Doesn't feel like a trap to me - also very minimal fomo.
I agree that it isn't a trap, nor fomo - but it absolutely is a preditory mechanic designed to attempt to keep players engaged with a game where they are no longer interested in it for the game itself.
That is literally the point of it.
In that regard, it is no different to daily quests and such. They both serve the same purpose.
I would much rather Intrepid (or any MMORPG developer) produce actual content at the same rate at which players consume it.
The plague of modern day gaming (and old school too) is the pure reward driven player engagement. Playing for fun becomes distant second or even third. Min/max time should not be the mayor talking point (nor rewards).
As long as they dont get something that advances them in any game sense, go for it. I mean, a look for a pet, clothes, armor, emotes - whatever, thats completely fine. If you get bagspace, storage space, faster travel times or anything in that sense, fuck no. But Steven swore, I think he will uphold his honor
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The plague of modern day gaming (and old school too) is the pure reward driven player engagement. Playing for fun becomes distant second or even third. Min/max time should not be the mayor talking point (nor rewards).
How do you maintain the fun after you've played through the content with 4 different characters?
How many times do you re-read a novel in a year just for the fun of reading the novel?
The plague of modern day gaming (and old school too) is the pure reward driven player engagement. Playing for fun becomes distant second or even third. Min/max time should not be the mayor talking point (nor rewards).
How do you maintain the fun after you've played through the content with 4 different characters?
How many times do you re-read a novel in a year just for the fun of reading the novel?
I played Quake 1 for years and years without any carrot on a stick. Why? Because it was fun. (Sure clan wars , mods added a lot of new ways to play).
I would never play the same story with another character. I don't care to much for the lore/story.
But comparing a video game with a novel or tv show / movie is odd to me. Since to me a game is closer to a sport (soccer, tennis w/e) then passively reading a book.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 21
Quake is not an RPG.
The primary point of RPGs is to play through with different roles.
Which means it's not going to be the same story.
I don't know why you're playing an RPG if not for the lore/story.
Sounds like that means you're not playing it the way it's intended to be played.
You're trying to play an RPG as if it's a sports game - which it's not.
RPG fans are not going to be trying to play an RPG like a sports game.
The plague of modern day gaming (and old school too) is the pure reward driven player engagement. Playing for fun becomes distant second or even third. Min/max time should not be the mayor talking point (nor rewards).
How do you maintain the fun after you've played through the content with 4 different characters?
How many times do you re-read a novel in a year just for the fun of reading the novel?
You don't.
You go and play something else for a while.
If I were playing a game and was able to get through all content 4 times before the addition of new content, not only would I then go and play something else, I wouldn't come back.
A much, much better question that you should be asking yourself is - if a game is no longer fun for you, why are you searching for reasons to continue to play it?
The plague of modern day gaming (and old school too) is the pure reward driven player engagement. Playing for fun becomes distant second or even third. Min/max time should not be the mayor talking point (nor rewards).
How do you maintain the fun after you've played through the content with 4 different characters?
How many times do you re-read a novel in a year just for the fun of reading the novel?
One of the things certain PvP-heavy players have claimed, on this forum, is that PvP is so constantly dynamic that 'the content' has to be experienced dozens if not hundreds of times before you generally experience the same thing twice.
When a game is built around higher levels of challenge, this is often true of the PvE content as well. I'm saying that your experience is a reflection of the type of player you are. A Hardcore-time Casual-challenge player does not necessarily experience this, but even in a game like Elite, for example, what would happen is, you would 'choose a task that you expect to have challenge level A, and various dynamic factors in the world would change the challenge level and the requirements', therefore meaningfully changing the actions and strategies you need for the content.
For certain audiences whose main games provide this type of experience often, they would need to read this hypothetical novel probably 60 times.
I have fought enough Campaign battles in Meriphataud Mountains for them to be mostly the same, but every so often, a conflux of enemy tactics that I've never seen before, occurs, and I have to scramble to counter-strategize, which is the fun.
A game like Ashes which claims it will be dynamic in its encounters, can offer more fun to those audiences, but interestingly, this might be exactly counter to a battlepass. If the 'randomizer' makes certain preferred content unpredictably difficult for a player 'trying to clear the battle pass' and whose goal is to get the reward, then my enjoyment becomes that player's frustration.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 21
Yep. Which is why I didn't play WoW for 10 years.
But, the devs are going to want you to continue playing without a 1+ year gap.
Hence, why they now implement features like Battlepasses to entice players to not go play something else.
I play RPGs to Quest. Battlepass Tasks are close enough to Quests to keep me playing once Quests run out.
(If you're re-running Dungeons during Endgame, that's the equivalent of re-reading a novel)
Yep. Which is why I didn't play WoW for 10 years.
But, the devs are going to want you to continue playing without a 1+ year gap.
Hence, why they now implement features like Battlepasses to entice players to not go play something else.
I play RPGs to Quest. Battlepass Tasks are close enough to Quests to keep me playing once Quests run out.
(If you're re-running Dungeons during Endgame, that's the equivalent of re-reading a novel)
Right, so, you'll maintain interest in a game as long as there is some text telling you what to do, rather than doing what ever you feel like doing. Whether you have done thst thing a dozen times already doesn't matter, as long as it is what that text is telling you to do.
Yep. Which is why I didn't play WoW for 10 years.
