I can see bacteria - I have a tool to do exactly that.
Exactly. The same way you can understand the points made here that are based on actual data and got confirmed by several people who are familiar with the topic, if you use a... specific... tool... for that purpose
Yes, if I can't see something, I consult those I trust that are able to provide me that information.
Yes, if I can't see something, I consult those I trust that are able to provide me that information.
As you've seen.
You attempted to appeal to the lack of information, which is okay, I get it, understandable. However, after receiving the statistics and the confirmation that it makes sense from several other people, you started moving the goalposts, which is another manipulation attempt.
For reference: Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from goal-based sports such as football and hockey, that means to change the rule or criterion ("goal") of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an advantage or disadvantage.
The course of events was the following (not precisely, but in general):
> I described the issue.
> You stated that it lacks explanation.
> I provided an explanation.
> You stated this is explanation is irrelevant and doesn't make sense.
> I provided the objective statistics over a representative period of time.
> You attempted to claim tha this statistics is irrelevant.
> I explained why it is relevant
> You said that data from private servers can't be trusted
> I provided data from official servers
> You intentionally ignored it twice
> KEKW
> Information got confirmed by other people
> You ignored it again because it doesn't fit your narrative
> I emphasized that you intentionally ignored it again
> You haven't acknowledged or admitted that despite it being public and obvious
> I called you out like a dozen of times already on using logical fallacies and manipulations in your comments
> You never acknowledged or admitted that, even though it's obvious. Damn, you haven't even said something like "Okay, I should have probably phrased it better"
> I call you out again
> You keep switching topics, moving the goalposts and say literally anything for the sole purpose of just arguing and/or increasing your post count on the forum, idk. Makes no sense either way.
As long as I'm here, you won't be able to do that without being called out until the moment you actually start conducting a discussion in a proper manner, like a grown-up adult.
So, it in fact is better to hold the game off until it is ready, and then release it. This is a concept I am fairly sure you already agree with.
I simply meant that the game will be getting updates and expansions either way, so imo it's fine to let the player progress stagger, cause each staggered group will be interacting with each other within their own group.
Why go to the somewhat extreme effort of coding servers capable of holding 10k concurrent players if you are then going to purposely segregate them?
Why go to the somewhat extreme effort of coding servers capable of holding 10k concurrent players if you are then going to purposely segregate them?
Objection: claim is based on the assumption that segregation is designed by the developers intentionally. This is not an intent, this happens naturally as all players progress with a different speed.
Yes, if I can't see something, I consult those I trust that are able to provide me that information.
As you've seen.
However, after receiving the statistics and the confirmation that it makes sense from several other people, you started moving the goalposts, which is another manipulation attempt.
This is untrue, because I never set goalposts in place.
You made a statement, I argued the first and most obvious issue I had with it. I never once claimed it was the only issue.
Once that issue was partially resolved, I reconsidered my position based on the information as it was then understood by me. This still left me with a number of other disagreements with it, of which I have so far only bought up one.
This is untrue, because I never set goalposts in place.
So let me ask you this then, is everything written in the quote below is false? A simple "yes or no" question to begin with. And if by some miracle you answer "that not everything there is false", would you kindly point out everything in the quote below that is true, in your opinion? It shouldn't be a problem to provide an answer to this, should it?
The course of events was the following (not precisely, but in general):
> I described the issue.
> You stated that it lacks explanation.
> I provided an explanation.
> You stated this is explanation is irrelevant and doesn't make sense.
> I provided the objective statistics over a representative period of time.
> You attempted to claim tha this statistics is irrelevant.
> I explained why it is relevant
> You said that data from private servers can't be trusted
> I provided data from official servers
> You intentionally ignored it twice
> KEKW
> Information got confirmed by other people
> You ignored it again because it doesn't fit your narrative
> I emphasized that you intentionally ignored it again
> You haven't acknowledged or admitted that despite it being public and obvious
> I called you out like a dozen of times already on using logical fallacies and manipulations in your comments
> You never acknowledged or admitted that, even though it's obvious. Damn, you haven't even said something like "Okay, I should have probably phrased it better"
> I call you out again
> You keep switching topics, moving the goalposts and say literally anything for the sole purpose of just arguing and/or increasing your post count on the forum, idk. Makes no sense either way.
