Ashes of Creation must dodge this bullet

I've just finished editing and uploaded a detailed video about a topic that, in my opinion, has been undeservingly forgotten. I'm not making this thread for self-promotion purpose - I am genuinely concerned about a bullet that Ashes of Creation must dodge at all cost. Obviously, I will provide a detailed TL;DW below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U535dxJ-ifs
One of my main concerns about Ashes of Creation is leveling speed. According to wiki, it would take approximately 45 days of playing 4-6 hours per day to reach level 50, which is ~225 hours. Which is not much at all and it will inevitably lead to some, or even all problems I described in the video.

1. The average player would reach level 50 within approximately ~2 months. It means the only future updates he will care about are those related to endgame. Therefore, Intrepid will be forced to prioritize endgame content to prevent those players from leaving; this will not stop and will only get worse over time.
2. Those ~2 months might not even be relevant on release. Alpha 2 and Beta phases have no NDA. Therefore, there will be plenty of YouTube guides about leveling up fast.
3. Those ~2 months will be even less relevant post launch: nodes will be more developed, economy will function, market will have everything a player needs. Also, players will be able to get help from friends, guilds etc. They might also get powerleveled by their high-level friends even with current restrictions (for example, level 42 player can get carried in a group of lvl 50 players in high level zones)
4. Official launch may be messy, so at first devs might need to focus on fixing bugs and other issues, instead of new content. Slower leveling would buy Intrepid more time.
5. Slower progression extends the longevity of the game. Simple example: x1 Lineage 2 servers could stay active for years. Servers with x5, x10 or higher rates normally lasted several months at best, despite the fact that players were literally playing the same game. And yes, there were many casual players in Lineage 2 as well.
6. Fast leveling leads to having more alts with different artisan skills. As a result, the whole idea of interdependent player relationships will slowly die. Especially, if we take into account, that artisan level does not really require adventuring level.
7. The faster the leveling is, the more low- and mid-level content players tend to skip. Taking into accounts #1, #2 and #3, the situation will only get worse over time.
8. As a result of #7, the low- and mid-level economy slowly but surely dies over time. New World is a perfect example. Seen the same in Lineage 2 as well.
9. Another point brought up on stream by @Pawkets yesterday: slower leveling will keep taverns with upgraded beds for rested XP more relevant for a longer period of time. After ~ 3 months post-launch a significant percentage of players will reach the level cap and those upgrades won't be really relevant for them anymore.

I also review the main arguments against making the leveling longer, such as:
2. Casual players will be left behind (TL;DW: not really)
3. Complaint about freeholds requiring level 50 (TL;DW: this widespread opinion comes from lack of understanding how freehold system works)
4. Long leveling may be boring (TL;DW: not necessarily, especially if Intrepid delivers what they promised)
5. A widespread belief that the real game and fun only starts at level 50 (TL;DW: true for many other games, not true for AoC)

Ultimate solution that may potentially satisfy everyone:
1. Make the original Ashes of Creation leveling 2-3-5-whatever times longer.
2. Adjust the amount of rested XP received, so that those who play less could have a better XP bonus.
3. Alternatively, after the release, launch servers with x3-x5-x20-whatever rates for those who don't think that arguments from #1 till #8 make any sense; and for those who want to play Ashes only for a few months and then move on to other games.

P.S.Do we really want Ashes of Creation to follow the same fate as a high-rate Lineage 2 server, especially after waiting for it for so many years? Do we want to play Ashes of Creation for a few months, or we want it to captivate us for years, like a true MMO should?