But, the devs are going to want you to continue playing without a 1+ year gap.
Hence, why they now implement features like Battlepasses to entice players to not go play something else.
I play RPGs to Quest. Battlepass Tasks are close enough to Quests to keep me playing once Quests run out.
(If you're re-running Dungeons during Endgame, that's the equivalent of re-reading a novel)
I am not talking about WoW, though, so I'd like to clarify something, it once again requires an example, sorry. Note that I'm specifically discussing your last line, basically.
In Monster Hunter, the titular Monsters you hunt have a variation in their physical sizes that is almost entirely random. This affects their hitboxes, hurtboxes, reach, and in an emergent way, their AI.
Most average sized Tigrex fight the same way. Very large Tigrex fight that way too, but the player must adapt their attack patterns, in some cases a LOT. Very small Tigrex fight very differently.
This is ONE of about four meaningful variations in monster behaviour that you couldn't predict before deploying on the content. Your gear choices, your 'intent', similar to 'choosing to run the dungeon', is normally 'rereading a novel' in a game like WoW where the dungeon will be the same.
It takes a long time for two hunts to be the same. The developers even need to specifically offer special events where players can know with certainty that the fight is the same, for a certain type of player.
I'm saying that for me, after over 1000 hours playing Monster Hunter, I have not yet had time to fight enough Brachydios that I can expect 'my next Brachydios' to feel like 'rereading a novel'. I've only seriously fought it maybe 8 times, and that's not enough to be sure that I won't 'meet a tiny Brachydios and its battle style be different'.
I accept that battlepasses are a good way to keep the sort of player who doesn't notice or doesn't care about dynamism, interested long enough to experience that dynamism, but there are others who perceive it as 'a way to be lazy and not implement that dynamism'.
I don't know why you're playing an RPG if not for the lore/story.
Sounds like that means you're not playing it the way it's intended to be played.
You will not find one developer of an RPG that says you are supposed to play for the lore/story, or that this is the way it is intended to be played.
Every RPG developer will say the same thing - play the game for the reason or reasons you most enjoy, and get most satisfaction and enjoyment from. There is no right or wrong.
It is 100% viable to play a game like EQ2 and ignore the story, progression, crafting etc and ONLY focus on house decorating. It is 100% viable to only be interested in achievements. It is 100% viable to play a game to collect fashion. It is also 100% viable to play a game for the lore/story, and is also 100% viable to play for character progression.
Any suggestion otherwise is just objectively wrong.
I'm saying that for me, after over 1000 hours playing Monster Hunter, I have not yet had time to fight enough Brachydios that I can expect 'my next Brachydios' to feel like 'rereading a novel'. I've only seriously fought it maybe 8 times, and that's not enough to be sure that I won't 'meet a tiny Brachydios and its battle style be different'.
And as a pvp example of this, I played on the same version of L2 for several years per version (there were 3 most popular ones) and all of them kept me interested throughout thousands of hours of gameplay, even though I knew the game itself completely. Each player enemy (let alone group) was still interesting to fight against, because they all had their own personality and quirks.
I know Dygz won't care much for it, but I fully expect the pvp part of Ashes to keep the pvxers playing a looooooong time even if the pve part of the content dries up. And if Intrepid manage to realize their vision of a "dynamic world" - hell, that's endless damn content.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It's it the PvP part of Ashes that's keeping the gamers playing, that means that Ashes is primarily an MMO PvP game. Which is great for PvPers. Yes.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You will not find one developer of an RPG that says you are supposed to play for the lore/story, or that this is the way it is intended to be played.
Every RPG developer will say the same thing - play the game for the reason or reasons you most enjoy, and get most satisfaction and enjoyment from. There is no right or wrong.
It is 100% viable to play a game like EQ2 and ignore the story, progression, crafting etc and ONLY focus on house decorating. It is 100% viable to only be interested in achievements. It is 100% viable to play a game to collect fashion. It is also 100% viable to play a game for the lore/story, and is also 100% viable to play for character progression.
Any suggestion otherwise is just objectively wrong.
You will find that. Otherwise they would not include Quests. And have Quests be the primary way that players Level. And they would not spend so much money on Cutscenes with professional voice actors doing the dialogue.
I didn't say that it's impossible to play by only focusing on some other aspect of the game.
I know Dygz won't care much for it, but I fully expect the pvp part of Ashes to keep the pvxers playing a looooooong time even if the pve part of the content dries up. And if Intrepid manage to realize their vision of a "dynamic world" - hell, that's endless damn content.
Not really, because many MMORPGs changed at some point to appeal to players that mostly want a game to tell them a story while pulling them through a world.
This is also why they then 'died' because things like Genshin do that better.
So, and I'm not even talking about Dygz here, I know people for whom this isn't content. They want to play Raid:Shadow Legends or AFK Journey or similar things, where they 'set some stuff and then basically hit a few buttons to occasionally feel engaged'.
The 'dynamic world' portion of Ashes may not work for those people, I can at least assure you finally that when Dygz says that he wants to Ever Quest, it's not the same thing as what I'm thinking of.
A battlepass fits extremely well for the type of thing MMORPGs have become, precisely because a large part of the audience that they now attract, do not consider 'varied challenges based on changing world factors' to be 'content'. There would need to be changes to something they perceive as a 'story'.