This is untrue, because I never set goalposts in place.
So let me ask you this then, is everything written in the quote below is false? A simple "yes or no" question to begin with. And if by some miracle you answer "that not everything there is false", would you kindly point out everything in the quote below that is true, in your opinion? It shouldn't be a problem to provide an answer to this, should it?
The course of events was the following (not precisely, but in general):
> I described the issue.
> You stated that it lacks explanation.
> I provided an explanation.
> You stated this is explanation is irrelevant and doesn't make sense.
> I provided the objective statistics over a representative period of time.
> You attempted to claim tha this statistics is irrelevant.
> I explained why it is relevant
> You said that data from private servers can't be trusted
> I provided data from official servers
> You intentionally ignored it twice
> KEKW
> Information got confirmed by other people
> You ignored it again because it doesn't fit your narrative
> I emphasized that you intentionally ignored it again
> You haven't acknowledged or admitted that despite it being public and obvious
> I called you out like a dozen of times already on using logical fallacies and manipulations in your comments
> You never acknowledged or admitted that, even though it's obvious. Damn, you haven't even said something like "Okay, I should have probably phrased it better"
> I call you out again
> You keep switching topics, moving the goalposts and say literally anything for the sole purpose of just arguing and/or increasing your post count on the forum, idk. Makes no sense either way.
Why go to the somewhat extreme effort of coding servers capable of holding 10k concurrent players if you are then going to purposely segregate them?
I mean, 10k concurrents is for the entire server. And majority of that server will be filled with sub-lvl50 locations, purely due to how nodes work.
So the game is already segregating players. Especially if we consider nodes and our supposed affiliations with them, so some people (and most definitely some guilds) will only be farming within one node, in order to level it up as fast as possible and lock out anything around it.
And just to make it clear, I'm not saying to make leveling 1k hours or anything like that. I think the current plan for ~230h is more than fine, especially if Intrepid manage to stick to their promised content release pace.
Specify, which parts exactly are not true, in your opinion
> You intentionally ignored it twice
> You ignored it again because it doesn't fit your narrative
> You haven't acknowledged or admitted that despite it being public and obvious
> You keep switching topics, moving the goalposts and say literally anything for the sole purpose of just arguing and/or increasing your post count on the forum, idk. Makes no sense either way.
So the game is already segregating players. Especially if we consider nodes and our supposed affiliations with them, so some people (and most definitely some guilds) will only be farming within one node, in order to level it up as fast as possible and lock out anything around it.
This is segregation to increase meaningful interaction. We are separated in to nodes in order to fight each other, for example.
Level segregation doesn't do this. It only lowers meaningful player interaction.
While we don't know how Intrepid will do it, we do know that as we level nodes, they will have to generate more higher level content.
This is *probably* why we haven't had the last mode video that was due years ago.
Oh, there'll definitely be more high lvl content with time, but majority of nodes will still be sub-6 and this is how Steven described mob distribution https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_advancement We don’t have a strictly level 25 zone. Instead, that zone might have some level 10 creatures near the road, some level 20 creatures deep in the forest, and some level 30 creatures up the mountain. These ratios will change based on the Nodes that inform them, becoming generally more dangerous as the Node grows.
So even when higher lvl stuff appears - there'll still be lower lvl stuff, which means that there'll still be more lowbie content due to how many low lvl nodes there'll be. And only Metros will spawn top lvl content, so by default it'll be of the lowest amount.
And I mainly believe this because replacing lower-lvled mobs with high lvl ones would fuck over pretty much ever newcomer, cause they'd had to spend hours roaming the map trying to find mobs at their lvl (let alone finding quests and stuff that would help them level).
