but are the same no matter if leveling is 2 weeks or 2 years.
Or role playing.
I could be concerned about Steven's profit or player retention but making the game is his business and hobby.
So I am not concerned about those players who want to see a siege within the first 4 weeks after the official release. The game is for players who know they will and know why they will pay a subscription for a few years.
I think adjusting the game design to try to lure more at release is not a wise approach.
But if the leveling would take longer, then it would make sense to think how to make such a game mechanic available at intermediate leveling stages too because the long time subscribers need it.
About freeholds I cannot say much. One freehold can be shared with 7-8 other players and there will be about 1000 freeholds. Could be that freehold owners will look for others to join and use them too. If you have access to them, then the only drawback might be that you cannot apply your cosmetic and become attached to the way you place the buildings. Or maybe we will be able to share freehold cosmetics.
I've met people who play MMOs for whom there probably is no such thing as 'real content', literally everything is just an 'annoying timesink' between them and their dopamine hit of getting an item or winning a fight.
AFK style Mobile MMOs didn't take off hard for no reason.
Therefore the issue is that for many games, leveling is either 'an afk Journey with minimal real work', or 'beneficial to be done as efficiently as possible while skipping as much other content as possible in the meantime'.
An endgame top-heavy game has this issue more. Any incentive to skip middle content such as leveling by 'knowing you will get better tangible rewards by doing it faster', is rough sell for some, and when your better tangible rewards are 'competed for' and 'at max level', it's even worse.
BDO Season server 1-56 with storyline is 4 hours, 2 or 3 if you know what you're doing.
If you skip storyline and know how to gear up without storyline gear, some people can do it in one hour. Now, BDO isn't usually a good example for nearly anything, but this is just another one of those 'yeah, don't care, where is the real game at?', and for anyone who does it, it's absolutely justified.
If Ashes has anyone that gets to level 50 in 2 weeks and meaningfully benefits from that, and from then on, everyone is pressured to aim for that, then it will also be 'justified'.
I really hope that Castles are more about information, safe stockpiles, and stable political power.
If it's an RPG, I should be spending years ever-questing.
Additionally, I should be experiencing The Hero's Journey over the course of many in-game years.
The Hero's Journey means you start as a peon and gradually gain heroic skills and abilities.
Eliminating all progression is not an RPG. That is some other game genre.
Could be a fun game, sure.
I enjoy New World - it's not an RPG.
I enjoy Nightingale - it's not an RPG.
But, when I want to play an RPG I want to play an RPG.
And, when people say they are developing an RPG, I want them to develop an RPG.
MMORPGs aren't supposed to have an Endgame - that's really been a limitation of tech and tools and allowing gamers to race to Max Level. So, the primary appeal of Ashes for me was that Ashes does not really have an Endgame - with part of that meaning that it's not designed such that "the real game starts at Max Level".
P2W is not an issue for me. I have no problem with P2W.
Because I am non-competitive.
I can understand why P2W would be an issue for competitive gamers.
But, Freeholds and Castles being Level 50 content is basically a deviation from the Kickstarter and feels to me like gamers with a different playstyle might feel if Steven suddenly announced that Ashes now has P2W.
Same for the additition of the Open Seas.
At the same time - most of the demos we've seen have been fairly generic MMORPG gameplay.
We haven't seen much of Nodes - which intended to be a major selling-feature.
And we haven't really seen anything of Augments.
(We also haven't seen the Dunir in-game in the last 3 years.)
Ashes looks like it will be a great, modern-day successor of Lineage II and ArcheAge (and Fanstasy version of EvE). Which is wonderful for the fans of those games.
That's just not the game that I became interested in playing based on the Kickstarter and first 5 years of development.
When I want to actually play an MMO RPG, I will probably play a different game.
Keep in mind that Perseus is a demi-god. He doesn't truly follow the Hero's Journey of being a mortal peon and gradually becoming a hero.
In D&D, it typically takes several years to Level a character to Demigod levels - as opposed to racing to Demigod levels in a handful of months.
The Kickstarter videos indicated that you basically do the same stuff at Max Level that you do at Lower Levels. That stuff is just more challenging (difficult).
You don't reach Max Level and then start doing different gameplay that you weren't doing previously.
There will be Dungeons and Raids for all levels.
There will be Node Wars and Guilds Sieges for all Levels.
Freeholds would be something you could do at least by mid-levels.
And Castle Sieges and Caravans also something that could be started by mid-levels.
Rather than being required to wait to Max Level to start specific types of gameplay.
So, yeah... we might not cut off Medusa's head at Level 10, but we probably cut off some Kobold heads and Orc heads and Minotaur heads by Level 25. We can probably cut off Medusa's head by Level 40 and we're probably cutting off Dragon heads (with the help of a Raid) at Level 50. Rather than being restricted to wait until Level 50 to begin chopping off heads.