You will not find one developer of an RPG that says you are supposed to play for the lore/story, or that this is the way it is intended to be played.
Every RPG developer will say the same thing - play the game for the reason or reasons you most enjoy, and get most satisfaction and enjoyment from. There is no right or wrong.
It is 100% viable to play a game like EQ2 and ignore the story, progression, crafting etc and ONLY focus on house decorating. It is 100% viable to only be interested in achievements. It is 100% viable to play a game to collect fashion. It is also 100% viable to play a game for the lore/story, and is also 100% viable to play for character progression.
Any suggestion otherwise is just objectively wrong.
You will find that. Otherwise they would not include Quests.
This argument doesn't work.
You are saying developers will say you are supposed to play the game for the lore/story, otherwise they would not include it.
By that logic, you are supposed to play the game for the character progression, otherwise they wouldn't include it.
You are supposed to play the game to collect fashion, otherwise they wouldn't include it.
You are supposed to play the game to decorate houses, otherwise they wouldn't include it.
This is clearly incorrect.
You are supposed to play an MMORPG how you want to play it, that is why developers include so many different things to do.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I accept that battlepasses are a good way to keep the sort of player who doesn't notice or doesn't care about dynamism, interested long enough to experience that dynamism, but there are others who perceive it as 'a way to be lazy and not implement that dynamism'.
The great thing about Battlepasses is that they incentivize other activities besides just monster hunting to increase BiS gear.
Forbes magazine calls Monster Hunter a Loot Grinder. So, sure, if you're playing the game primarily because you want to hunt monsters for BiS gear as long as there are monsters for you to hunt, you should be happy.
But, that would be a very myopic "RPG". And that seems like the equivalent of reading the same Choose Your Own Adventure book over and over and over again.
You're saying you have over 1K hours with Monster Hunter, but I have 415 hours in Nightingale without a Battlepass and that's an Early Access game. I think I played that for maybe 1 month.
So, yeah, I want something that's going to keep me playing hardcore time hours consistently Season to Season. And to accomplish that there would have to be more activities than hunting monsters and crafting gear in order to hunt more monsters - especially since killing stuff is low on my list of fun.
I'd say that Online RPGs are too focused on combat. And that it's "lazy" to focus so much on combat - because RPGs are supposed to be much broader in terms of interactive storytelling than just combat.
I think MHW has weekly and sometimes daily Bounties - which seem similar to aspects of a Battlepass - except again seems to be myopically focused on the combat loop.
And what I love about Battlepasses is that they offer rewards for doing stuff other than just combat. And my expectation for a good RPG is that there will be a lot more options for fun than just combat. (And I expect those to be motivated by Quests. Hopefully, the closest we can get to ever Questing.)
Let me know if i need more... check out around 57 seconds in. It is fun having you around though.
Yes. You have to find something more than that.
If I disliked Ashes, I wouldn't even test the Alphas and Betas. And there would be no way to get me to explore Verra after launch.
And I would be saying that Ashes has an objectively shitty design.
Kinda reminds me of my grandma's "spaghetti". Spaghetti noodles with tomato paste and sugar.
I lived with my grandma while I went to college. I started cooking on my own on a frequent basis after college.
I could eat a couple platefuls of my grandma's "spaghetti". It was decent tasting pasta. But it wouldn't satisfy my craving for spaghetti.
Spaghetti would at least have to be on the level of my mom's which would include a bottle of Ragu sauce and some cooked ground beef.
During my starving artist summer in NYC, after college, I discovered spice shops and began incorporating freshly chopped or recently dried spices into my cooking.
My own spaghetti might also include some freshly chopped tomatoes, fresh basil and oregano and italian sausage along with ground beef. And then I'd also craft dishes with various forms of pasta besides just spaghetti.
After my mom tasted my spaghetti, she adjusted he recipe to become closer to mine.
I didn't dislike my grandma's "spaghetti" but I consider that to be pasta, rather than spaghetti.
And, if I had a choice of recipes, there's a bunch of others I'd prefer over hers.
If hers was the only "spaghetti" available, sure I would eat it. Because I don't dislike it.
I would love to see grammy's face when you tell her that you are not the target audience for her sauce. and that you enjoy other grandmas sauce more. and then when you add that your grammy has advertised her sauce as something it is not... she is gonna beat your ass. lol. incidentally, i am sure she could.
You think she will agree with the moronic argument?
I would like to add that i think you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people i have ever encountered.
you would never tell grammy those things.. because you are not trying to change her.
I accept that battlepasses are a good way to keep the sort of player who doesn't notice or doesn't care about dynamism, interested long enough to experience that dynamism, but there are others who perceive it as 'a way to be lazy and not implement that dynamism'.
The great thing about Battlepasses is that they incentivize other activities besides just monster hunting to increase BiS gear.
Forbes magazine calls Monster Hunter a Loot Grinder. So, sure, if you're playing the game primarily because you want to hunt monsters for BiS gear as long as there are monsters for you to hunt, you should be happy.
But, that would be a very myopic "RPG". And that seems like the equivalent of reading the same Choose Your Own Adventure book over and over and over again.
You're saying you have over 1K hours with Monster Hunter, but I have 415 hours in Nightingale without a Battlepass and that's an Early Access game. I think I played that for maybe 1 month.