This is segregation to increase meaningful interaction. We are separated in to nodes in order to fight each other, for example.
Level segregation doesn't do this. It only lowers meaningful player interaction.
Another false statement with a straight face. Level segregation does not lowers meaningful player interaction in any way, shape or form. The only effect it has is that players will interact with other players whose level is around the same as theirs more often. And there absolutely nothing bad about it.
Level segregation doesn't do this. It only lowers meaningful player interaction.
Is lvl50 destroying a lvl30 meaningful interaction? Because unless you have the kind of leveling speed AA had - you'll have lvl30s and 50s existing at the same time across the server, but any competitive interaction would end in the most obvious way.
But having that AA-like leveling would go directly against Steven's promise of having an enjoyable and fun leveling process.
Also, even if you did have that leveling, the hardcore players would always be further in progress, which would just turn interactions to something very similar to the 30vs50 one above. Segregation by lvl lets casuals interact with each other w/o stumbling upon hardcores that will mop the floor with them.
Specify, which parts exactly are not true, in your opinion
> You intentionally ignored it twice
> You ignored it again because it doesn't fit your narrative
> You haven't acknowledged or admitted that despite it being public and obvious
> You keep switching topics, moving the goalposts and say literally anything for the sole purpose of just arguing and/or increasing your post count on the forum, idk. Makes no sense either way.
Great. So, based on your reply, it means that you wrote 0 comments that contained logical fallacies, manipulative tactics and various other misinterpretations, correct?
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Obviously, wikipedia's definition is signifcantly different then the Cambridge definition since Wikipedia goes into more detail.
Of course, it's still a very general and layman's explanation. It does not explain how game devs define RPGs nor include a list of features that game devs would use to differentiate an MMO Survival game from an MMO RPG.
Nightingale is more of an RPG than original NW, but the devs will tell you it's not an RPG and that they plan on adding more RPG elements. Very similar to NW.
What are the distinct features missing from Nightingale that make it a Survival game while original NW (release) was an RPG?
That's all irrelevant to the context of this discussion in any case because the point is that NW does not have Classes, so it's absurd to use that as an example of a game with a short time span for reaching max Class Level.
It's interesting how you keep trying to talk about NW in pre Beta phase when it is absolutely obvious that nobody has ever referred to the initial intentions behind NW.
I'm not talking about NW in pre-Beta. I'm talking about NW at launch.
Original NW does not have Classes.
They didn't have classes, yet there were various other ways of character progression. It's interesting that you pick a single criteria and totally ignore everything else. As a local definition expert, I hope you know the definitions of terms "cherry picking", "confirmation bias" and "lying by omission". If not, I'd recommend you to look it up.
Yep. NW has a variety of progression paths that are not Class progression.
Which makes it absurd to compare the short time it takes for non-Class progression paths to the time it takes to reach Class progression Level cap. That is comparing berries to oranges.
Sure. Both NW and MMORPGs have several progression paths.
But the key progression path for MMORPGs is growing oranges. NW doesn't grow oranges. NW grows strawberries and raspberries and black berries. But it's not an orange grove, it's a grocery story that's trying to become orange grove, but starting by growing berries. NW Aeturnum is an orange grove.
Apparently, literally anything that directly or indirectly disproves your point "makes no sense" for one reason or another. When there are literally people who confirm that certain points I make in this thread are factually true.
I have no clue what makes you think that you disproved my point that original NW does not have Classes.
So even when higher lvl stuff appears - there'll still be lower lvl stuff, which means that there'll still be more lowbie content due to how many low lvl nodes there'll be. And only Metros will spawn top lvl content, so by default it'll be of the lowest amount.
Yeah, I edited that post because the topic thst it opens up is kind of huge.
A simple version of it is that while it may be that a node has leve 10, 20 and 30 content, it isn't just that one node that is influencing the content. If the node itself is a part of a larger cluster, it will have to have higher level content.
However, since this isn't something we have any information on and all we can do is talk logic and opinion, I'm not overly interested in getting in to it any more than that.