UPDATE: KEY REFERENCES
1. Why I think this is an issue: https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/471198/#Comment_471198
2. Statistical data for the example I provided: https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/471207/#Comment_471207
3. General topic about leveling speed: https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/58957/leveling-speed/p1
4. Local clown @Noaani claimed that "nobody cares and nobody wants longer leveling". I prove why many people actually care about it here, but have those people have no desire to interact with his spam and engage in pointless debates with local population of clowns: https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/472821/#Comment_472821
5. Steven talking about leveling speed during the recent interview: https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/476064/#Comment_476064

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

Flanker wrote: »

It's not meaningless as there are examples of that. Here is one of them for you, my stubborn friend: they took PvP and Corruption system from Lineage 2 and adressed the majority of issues the system had in L2.

The design addresses some of the Karma issues that concerned Steven.
Corruption still needs be tested before we can know if the implementation truly addresses the issues.

The same is true for Ashes "Endgame".
We have to test the implemented gameplay before we can meaningfully evaluate whether the systems work as intended.

So far, you aren't particularly convincing. And you mostly seem like you don't understand the design very well.

Noaani

Flanker wrote: »

Do I need to point out that exceptions do not disprove the rule?

Before you do, you need to point out where I said it was the rule.

I said I know some, and I do.

Flanker

Dygz wrote: »

The design addresses some of the Karma issues that concerned Steven.
Corruption still needs be tested before we can know if the implementation truly addresses the issues.

That particular one might be difficult to test throughout Alpha and Beta phases. IIRC during Alpha 1 they even turned off PvP because people were acting like people - fighting everyone left and right.
I assume that we might see something similar during the upcoming Alpha 2, because it's Alpha with wipes and people don't really care about death penalties, losing gear because of going corrupt etc.
Yet, post-launch, the situation will change drastically for obvious reasons.

Dygz wrote: »

So far, you aren't particularly convincing. And you mostly seem like you don't understand the design very well.

Point out what is that exactly that I don't understand

LaZzIsFree

you desperately deflecting is also funny, ngl

maybe reframe what you try to say if people get it wrong ...

Flanker

Noaani wrote: »

Flanker wrote: »

Do I need to point out that exceptions do not disprove the rule?

Before you do, you need to point out where I said it was the rule.
I said I know some, and I do.

This is what I said, not you. Switching to wordplays has little to no contribution to a proper discussion. You understood the point that I made and we both know you understood it perfectly.
There are exceptions in rules, trends, patterns, whatever you prefer to call it. Yet they do not represent the whole sampling.

Here, found this for you.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position.

Flanker

LaZzIsFree wrote: »

you desperately deflecting is also funny, ngl

This is a discussion. It's fine if people sometimes have different opinions. My goal is not to make everyone agree with me, it's not my hill to die on and I'm not looking for an echo chamber. There is a chance I might be wrong (and I secretly hope it is the case). But I remain concerned at this point. And I remain confident with my opinion and don't mind it being challenged.

LaZzIsFree wrote: »

maybe reframe what you try to say if people get it wrong ...

I am responsible for what I say. I can't be responsible for 10 possible interpretations of my words or my words being twisted, whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally.

Dygz

Flanker wrote: »

That particular one might be difficult to test throughout Alpha and Beta phases. IIRC during Alpha 1 they even turned off PvP because people were acting like people - fighting everyone left and right.
I assume that we might see something similar during the upcoming Alpha 2, because it's Alpha with wipes and people don't really care about death penalties, losing gear because of going corrupt etc.

Corruption was not functional for A1.
It has to be functional before the Betas.

Flanker wrote: »

Point out what is that exactly that I don't understand.

You don't understand how XP is distributed among the various progression paths.
Nor do you understand the relationships of the various progression paths.
Nor do you understand the plans for introducing updates.
Nor do you understand the relationships between the rise and fall of Nodes and the availability or scarcity of new content.

Kilion

Flanker wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

Yeah, they are asking for feedback but for some reason you are here and clearly stated that you doubt that they are able to make their own game content matter, which strikes as such fundamentally distrustful that I won't just move on to the next point.

However it strikes you, you are free to have that impression. Subjective opinions and perception may vary, yet they are not objective facts. It has nothing to do with the actual point of this convesation.