So, yeah, I want something that's going to keep me playing hardcore time hours consistently Season to Season. And to accomplish that there would have to be more activities than hunting monsters and crafting gear in order to hunt more monsters - especially since killing stuff is low on my list of fun.
I'd say that Online RPGs are too focused on combat. And that it's "lazy" to focus so much on combat - because RPGs are supposed to be much broader in terms of interactive storytelling than just combat.
I think MHW has weekly and sometimes daily Bounties - which seem similar to aspects of a Battlepass - except again seems to be myopically focused on the combat loop.
And what I love about Battlepasses is that they offer rewards for doing stuff other than just combat. And my expectation for a good RPG is that there will be a lot more options for fun than just combat. (And I expect those to be motivated by Quests. Hopefully, the closest we can get to ever Questing.)
So in essence you would rather pay for something that could've been offered for free in game? That's how I read your post.
I accept that battlepasses are a good way to keep the sort of player who doesn't notice or doesn't care about dynamism, interested long enough to experience that dynamism, but there are others who perceive it as 'a way to be lazy and not implement that dynamism'.
The great thing about Battlepasses is that they incentivize other activities besides just monster hunting to increase BiS gear.
Forbes magazine calls Monster Hunter a Loot Grinder. So, sure, if you're playing the game primarily because you want to hunt monsters for BiS gear as long as there are monsters for you to hunt, you should be happy.
But, that would be a very myopic "RPG". And that seems like the equivalent of reading the same Choose Your Own Adventure book over and over and over again.
You're saying you have over 1K hours with Monster Hunter, but I have 415 hours in Nightingale without a Battlepass and that's an Early Access game. I think I played that for maybe 1 month.
So, yeah, I want something that's going to keep me playing hardcore time hours consistently Season to Season. And to accomplish that there would have to be more activities than hunting monsters and crafting gear in order to hunt more monsters - especially since killing stuff is low on my list of fun.
I'd say that Online RPGs are too focused on combat. And that it's "lazy" to focus so much on combat - because RPGs are supposed to be much broader in terms of interactive storytelling than just combat.
I think MHW has weekly and sometimes daily Bounties - which seem similar to aspects of a Battlepass - except again seems to be myopically focused on the combat loop.
And what I love about Battlepasses is that they offer rewards for doing stuff other than just combat. And my expectation for a good RPG is that there will be a lot more options for fun than just combat. (And I expect those to be motivated by Quests. Hopefully, the closest we can get to ever Questing.)
This is primarily because of a large gap that I find exists in perceptions of people who take games as being about their supposed primary goal/playloop.
Since adding additional content to strongly designed open-world games isn't particularly difficult, many of the more serious development studios just add it, or do their best to support multiple styles of play, and just consider it accepted and understood, that players who wish to take those approaches, will do so.
If anything, Intrepid, I would like you to understand that part. If you don't look closer or ask more (but you always do, and for that I'm thankful) about the games people enjoy, it will be difficult to come up with something that resonates, and you might end up like Riot.
It is absolutely true that Monster Hunter involves combat, you cannot meaningfully progress in the game without some level of combat. But Monster Hunter also has tracking, Gathering, Fishing, fashion, collecting decorations for your house, simply observing monster habitats, doing 'research studies' on smaller nonthreatening monsters, social events, and a few diplomacy quests.
Most half-baked MMORPGs don't even get up to the Monster Hunter level of depth, which is partly why the MMORPG genre 'suffers' a bit. There's literally more content in MHW for me to do than there was in console launch BDO. I only even bought BDO to kill time until MHW released.
Please continue getting information from many gamers with many experiences.
I have spent less than half my time in Monster Hunter actually fighting things, I believe.
Not really, because many MMORPGs changed at some point to appeal to players that mostly want a game to tell them a story while pulling them through a world.
I don't think they changed. Interactive storytelling, primarily through Quests, is the foundation of RPGs.
And that's why Everquest has ever quest as its name.
So, and I'm not even talking about Dygz here, I know people for whom this isn't content. They want to play Raid:Shadow Legends or AFK Journey or similar things, where they 'set some stuff and then basically hit a few buttons to occasionally feel engaged'.
The 'dynamic world' portion of Ashes may not work for those people, I can at least assure you finally that when Dygz says that he wants to Ever Quest, it's not the same thing as what I'm thinking of.
I think most people would prefer a dynamic world.
How the dynamic world is implemented is important, though.
I'm not sure why you seem to be placing dynamic world in opposition with ever quests.
The foundation of RPGs is co-op play rather than PvP, so when I want to play an RPG, I'm rarely going to be in the mood for PvP. I'd say that PvP is what causes the corruption (pardon the pun) of MMORPGs.
So I would rather be playing an MMORPG with a dynamic world that has minimal PvP.
And I would prefer new content (including new quests/tasks/story) to be introduced every 3 months, rather than every 18 months. And Battlepasses help accomplish that.
A... large part of the audience that they now attract, do not consider 'varied challenges based on changing world factors' to be 'content'. There would need to be changes to something they perceive as a 'story'.
I don't think that's accurate.
In the case of Ashes, Intrepid is already planning to have a Cosmetics Market and they've already created a Battlepass for APOC, so I expect their Cosmetics Market to come in the form of a Battlepass. Especially because the current trend is for MMOs to have a Battlepass.