Specify, which parts exactly are not true, in your opinion
> You intentionally ignored it twice
> You ignored it again because it doesn't fit your narrative
> You haven't acknowledged or admitted that despite it being public and obvious
> You keep switching topics, moving the goalposts and say literally anything for the sole purpose of just arguing and/or increasing your post count on the forum, idk. Makes no sense either way.
Great. So, based on your reply, it means that you wrote 0 comments that contained logical fallacies, manipulative tactics and various other misinterpretations, correct?
Correct.
However, you did accuse me of some, though they were all ones you didn't fully grasp the meaning of.
I mean, 10k concurrents is for the entire server. And majority of that server will be filled with sub-lvl50 locations, purely due to how nodes work.
So the game is already segregating players. Especially if we consider nodes and our supposed affiliations with them, so some people (and most definitely some guilds) will only be farming within one node, in order to level it up as fast as possible and lock out anything around it.
Hmmn. I don't understand what this means.
Static MMORGS have fixed Level 50 locations.
Ashes has dynamic locations that fluctuate back and forth between Stage 0 and Stage 6 as Nodes rise and fall. And the Levels of content also fluctuate accordingly as Nodes rise and fall.
Also, Metros don't segregate by Adventurer Level. Metros will have player Adventurers between Level 5 - 50.
And a few below Level 5.
Guilds will not be farming within one Node. They won't even be farming within one Metro.
Part of the Risk v Reward and Meaningful Conflict arise from seeking valuable resources only available in rival Cities and Metros.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Hmmn. I don't understand what this means.
Static MMORGS have fixed Level 50 locations.
Ashes has dynamic locations that fluctuate back and forth between Stage 0 and Stage 6 as Nodes rise and fall.
This only happens if nodes decay or get sieged. Neither of those things will happen between the release and the rise of first Metros. So mobs will only increase in lvl.
And the Levels of content also fluctuate accordingly as Nodes rise and fall.
Also, Metros don't segregate by Adventurer Level. Metros will have player Adventurers between Level 5 - 50.
And a few below Level 5.
Metros will segregate players by creating locations with top lvl mobs.
Guilds will not be farming within one Node. They won't even be farming within one Metro.
Part of the Risk v Reward and Meaningful Conflict arise from seeking valuable resources only available in rival Cities and Metros.
Some guilds will 100% sit in one node with the explicit goal of it locking out other nodes and becoming the highest lvl node in the region.
You're not a hardcore challenge player, so this motivation is not familiar for you.
Guilds will not be farming within one Node. They won't even be farming within one Metro.
Part of the Risk v Reward and Meaningful Conflict arise from seeking valuable resources only available in rival Cities and Metros.
Speaking of meaningful interactions for casual players: do you think their gameplay experience will be better if they spend time in, let's say, mid-level areas, mostly surrounded by players of their own level
or
Reaching the level cap and realizing that certain portions of content is locked and/or gatekept by hardcore players who have no further options to progress, in terms of locations?
And basically, both casual and hardcore players end up in the same environment that is fine for hardcore players. but not for casuals. It would be the same story I described here previous that happened with Wars and Invasions, when casual players reached the level cap, but still had to chance to participate in them.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This only happens if nodes decay or get sieged. Neither of those things will happen between the release and the rise of first Metros. So mobs will only increase in lvl.
What?
Node Sieges begin at Stage 3. Mob levels will fluctuate as Nodes rise and fall even before the first Metros.
Metros will segregate players by creating locations with top lvl mobs.
No. They won't.
Players below Level 50 are not going to abandon their Citizenship just because a City progressed to a Metro and some Level 50 mobs begin to appear. You can be a lowbie Citizen of a Metro and hunt mobs in other Zones.
And then come back to the Metro for Crafting and Trading, etc.
You're not a hardcore challenge player, so this motivation is not familiar for you.
Whether or not I'm a Hardcore Challenge player has nothing to do with the fact that it's built into the Risk v Reward design for players to farm in rival Nodes in order to obtain Resources that are not in their own Nodes. And also to muck up the Land Management of rival Nodes.