It has NOTHING to with the conversation that you think that Intrepid is so bad at game designing that the leveling pace will make the majority of the content skipable? In a conversation about meaningful content?

Could you explain why the presumed inability to make meaningful content does not matter in a conversation where you worry about content being meaningful (by being not skippable)?

Flanker wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

And since we are focusing on that core doubt now: If that is an issue - why is following a guide to skip actual engagement with the game and getting good at is not an issue?

It is a natural cause of events that will inevitably happen one way or another. Metaphorically saying, it's like jumping down from the cliff and then blaming the gravity because you broke your leg. It makes no sense as gravity always works the same way. Same as a significant percentage of people who will look for tips and tricks on YouTube. It happened with any other popular MMO and if you think it's not gonna be the case with Ashes, well, think again.

Never doubted that, my point from the very beginning has been that there is just no reason to cater to people who - metaphorically - jump down cliffs. Therefore these people are entirely irrelevant when talking about whether leveling pace should be changed.

Flanker wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Flanker wrote: »

Intrepid made some decent progress when it comes to improving those systems, but they haven't eliminated all the issues.

Meaningless claim since you haven't tested Ashes systems enough to know.

Nono, he is aware of 99% of the information, remember?

I'd make a joke here but I don't think it would be appropriate. You should look up what tribalism and confirmation bias is

Did you find the box with the buzzwords? A joke would have been more fun.
But I get that this might not seem all that civil anymore, sorry about that.

Do you at least get - not necessarily share - where Dygz and I are coming from?
That we see very clear signs that leveling speed is not a dial that shows any necessity for adjustment and the points why we don't agree?

AirborneBerserker

Flanker wrote: »

So, why do we focus on a lower extreme point instead of "the average MMO player"?

So we know where the lower limit for people to play the game is. Knowing whose going to get the worst experience helps with evaluating if something is too much or too little.

Flanker wrote: »

You probably misunderstood it. I was talking about PvP servers with high rates like x50-x100 and higher. The point that I was trying to make is that even though PvP loop is potentially infinite, in reality it's not.

And no, Lineage 2 had a variety of different classes with unique skills. One of the patches that is considered to be decent was called High Five and it had 36 unique classes.

It's not about the classes. It's about how MMOs work. You get stuff by killing things which makes you more powerful. There's no reset like other games, which means the people at the top stay at the top. It's a major problem that OWPvP games have. An issue this game doesn't really do anything to curtail.

Flanker wrote: »

I would appreciate if you didn't talk so confidently about the things you have no idea about. Even though the came originally came in 2003-2004, it changed significantly throughout the years. Nostalgia is not the only reason why people play games.

That's not what I'm not talking about. What I'm saying I'm talking about the fact that when the game came out there were a very small amount of options and most of them all had the around the same options

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the lack of options in MMORPGs at the time. WoW hadn't come out yet and most games already had long times to level. L2 took this to the extreme which worked because they made leveling more fun.

Flanker wrote: »

It won't, so why worry about it taking longer?

Because everyone has a breaking point and the higher the number gets the more likely people will break. This doesn't mean they should never change the number just leave it as it is and test it first. Were already at the upper limit of what people can stand normally. Let's see how good the leveling is then go from there.

Flanker wrote: »

This part serves no purpose. I stated a fact and you write... this...

The fact that people don't listen to you isn't relevant all you can do is give people information it's up to them to use it. If you have told them, there is nothing else you can do, they can listen or not listen. That's their choice.

Dygz

@Flanker
I mean... you can look for tips and tricks for static games.
That won't be particulalry helpful in a dynamic game like Ashes.
Especially when different servers/Realms will have different content.
The stuff you have concerns about fit other MMORPGs that do not conform to the Ashes game design.

Flanker

Dygz wrote: »

Corruption was not functional for A1.
It has to be functional before the Betas.

