But I don't think it's as much a case in MMOs. I think grinding has always been - I'm doing something repetitive and tedious to get to the next stage.
Grinding has not always been doing something repetitive and tedious to get to the next stage.
Originally grinding meant killing individual mobs for minimal xp rather than Questing for bonus xp and rewards. It meant Leveling by objectively the method that provides the least amount of xp rather than the method that provides bonus xp.
And later language drifted to mean anything a player subjectively deems tedious or boring.
Like that Spirit-something skill in UO that literally got higher by pushing the same button over and over. That's was a grind - no mobs needed.
That sounds more like an exploit than a grind.
In order for this to be true, you must be going back to AT LEAST a time before MMORPG's.
Early MMO's had grind levels where there weren't enough quests to level through them, and so killing mobs was the only way to progress. It was a slow grind, hence the term. It had nothing to do with not being the optimal means of progression - people would usually only grind when it was the only means of progression.
This is going back to the 90's, so yeah, you must be talking about before that.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 15
Yes. Sometimes the only way to progress in between Quests was to grind mobs.
People would usually only grind individual mobs when Quests (the optimal means of progression) were not readily available.
Around 2011, I started hearing people refer to Questing to Max Level as a grind because the Endgame is the real game and anything before Endgame is just busy work trying to keep you from reaching the real game more quickly.
And, in the last few years grind now seems to be anything that a player finds repetitive and not what they really want to be doing. As Crow3 states.
"Defend 20 caravans" could be a quest. But with the 20 being an implicit number to level up rather than explicitly specified. Count should depend on something you get because you need it for something else rather than a declared requirement from an NPC.
To spin this slightly, 'Defended 20 Caravans' sounds like an achievement to me. The quest is something like 'OTR we desperately need your help to ensure our supplies can reach the kingdom before our citizens starve. Please go investigate what's happening to our caravans and keep our supply lines safe.' The quest would have a range - where you can defend multiple caravans even though MVP would be 1. Hence the achievement.
If I get an achievement I cannot avoid thinking that I do that activity because Steven wants so. Which is not fun.
By logging into Ashes, whatever activity you're doing is because Steven wants it, soooo... choose accordingly.
I will login to chat with Dygz about how much better the game could be without the ocean
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I mean… I might agree that game is “better” with the Open Seas.
For its Target Audience.
I’m just not in the Target Audience.
I mean… I might agree that game is “better” with the Open Seas.
For its Target Audience.
I’m just not in the Target Audience.
The target audience depends on what was advertised.
Players who bought the game before that change will give different kind of feedback when they test the Alpha 2.
When IS gathers feedback, might have to pay attention to when the player purchased access, before or after certain announcements. The low TTK was introduced quite recently. People were unhappy about limited freeholds too. Big late concept changes are not good for those who already committed to the game and are not flexible.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 16
Target Audience depends on who it's designed for.
What do you think would happen if Steven made the "late concept change" for Ashes to be P2W?
Target Audience depends on who it's designed for.
What do you think would happen if Steven made the "late concept change" for Ashes to be P2W?
It get roasted online so hard it would destroy the marketing. But depending when it released people would still play it even more so if there are still no new mmorpgs that have released.
Than it would be about Fun + uniqueness - (Grind + how much P2W). So be hard to determined the fate of the game.
I guess no one noticed, but the area in the fighter stream is the same area that the original tank showcase was where Steven made the grass move with his actions. It's just been changed up a bit...because of the storyline.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Getting back to the original post made me think. Do we know how far and what is the end state of the corruption is? Can events and things like the dragon spawning in the volcano next to your node continue further. Beyond just having the dragon start attacking the city.
Maybe it goes further, maybe dragon finds a mate. And now there are two of them. Plus the hatchlings. Maybe these dragons are sentient or civilized enough that they begin their own harvesting, looting, caravans. Do any of these "npc" factions trade the same as your node?
Wouldn't it be more end game content if these unresolved issues around a node end up becoming a challenging force of control that could actually spawn a new node. A node of resistance that if continued to be left unchecked, would eventually take over the zone of control from the player node and become a npc node of dragons. That challenge the human players.