I think what I would say about Monster Hunter is that I don't consider hunting monsters to be "varied challenges". That's basically the same type of challenge.
And what I like about Battlepasses is that there are more varied tasks/"challenges" to complete than just killing stuff. And sometimes they can push me to engage in activities that I would normally ignore.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So in essence you would rather pay for something that could've been offered for free in game? That's how I read your post.
I typically play the free path of Battlepass.
Sometimes Battlepasses are kinda outside the game, like NW and Fortnite.
Sometimes Battlepasses are in-game, like WoW.
I believe I've explained to you before, Dygz, that you do not get EXP for questing in FFXI.
Now, I know you have many opinions on what that means, but you cannot both make the point 'this is how RPGs work' and when shown an RPG where it doesn't work that way, just claim 'that means it's not an RPG' when your original point is related to why someone else should expect it.
I understand that you have a very narrow definition of RPG, but your definition seems to contain things that are not requirements, that you have tacked on, and it's sadly made it difficult to have conversations with you about many things.
So, to be clear, I was referring to the difference between a game where the game tells you the story, as opposed to a game full of lore that you can go out and discover yourself. Albion Online is still an MMORPG.
Also, I'm not sure if you're just refusing to accept it, or what, but I offer you this character from Monster Hunter...
This is primarily because of a large gap that I find exists in perceptions of people who take games as being about their supposed primary goal/playloop.
Since adding additional content to strongly designed open-world games isn't particularly difficult, many of the more serious development studios just add it, or do their best to support multiple styles of play, and just consider it accepted and understood, that players who wish to take those approaches, will do so.
It is absolutely true that Monster Hunter involves combat, you cannot meaningfully progress in the game without some level of combat. But Monster Hunter also has tracking, Gathering, Fishing, fashion, collecting decorations for your house, simply observing monster habitats, doing 'research studies' on smaller nonthreatening monsters, social events, and a few diplomacy quests.
Maybe. I just watched another MHW fan rant against Battlepasses.
He said, "I LOVE farming new weapons. That's the whole point of Monster Hunter! That's literally the whole point of the game! You hunt the monster... you get the bits of the monster, then you bring it back, then you make better armor, better weapon, then you go and hunt a bigger monster. Then you bring its bits back, then you craft better armor and a better weapon and then you go hunt the next big monster."
Most half-baked MMORPGs don't even get up to the Monster Hunter level of depth, which is partly why the MMORPG genre 'suffers' a bit. There's literally more content in MHW for me to do than there was in console launch BDO. I only even bought BDO to kill time until MHW released.
It's true that I haven't played it so, I don't truly know what Endgame is like, although...
This same guy in the vid I watched said, "I think ultimately Battlepasses stagnate the industry because when you can artificially stretch the lifespan of a game by constantly brining out these Battlepasses and new skins and all of that jazz, you're not really innovating anything. You're just prolonging the life of this game. I want to see the next thing. Like, I've finished Monster HUnter: World and then I'm 'Cool! Loved it. It was friggin' amazing. I don't feel pressured, like I have to keep playing it every single day. And, at the same time, I can't wait for the next one."
But, I don't want an MMORPG to be a game that I finish and then wait for the next expansion. I want an MMORPG to be something that I'm playing every week - if not every day. And I especially don't want to have to wait 12-18 months for the next content drop.
Sure. In Ashes, Nodes are supposed to be the solution to implementing new content dynamically (while we wait for an expansion).
But, I didn't say that Ashes needs a Battlepass to help with that.
For Ashes, Battlepass is just my expected mode for the Ashes Cosmetic Market.
But, the Battlepass works as a valid solution to Endgame, for me, for WoW and NW and Fortnite - because they basically function as ever Quests with new Seasonal content and rewards. And I will rotate through them for several weeks every month or every couple of months.
And because Battlepasses typically also offer a monetized path as well as a free path, I expect them to remain a popular for MMORPGs for the next handful of years, at least.
Maybe. I just watched another MHW fan rant against Battlepasses.
He said, "I LOVE farming new weapons. That's the whole point of Monster Hunter! That's literally the whole point of the game! You hunt the monster... you get the bits of the monster, then you bring it back, then you make better armor, better weapon, then you go and hunt a bigger monster. Then you bring its bits back, then you craft better armor and a better weapon and then you go hunt the next big monster."
Yeah, but this exists in every MMORPG.
This attitude to how the game is enjoyed seems to very much be the plurality opinion in most MMORPG's. There are more people playing primarily to progress than primarily to experience the story.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This attitude to how the game is enjoyed seems to very much be the plurality opinion in most MMORPG's. There are more people playing primarily to progress than primarily to experience the story.
Not really. It’s a matter of degree.
Level progression is part of the story. Or should be.
Gear progression is almost a byproduct.
Although, combat should be a prominent option for Level progression, there should be many other ways to gain xp.
Sure. Because combat was the easiest for video game devs to program, MMORPGs are heavily focused on combat as the primary way to progress.
Especially because gamers can race through Quests in a matter of weeks and devs want gamers playing for years - they began to focus heavily on Gear progression as the Endgame loop.
So now we have a generation of gamers who primarily play for the Gear progression Endgame loop. But what you really mean is that more people play during Endgame for Gear progression than for story because players playing for story are going to stop playing when the story runs out at Endgame.