Wasn't it though? If I recall correctly, PvP was turned off some time after A1 launch, but I might be wrong. However, something tells me that during the current Pre-Alpha 2 it happens on a larger scale compared to the game post-launch.

Dygz wrote: »

You don't understand how XP is distributed among the various progression paths.
Nor do you understand the relationships of the various progression paths.
Nor do you understand the plans for introducing updates.
Nor do you understand the relationships between the rise and fall of Nodes and the availability or scarcity of new content.

1. I am familiar with the way it is now and the fact grinding mobs is much more efficient than, say, gathering, for example.
2. Interesting assumption, but I doubt it
3. You say that based on what exactly?
4. Again, based on what exactly?

Caeryl

Doomposting self-plug over a level system that already takes longer than any MMO currently on the market

Calm down there

Edit: Yeah sure it's not a self-plug. Sure aren't trying to bloat the viewcount here.

Flanker wrote: »

I understand your point and that is the reason why I addressed it in the video.

LaZzIsFree

Flanker wrote: »

]I am responsible for what I say. I can't be responsible for 10 possible interpretations of my words or my words being twisted, whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally.

you cant have it both ways ... ...

you never addressed anything i said ... you just deflected ... you never even tried to clarify what i did get wrong ... so i have to assume ...

and my understanding of the "words you are responsible" for is ... that your whole discussion makes no sense since your premise is invalid .... the foundation you have set this discussion up makes no sense ... and you admitted it ... in my opinion that is a literal strawman ... bc you make a statement you know makes no sense just for the sake of getting attention to your channel .... at least thats what i see here lol

Noaani

Flanker wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Flanker wrote: »

Do I need to point out that exceptions do not disprove the rule?

Before you do, you need to point out where I said it was the rule.
I said I know some, and I do.

This is what I said, not you. Switching to wordplays has little to no contribution to a proper discussion.

What wordplay?

You said 6 hours a week would be the low end of what a casual MMO player spends in the game - I pointed out that I know top end raiders that spend about that much time in their game.

You then - presumably not believing me - asked me which games. I told you which games, and you then changed tack and said something about exception/rule. Since all I had said what that I knew top end raiders that had spent as long in their games as you consider the low end for a casual MMORPG player, I had no idea at all what you are talking about at that point - I still don't.

For the record, 6 hours a month is probably the low end for what a casual player spends in an MMORPG. 6 hours a week is probably closer to the point where someone no longer considers themselves casual - assuming that is a consistent 6 hours a week.

Flanker

Kilion wrote: »

It has NOTHING to with the conversation that you think that Intrepid is so bad at game designing that the leveling pace will make the majority of the content skipable? In a conversation about meaningful content?

Omg... when... have I said that Intrepid is bad at game designing?

Kilion wrote: »

Could you explain why the presumed inability to make meaningful content does not matter in a conversation where you worry about content being meaningful (by being not skippable)?

I explained it multiple times already, not doing that again.

Kilion wrote: »

Never doubted that, my point from the very beginning has been that there is just no reason to cater to people who - metaphorically - jump down cliffs. Therefore these people are entirely irrelevant when talking about whether leveling pace should be changed.

Following your logic, there is no point catering to the category of people who play MMOs for half an hour a day even though it's a minority. Somehow that is extremely relevant, yet a bigger segment of players is not. Brilliant logic.

Kilion wrote: »

Did you find the box with the buzzwords? A joke would have been more fun.
But I get that this might not seem all that civil anymore, sorry about that.

I'm pointing out the fallacies that make some of your comment irrelevant and explain why it is wrong.

Kilion wrote: »

Do you at least get - not necessarily share - where Dygz and I are coming from?
That we see very clear signs that leveling speed is not a dial that shows any necessity for adjustment and the points why we don't agree?