MMOs have a variety of genres.
It's like American Football, Soccer, Rugby and Kickball
Some people may like to play all of them.
Some people may like to play Soccer rather than American Football.
Some people may prefer to American Football.
When I want to play American Football, I want to play American Football.
Especially, I don't want to find out the American Football game I was hoping to play is really going to be Soccer.
Of course, the Soccer fans will be happy they get to play Soccer. Especially if finding a good Soccer game is rare.
But then again Chances are that for once, my gutfeeling might not be on point. Ashes is so different from all other Games i usually take my guesses on.
That would sound about right to me, especially if the inner stronger mobs were around level 55.
That's just about the point where I feel like you have to be really good to stretch yourself up to a 13 level gap, and would probably die a few times before you got it down.
So, NiKr, would you take that, actually, or still feeling it would be too much of an endgame push? My feeling would be that all the economic parts work out fine if the super hardcore start trying for Castles at 42-44. Sure, I'd like some similar content before that, but technically, what would be really good is if the Castles start with all three of their 'Village Nodes' active, and the enemies there are level 40+.
Then players would have the same experience. Each week, they 'siege' one of the 3 Castle nodes, and maybe level up as they do so, but could start that process at level 30+. I'd consider that a nice, organic experience overall.
I'd obviously prefer if it was still a bit earlier, but then we'd have discussions of "what kind of ability distribution do we have and what % of our final skillset would we have at lvl35" and stuff like that. So I think early-mid 40s would be a fine compromise that makes things a bit easier.
And part of my issue is that too many gamers really only care about the MMO part and don't care very much about the RPG part.
Steven being a prime example of that - probably as opposed to Jeffrey Bard.
So.... here, you seem to describe RPG playstyle preferences.
But, this is not the same thing as features and designs that are fundamentally important for RPGs, specifically.
"You like to do that fast" does not really apply to me, but I can see how you could misconstrue that if you paraphrase what I've previously written. (Kinda like The Telephone Game)
I like to explore first and foremost so that I can look at the map and decide where I want to Level day-to-day.
I also like my character's Race to standout in the Starting area, so I first run from my Race's starting area to the starting area of a different Race.
And, each time I level, I uncover as much of the map as possible until I run into mobs that can one-shot me.
Then, I quest from place to place around that uncovered section of the map until I level again.
Uncovering the map is not always fast. And, I might also decide to go have fun near starting areas and help newbies for a few hours.
"The first thing I do each time I level is uncover as much of the map as possible" is not quite the same thing as "I like to explore fast."
Typically in RPGs, the map is uncovered - you can buy an outdoors map that will have placenames and POIs, etc. You probably have to make an indoor map of Dungeons.
How quickly players want to explore really has nothing to do with what I've said - as far as I can tell.
Might be that someone else can craft and share a better analogy.
Where exploration conflicts in Multiplayer Online RPGs traditionally pop up is when you have an ESAK in the same group as a KASE or an AKSE. The KA and/or AK wants a META speed run, while the ES or SE want to take the time to explore every nook and cranny - at least before leaving the area.
I don't see how that relates to the devs of an MMORPG designing the game such that you have to wait to Max Level before you can begin specific categories of gameplay activities.
"Max Level is the real game" is also probelamatic for RP.
But, RP was already killed off in MMORPGs 10+ years ago - and I don't expect it to return.
Most gamers playing MMOs have exceddingly scant interest in RP.
The issue isn't wanting to see a Siege...
The issue is having categories of content that are gated until Max Adventurer Level.
Especially for a game that claimed at Kickstarter that Ashes will not really have an Endgame because Ashes doesn't have categories of content that are gated until Max Adventurer Level.
There are things the Kickstarter claimed Ashes would not have - that caused be to back the development... and now 5-7 yers later, it turns out Ashes will have some things they claimed they wouldn't.
And I'm just saying those affect me the same way games with P2W affect Steven.
Just as Steven was hoping to have a game with no P2W, I was hoping for a game that was not designed in any way that supports the concept of "Max Level is the real game".
Sure. I think we agree there.
Ok, then it was not a good example.
That is indeed a bad feeling when one supports a game and ends up a different one or is abandoned before is finished.
It can happen even during Alpha 2 that things are balanced in an unexpected way and the game will not end up as some expect now.
But back to this 45 days leveling stage. Would you want to be even shorter? You said these days it is expected to be half of this.
would love if players accepted that not every content is meant for every type of player, and stopped asking to lower the bar for stuff to try and make casuals or "semis" happy, that's what new world did with daily sieges that were inclusive, look how that turned out
I accepted that I won't ever be a rank 1 arena player in AoC, even tho I'd love to, because I wont practice 8h a day for that, and I'm not here asking for skills to be balanced like FF14, only one weapon type allowed or CCs to be disabled for arenas so I get a better chance of competing for those,