We agree. That the gear progression loop is popular in MMORPGs. But, Monster Hunter seems to be myopically focused on the Gear progression loop - more so that is typical in MMORPGs.
Battlepasses offer Tasks that focus on other activities besides Max Level content and besides Gear progression.
And they offer associated rewards that are not focused on improving Combat. And, those Seasonal Cosmetics and thematic content typically help tweak the story.
Which is why there’s typically a significant jump in population at the beginning of a new Battlepass, like a 5x jump in population.
So, again, I think we actually agree that the Gear progression loop is popular. But it’s not really more popular in general - it’s specifically more popular at Endgame once the players who want to do other stuff besides the BiS Gear progression loop leave the game.
Comments
That is literally the point of it.
In that regard, it is no different to daily quests and such. They both serve the same purpose.
I would much rather Intrepid (or any MMORPG developer) produce actual content at the same rate at which players consume it.
How many times do you re-read a novel in a year just for the fun of reading the novel?
I do wish it was more organic implemented in gameplay tho.
I played Quake 1 for years and years without any carrot on a stick. Why? Because it was fun. (Sure clan wars , mods added a lot of new ways to play).
I would never play the same story with another character. I don't care to much for the lore/story.
But comparing a video game with a novel or tv show / movie is odd to me. Since to me a game is closer to a sport (soccer, tennis w/e) then passively reading a book.
The primary point of RPGs is to play through with different roles.
Which means it's not going to be the same story.
I don't know why you're playing an RPG if not for the lore/story.
Sounds like that means you're not playing it the way it's intended to be played.
You're trying to play an RPG as if it's a sports game - which it's not.
RPG fans are not going to be trying to play an RPG like a sports game.
You don't.
You go and play something else for a while.
If I were playing a game and was able to get through all content 4 times before the addition of new content, not only would I then go and play something else, I wouldn't come back.
A much, much better question that you should be asking yourself is - if a game is no longer fun for you, why are you searching for reasons to continue to play it?
One of the things certain PvP-heavy players have claimed, on this forum, is that PvP is so constantly dynamic that 'the content' has to be experienced dozens if not hundreds of times before you generally experience the same thing twice.
When a game is built around higher levels of challenge, this is often true of the PvE content as well. I'm saying that your experience is a reflection of the type of player you are. A Hardcore-time Casual-challenge player does not necessarily experience this, but even in a game like Elite, for example, what would happen is, you would 'choose a task that you expect to have challenge level A, and various dynamic factors in the world would change the challenge level and the requirements', therefore meaningfully changing the actions and strategies you need for the content.
For certain audiences whose main games provide this type of experience often, they would need to read this hypothetical novel probably 60 times.
I have fought enough Campaign battles in Meriphataud Mountains for them to be mostly the same, but every so often, a conflux of enemy tactics that I've never seen before, occurs, and I have to scramble to counter-strategize, which is the fun.
A game like Ashes which claims it will be dynamic in its encounters, can offer more fun to those audiences, but interestingly, this might be exactly counter to a battlepass. If the 'randomizer' makes certain preferred content unpredictably difficult for a player 'trying to clear the battle pass' and whose goal is to get the reward, then my enjoyment becomes that player's frustration.
But, the devs are going to want you to continue playing without a 1+ year gap.
Hence, why they now implement features like Battlepasses to entice players to not go play something else.
I play RPGs to Quest. Battlepass Tasks are close enough to Quests to keep me playing once Quests run out.
(If you're re-running Dungeons during Endgame, that's the equivalent of re-reading a novel)
Right, so, you'll maintain interest in a game as long as there is some text telling you what to do, rather than doing what ever you feel like doing. Whether you have done thst thing a dozen times already doesn't matter, as long as it is what that text is telling you to do.
Got it.
for the character progression aspects duh.
I am not talking about WoW, though, so I'd like to clarify something, it once again requires an example, sorry. Note that I'm specifically discussing your last line, basically.
In Monster Hunter, the titular Monsters you hunt have a variation in their physical sizes that is almost entirely random. This affects their hitboxes, hurtboxes, reach, and in an emergent way, their AI.
Most average sized Tigrex fight the same way. Very large Tigrex fight that way too, but the player must adapt their attack patterns, in some cases a LOT. Very small Tigrex fight very differently.
This is ONE of about four meaningful variations in monster behaviour that you couldn't predict before deploying on the content. Your gear choices, your 'intent', similar to 'choosing to run the dungeon', is normally 'rereading a novel' in a game like WoW where the dungeon will be the same.
It takes a long time for two hunts to be the same. The developers even need to specifically offer special events where players can know with certainty that the fight is the same, for a certain type of player.
I'm saying that for me, after over 1000 hours playing Monster Hunter, I have not yet had time to fight enough Brachydios that I can expect 'my next Brachydios' to feel like 'rereading a novel'. I've only seriously fought it maybe 8 times, and that's not enough to be sure that I won't 'meet a tiny Brachydios and its battle style be different'.
I accept that battlepasses are a good way to keep the sort of player who doesn't notice or doesn't care about dynamism, interested long enough to experience that dynamism, but there are others who perceive it as 'a way to be lazy and not implement that dynamism'.
You will not find one developer of an RPG that says you are supposed to play for the lore/story, or that this is the way it is intended to be played.