Or am I just dreaming. There is not yet the type of computing power yet to persist such a complex event.
Getting back to the original post made me think. Do we know how far and what is the end state of the corruption is? Can events and things like the dragon spawning in the volcano next to your node continue further. Beyond just having the dragon start attacking the city.
Maybe it goes further, maybe dragon finds a mate. And now there are two of them. Plus the hatchlings. Maybe these dragons are sentient or civilized enough that they begin their own harvesting, looting, caravans. Do any of these "npc" factions trade the same as your node?
Wouldn't it be more end game content if these unresolved issues around a node end up becoming a challenging force of control that could actually spawn a new node. A node of resistance that if continued to be left unchecked, would eventually take over the zone of control from the player node and become a npc node of dragons. That challenge the human players.
Or am I just dreaming. There is not yet the type of computing power yet to persist such a complex event.
There is no meaningful problem with the computing power for this.
Isn't this just how strategy/civilization games work?
Yes, that is how a strategy civ game would work. I have lots of questions about this now. Take another example like the Minotaur. Growing to a point where they take over the node. And manage it the under the same rules as human players. Imagine the surprise when NPC Minotaur caravans are moving around. The minotaur's have a library, they discover secrets of the essence.
Could they vassalize the neighboring node by growing stronger, unchecked, unchallenged by the human player? Can they grow to the point where they could challenge the King of the castle? Threaten an entire guilds ownership of that castle? Can they be "friended" or hired as mercenaries in somebodies war against an unjust king?
To me that would be some end game content. In a variable and unique loop that would never repeat itself the same way. Even changing play behavior where maybe some player factions may want to help the NPC factions to success. A less powerful or less experienced guild using the NPC factions as mercenaries and partisans as another wedge against a common enemy.
Yes, that is how a strategy civ game would work. I have lots of questions about this now. Take another example like the Minotaur. Growing to a point where they take over the node. And manage it the under the same rules as human players. Imagine the surprise when NPC Minotaur caravans are moving around. The minotaur's have a library, they discover secrets of the essence.
Could they vassalize the neighboring node by growing stronger, unchecked, unchallenged by the human player? Can they grow to the point where they could challenge the King of the castle? Threaten an entire guilds ownership of that castle? Can they be "friended" or hired as mercenaries in somebodies war against an unjust king?
To me that would be some end game content. In a variable and unique loop that would never repeat itself the same way. Even changing play behavior where maybe some player factions may want to help the NPC factions to success. A less powerful or less experienced guild using the NPC factions as mercenaries and partisans as another wedge against a common enemy.
Right now, we don't know of any specific plans to do anything on this level, but if it's not being considered, it would probably be moreso because the less invested players wouldn't respond very positively to it.
It's very important to tune that sort of thing to the correct point of engagement for the playerbase you're targeting, so I think they'll assess if they want to go that far, in Alpha-2.
We know that there might be Story Arcs that can be triggered in somewhat similar ways, though, and that can create certain changes. For example, we've seen a demonstration of an area full of one enemy type, players clear the story arc, and the enemy type in the area changes because the previous group was defeated and a new group moved in.
There are some great contributions on this topic on the first two pages. I regret being late to the party, so I'll give a very brief reinforcement to some of the things that have been said:
I think the most important bit is not about maximising the amount of reactive, impactful experiences, but more about minimising the amount of filler entertainment.
- No dailies.
- Few distracting filler events (especially in higher level areas, events should mostly be something you have to discover and actively group up for through word-of-mouth, not just "Boom, here's an event, this is what you'll be doing for the next 20 minutes, or it will fail.")
- No freebies. Make people work for resources, and make advantages matter. If everyone can get equipment 97% as effective as the most accomplished players within a few extra months of low-to-medium-risk/skill grinding, then grouping up and coordinating impactful world changes will feel unnecessary for the average player.
But yes, I also welcome the world being as responsive to player actions as possible. I just don't think it needs to be felt with every quest or event you participate in, as long as the meaningless activities at least don't distract (read: actively discourage) you from pursuing your own goals in the game world.
No one but yourself can validate you for all the posts you *didn't* write.