I understand your point and that is the reason why I addressed it in the video. I don't mind having my arguments challenged and it doesn't matter how many people would disagree with me. I only care about the validity and strength of the arguments provided by both sides. In the community of flat earthers, I'd be the only person who thinks that Earth is round and everyone would disagree. Yet, it's still round

Flanker

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

So we know where the lower limit for people to play the game is. Knowing whose going to get the worst experience helps with evaluating if something is too much or too little.

The amount of time players spend in game is not an indicator of the quality of their gaming experience.

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

That's not what I'm not talking about. What I'm saying I'm talking about the fact that when the game came out there were a very small amount of options and most of them all had the around the same options

I did not take a Lineage 2 of 2004 as an example. I talk about the things I saw throughout past 12+ years which is entirely different story, because there was plenty of other options at this time.

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Because everyone has a breaking point and the higher the number gets the more likely people will break.

In case if they actually make it longer, I imagine you'd be surprised to find out that despite that being logical, in reality it might show completely the opposite result. If there was a way to emulate those scenarios and compare the game's longevity in both scenarios, I'd bet on slower progression 10 times out of 10.

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

The fact that people don't listen to you isn't relevant all you can do is give people information it's up to them to use it. If you have told them, there is nothing else you can do, they can listen or not listen. That's their choice.

In majority of cases there is something you can do. And this is my attempt. There is no new to make mistakes that other games did. In the end of the day, we both want the same thing here which is a good game that has a potential to captivate us for years... right?

Flanker

Caeryl wrote: »

Edit: Yeah sure it's not a self-plug. Sure aren't trying to bloat the viewcount here.

LaZzIsFree wrote: »

bc you make a statement you know makes no sense just for the sake of getting attention to your channel .... at least thats what i see here lol

Ugh, my dear conspiracy theorists. Surely, spending a couple of hours on this thread while replying to all of you and properly editing the comments in exchange for 5 extra views is a great deal. If you really think that's the case, well, it makes even less sense than some of the arguments you make.

P.S. Now I need to take a break as there were gunshots and a loud boom outside my house and I'm curious what happened there. Peace, boys

Dygz

Flanker wrote: »

Wasn't it though? If I recall correctly, PvP was turned off some time after A1 launch, but I might be wrong. However, something tells me that during the current Pre-Alpha 2 it happens on a larger scale compared to the game post-launch.

PvP was turned off because Corruption was not functional.

Flanker wrote: »

1. I am familiar with the way it is now and the fact grinding mobs is much more efficient than, say, gathering, for example.
2. Interesting assumption, but I doubt it
3. You say that based on what exactly?
4. Again, based on what exactly?

Based on your inability to accurately describe the game design.

Caeryl

Flanker wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Edit: Yeah sure it's not a self-plug. Sure aren't trying to bloat the viewcount here.

LaZzIsFree wrote: »

bc you make a statement you know makes no sense just for the sake of getting attention to your channel .... at least thats what i see here lol

Ugh, my dear conspiracy theorists. Surely, spending a couple of hours on this thread while replying to all of you and properly editing the comments in exchange for 5 extra views is a great deal. If you really think that's the case, well, it makes even less sense than some of the arguments you make.

P.S. Now I need to take a break as there were gunshots and a loud boom outside my house and I'm curious what happened there. Peace, boys

Your OP starts on the extremely incorrect premise that a month and a half of daily 6hr game sessions isn't enough of a time requirement to hit max level.

That's stupid, flat out. Everything based on that false premise is likewise illogical and baseless.

Dygz

Flanker wrote: »

I understand your point and that is the reason why I addressed it in the video. I don't mind having my arguments challenged and it doesn't matter how many people would disagree with me. I only care about the validity and strength of the arguments provided by both sides. In the community of flat earthers, I'd be the only person who thinks that Earth is round and everyone would disagree. Yet, it's still round

You would be the one who thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth. Especially since you currently have no way to test your hypothesis. And instead are just going by what you believe to be an obvious explanation.
Based on your eyeball observation of the Moon and stars.
You would be Lamarck, rather than Darwin.

Child Item