Every RPG developer will say the same thing - play the game for the reason or reasons you most enjoy, and get most satisfaction and enjoyment from. There is no right or wrong.
It is 100% viable to play a game like EQ2 and ignore the story, progression, crafting etc and ONLY focus on house decorating. It is 100% viable to only be interested in achievements. It is 100% viable to play a game to collect fashion. It is also 100% viable to play a game for the lore/story, and is also 100% viable to play for character progression.
Any suggestion otherwise is just objectively wrong.
I know Dygz won't care much for it, but I fully expect the pvp part of Ashes to keep the pvxers playing a looooooong time even if the pve part of the content dries up. And if Intrepid manage to realize their vision of a "dynamic world" - hell, that's endless damn content.
I didn't say that it's impossible to play by only focusing on some other aspect of the game.
Not really, because many MMORPGs changed at some point to appeal to players that mostly want a game to tell them a story while pulling them through a world.
This is also why they then 'died' because things like Genshin do that better.
So, and I'm not even talking about Dygz here, I know people for whom this isn't content. They want to play Raid:Shadow Legends or AFK Journey or similar things, where they 'set some stuff and then basically hit a few buttons to occasionally feel engaged'.
The 'dynamic world' portion of Ashes may not work for those people, I can at least assure you finally that when Dygz says that he wants to Ever Quest, it's not the same thing as what I'm thinking of.
A battlepass fits extremely well for the type of thing MMORPGs have become, precisely because a large part of the audience that they now attract, do not consider 'varied challenges based on changing world factors' to be 'content'. There would need to be changes to something they perceive as a 'story'.
You are saying developers will say you are supposed to play the game for the lore/story, otherwise they would not include it.
By that logic, you are supposed to play the game for the character progression, otherwise they wouldn't include it.
You are supposed to play the game to collect fashion, otherwise they wouldn't include it.
You are supposed to play the game to decorate houses, otherwise they wouldn't include it.
This is clearly incorrect.
You are supposed to play an MMORPG how you want to play it, that is why developers include so many different things to do.
Forbes magazine calls Monster Hunter a Loot Grinder. So, sure, if you're playing the game primarily because you want to hunt monsters for BiS gear as long as there are monsters for you to hunt, you should be happy.
But, that would be a very myopic "RPG". And that seems like the equivalent of reading the same Choose Your Own Adventure book over and over and over again.
You're saying you have over 1K hours with Monster Hunter, but I have 415 hours in Nightingale without a Battlepass and that's an Early Access game. I think I played that for maybe 1 month.
So, yeah, I want something that's going to keep me playing hardcore time hours consistently Season to Season. And to accomplish that there would have to be more activities than hunting monsters and crafting gear in order to hunt more monsters - especially since killing stuff is low on my list of fun.
I'd say that Online RPGs are too focused on combat. And that it's "lazy" to focus so much on combat - because RPGs are supposed to be much broader in terms of interactive storytelling than just combat.
I think MHW has weekly and sometimes daily Bounties - which seem similar to aspects of a Battlepass - except again seems to be myopically focused on the combat loop.
And what I love about Battlepasses is that they offer rewards for doing stuff other than just combat. And my expectation for a good RPG is that there will be a lot more options for fun than just combat. (And I expect those to be motivated by Quests. Hopefully, the closest we can get to ever Questing.)
I would love to see grammy's face when you tell her that you are not the target audience for her sauce. and that you enjoy other grandmas sauce more. and then when you add that your grammy has advertised her sauce as something it is not... she is gonna beat your ass. lol. incidentally, i am sure she could.
You think she will agree with the moronic argument?
I would like to add that i think you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people i have ever encountered.
you would never tell grammy those things.. because you are not trying to change her.
So in essence you would rather pay for something that could've been offered for free in game? That's how I read your post.
This is primarily because of a large gap that I find exists in perceptions of people who take games as being about their supposed primary goal/playloop.
Since adding additional content to strongly designed open-world games isn't particularly difficult, many of the more serious development studios just add it, or do their best to support multiple styles of play, and just consider it accepted and understood, that players who wish to take those approaches, will do so.
If anything, Intrepid, I would like you to understand that part. If you don't look closer or ask more (but you always do, and for that I'm thankful) about the games people enjoy, it will be difficult to come up with something that resonates, and you might end up like Riot.
It is absolutely true that Monster Hunter involves combat, you cannot meaningfully progress in the game without some level of combat. But Monster Hunter also has tracking, Gathering, Fishing, fashion, collecting decorations for your house, simply observing monster habitats, doing 'research studies' on smaller nonthreatening monsters, social events, and a few diplomacy quests.
Most half-baked MMORPGs don't even get up to the Monster Hunter level of depth, which is partly why the MMORPG genre 'suffers' a bit. There's literally more content in MHW for me to do than there was in console launch BDO. I only even bought BDO to kill time until MHW released.
Please continue getting information from many gamers with many experiences.
I have spent less than half my time in Monster Hunter actually fighting things, I believe.
Now give me everything i want. (lol)
And that's why Everquest has ever quest as its name.
I mean, that's saying that MMORPGs died in 1999.
I think most people would prefer a dynamic world.
How the dynamic world is implemented is important, though.
I'm not sure why you seem to be placing dynamic world in opposition with ever quests.