Comments
In order for this to be true, you must be going back to AT LEAST a time before MMORPG's.
Early MMO's had grind levels where there weren't enough quests to level through them, and so killing mobs was the only way to progress. It was a slow grind, hence the term. It had nothing to do with not being the optimal means of progression - people would usually only grind when it was the only means of progression.
This is going back to the 90's, so yeah, you must be talking about before that.
People would usually only grind individual mobs when Quests (the optimal means of progression) were not readily available.
Around 2011, I started hearing people refer to Questing to Max Level as a grind because the Endgame is the real game and anything before Endgame is just busy work trying to keep you from reaching the real game more quickly.
And, in the last few years grind now seems to be anything that a player finds repetitive and not what they really want to be doing. As Crow3 states.
I will login to chat with Dygz about how much better the game could be without the ocean
For its Target Audience.
I’m just not in the Target Audience.
The target audience depends on what was advertised.
Players who bought the game before that change will give different kind of feedback when they test the Alpha 2.
When IS gathers feedback, might have to pay attention to when the player purchased access, before or after certain announcements. The low TTK was introduced quite recently. People were unhappy about limited freeholds too. Big late concept changes are not good for those who already committed to the game and are not flexible.
What do you think would happen if Steven made the "late concept change" for Ashes to be P2W?
Maybe akbear should make a poll.
It get roasted online so hard it would destroy the marketing. But depending when it released people would still play it even more so if there are still no new mmorpgs that have released.
Than it would be about Fun + uniqueness - (Grind + how much P2W). So be hard to determined the fate of the game.
And droves of the current fans would leave.
Maybe it goes further, maybe dragon finds a mate. And now there are two of them. Plus the hatchlings. Maybe these dragons are sentient or civilized enough that they begin their own harvesting, looting, caravans. Do any of these "npc" factions trade the same as your node?
Wouldn't it be more end game content if these unresolved issues around a node end up becoming a challenging force of control that could actually spawn a new node. A node of resistance that if continued to be left unchecked, would eventually take over the zone of control from the player node and become a npc node of dragons. That challenge the human players.
Or am I just dreaming. There is not yet the type of computing power yet to persist such a complex event.
There is no meaningful problem with the computing power for this.
Isn't this just how strategy/civilization games work?
Could they vassalize the neighboring node by growing stronger, unchecked, unchallenged by the human player? Can they grow to the point where they could challenge the King of the castle? Threaten an entire guilds ownership of that castle? Can they be "friended" or hired as mercenaries in somebodies war against an unjust king?
To me that would be some end game content. In a variable and unique loop that would never repeat itself the same way. Even changing play behavior where maybe some player factions may want to help the NPC factions to success. A less powerful or less experienced guild using the NPC factions as mercenaries and partisans as another wedge against a common enemy.
Right now, we don't know of any specific plans to do anything on this level, but if it's not being considered, it would probably be moreso because the less invested players wouldn't respond very positively to it.
It's very important to tune that sort of thing to the correct point of engagement for the playerbase you're targeting, so I think they'll assess if they want to go that far, in Alpha-2.
We know that there might be Story Arcs that can be triggered in somewhat similar ways, though, and that can create certain changes. For example, we've seen a demonstration of an area full of one enemy type, players clear the story arc, and the enemy type in the area changes because the previous group was defeated and a new group moved in.
I think the most important bit is not about maximising the amount of reactive, impactful experiences, but more about minimising the amount of filler entertainment.
- No dailies.
- Few distracting filler events (especially in higher level areas, events should mostly be something you have to discover and actively group up for through word-of-mouth, not just "Boom, here's an event, this is what you'll be doing for the next 20 minutes, or it will fail.")
- No freebies. Make people work for resources, and make advantages matter. If everyone can get equipment 97% as effective as the most accomplished players within a few extra months of low-to-medium-risk/skill grinding, then grouping up and coordinating impactful world changes will feel unnecessary for the average player.
But yes, I also welcome the world being as responsive to player actions as possible. I just don't think it needs to be felt with every quest or event you participate in, as long as the meaningless activities at least don't distract (read: actively discourage) you from pursuing your own goals in the game world.