The foundation of RPGs is co-op play rather than PvP, so when I want to play an RPG, I'm rarely going to be in the mood for PvP. I'd say that PvP is what causes the corruption (pardon the pun) of MMORPGs.
So I would rather be playing an MMORPG with a dynamic world that has minimal PvP.
And I would prefer new content (including new quests/tasks/story) to be introduced every 3 months, rather than every 18 months. And Battlepasses help accomplish that.
I don't think that's accurate.
In the case of Ashes, Intrepid is already planning to have a Cosmetics Market and they've already created a Battlepass for APOC, so I expect their Cosmetics Market to come in the form of a Battlepass. Especially because the current trend is for MMOs to have a Battlepass.
I think what I would say about Monster Hunter is that I don't consider hunting monsters to be "varied challenges". That's basically the same type of challenge.
And what I like about Battlepasses is that there are more varied tasks/"challenges" to complete than just killing stuff. And sometimes they can push me to engage in activities that I would normally ignore.
Sometimes Battlepasses are kinda outside the game, like NW and Fortnite.
Sometimes Battlepasses are in-game, like WoW.
Now, I know you have many opinions on what that means, but you cannot both make the point 'this is how RPGs work' and when shown an RPG where it doesn't work that way, just claim 'that means it's not an RPG' when your original point is related to why someone else should expect it.
I understand that you have a very narrow definition of RPG, but your definition seems to contain things that are not requirements, that you have tacked on, and it's sadly made it difficult to have conversations with you about many things.
So, to be clear, I was referring to the difference between a game where the game tells you the story, as opposed to a game full of lore that you can go out and discover yourself. Albion Online is still an MMORPG.
Also, I'm not sure if you're just refusing to accept it, or what, but I offer you this character from Monster Hunter...
https://monsterhunterworld.wiki.fextralife.com/Endemic+Life+Researcher
One of multiple.
I don't think we actually disagree.
Maybe. I just watched another MHW fan rant against Battlepasses.
He said, "I LOVE farming new weapons. That's the whole point of Monster Hunter! That's literally the whole point of the game! You hunt the monster... you get the bits of the monster, then you bring it back, then you make better armor, better weapon, then you go and hunt a bigger monster. Then you bring its bits back, then you craft better armor and a better weapon and then you go hunt the next big monster."
It's true that I haven't played it so, I don't truly know what Endgame is like, although...
This same guy in the vid I watched said, "I think ultimately Battlepasses stagnate the industry because when you can artificially stretch the lifespan of a game by constantly brining out these Battlepasses and new skins and all of that jazz, you're not really innovating anything. You're just prolonging the life of this game. I want to see the next thing. Like, I've finished Monster HUnter: World and then I'm 'Cool! Loved it. It was friggin' amazing. I don't feel pressured, like I have to keep playing it every single day. And, at the same time, I can't wait for the next one."
But, I don't want an MMORPG to be a game that I finish and then wait for the next expansion. I want an MMORPG to be something that I'm playing every week - if not every day. And I especially don't want to have to wait 12-18 months for the next content drop.
Sure. In Ashes, Nodes are supposed to be the solution to implementing new content dynamically (while we wait for an expansion).
But, I didn't say that Ashes needs a Battlepass to help with that.
For Ashes, Battlepass is just my expected mode for the Ashes Cosmetic Market.
But, the Battlepass works as a valid solution to Endgame, for me, for WoW and NW and Fortnite - because they basically function as ever Quests with new Seasonal content and rewards. And I will rotate through them for several weeks every month or every couple of months.
And because Battlepasses typically also offer a monetized path as well as a free path, I expect them to remain a popular for MMORPGs for the next handful of years, at least.
But only around 1K hours and you've played for how many months?
Looks like 11K-15K is the typical concurrent players month to month.
Isn’t Intrepid hoping for more than that??
How many servers would that be? 3?
Yeah, but this exists in every MMORPG.
This attitude to how the game is enjoyed seems to very much be the plurality opinion in most MMORPG's. There are more people playing primarily to progress than primarily to experience the story.
Level progression is part of the story. Or should be.
Gear progression is almost a byproduct.
Although, combat should be a prominent option for Level progression, there should be many other ways to gain xp.
Sure. Because combat was the easiest for video game devs to program, MMORPGs are heavily focused on combat as the primary way to progress.
Especially because gamers can race through Quests in a matter of weeks and devs want gamers playing for years - they began to focus heavily on Gear progression as the Endgame loop.
So now we have a generation of gamers who primarily play for the Gear progression Endgame loop. But what you really mean is that more people play during Endgame for Gear progression than for story because players playing for story are going to stop playing when the story runs out at Endgame.
We agree. That the gear progression loop is popular in MMORPGs. But, Monster Hunter seems to be myopically focused on the Gear progression loop - more so that is typical in MMORPGs.
Battlepasses offer Tasks that focus on other activities besides Max Level content and besides Gear progression.
And they offer associated rewards that are not focused on improving Combat. And, those Seasonal Cosmetics and thematic content typically help tweak the story.
Which is why there’s typically a significant jump in population at the beginning of a new Battlepass, like a 5x jump in population.
So, again, I think we actually agree that the Gear progression loop is popular. But it’s not really more popular in general - it’s specifically more popular at Endgame once the players who want to do other stuff besides the BiS Gear progression loop leave the game.