Although, I think you may be talking about what would motivate Guilds to focus on building up their own - that's a truism that does not negate my point.
3
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Speaking of meaningful interactions for casual players: do you think their gameplay experience will be better if they spend time in, let's say, mid-level areas, mostly surrounded by players of their own level
I don't know how you are defining "Casual player".
Casual-Time player? Casual- Challenge player? Or both?
I also don't know what you consider to be a "meaningful interaction".
I also don't know what kinds of experiences you think are "better".
I don't really think the Levels of who they're surrounded by matters much to the Casual-Challenge player. Especially when they are participating in Node Sieges and Caravan Offense/Defense. But I'm not expecting many Casual-Challenge players to play Ashes.
I don't know that Casual-Time players have the time to worry about the Levels of the other players around them when they're out Adventuring. Again, depends on whether they are Questing or participating in Caravan Offense/Defense or Node Sieges, etc. If it's Questing, they probably try to grab one of each Primary Archetype for an 8-person Group. And try to be sure that everyone is close enough in Level to get decent XP.
If they're participating in Caravan Offense/Defense or Node Sieges, or Crafting or Trading, they probably don't care much about Level differences.
Steven wants everyone to always be contemplating the Risk v Reward of Level discrepancy for Harvesting/Gathering.
Elitist gamers probably always care about the Levels of the other players near them.
Reaching the level cap and realizing that certain portions of content is locked and/or gatekept by hardcore players who have no further options to progress, in terms of locations?
I have no idea what you are trying to describe.
I'm not aware that certain portions of content can be locked or gatekept by Hardcore players - and, again, I don't know if you are referring to Hardcore-Time players or Hardcore-Challenge players or both.
The vast majority of MMORPG players are some form of Casual. I do expect that relatively few Casual-Challenge players will be playing Ashes.
As I've previously informed you, players have many other separate progression paths to pursue beyond reaching max Adventurer Level: Artisan, Social Org, Religion, Racial, Node, Guild, etc so, by design, there will still be many, many hours of progression left after reaching max Adventurer Level.
Reaching max Adventurer Level does not deplete options to progress.
I also don't know what you mean by locations - because locations are dynamic, rather than static. And the content in those locations are dynamic, rather than static.
basically, both casual and hardcore players end up in the same environment that is fine for hardcore players. but not for casuals. It would be the same story I described here previous that happened with Wars and Invasions, when casual players reached the level cap, but still had to chance to participate in them.[/b]
Again, I don't know what you mean.
Ashes is designed for Hardcore-Challenge gamers. I don't expect many Casual-Challenge players to be playing Ashes of Creation.
I don't know what kind of environment you think Casual-Time players will be in in Ashes of Creation where they won't be able to participate.
They will be able to participate in Node Sieges and Node Wars and Guild Wars and Guild Sieges and Castle Sieges and Caravan Offense/Defense before and after reaching max Adventurer Level.
And also Story Arcs and World Events and Monster Coin Events. They might have some difficulty competing with veteran max Adventurer Level Groups in Dungeons/Raids for a while.
But, Ashes has way more stuff to do after reaching max Adventurer Level than just Dungeons/Raids.
Level segregation doesn't do this. It only lowers meaningful player interaction.
Is lvl50 destroying a lvl30 meaningful interaction? Because unless you have the kind of leveling speed AA had - you'll have lvl30s and 50s existing at the same time across the server, but any competitive interaction would end in the most obvious way.
I do not believe that this gap in level can result in a meaningful interaction, no.
The trick here isn't to outright prevent those interactions from happening, the trick - much like the claim with showing health information - is to limit it.
Unlike with health information, I don't see a point to a leveling process other than as a means to learn your class, the game world and the game in general. It is nothing more than an unnecessary obsticle past that point. I see no benefit at all in needlessly prolonging that process.
This is unlikely to be something that anyone here will dissuade me of, as it is an opinion I have held for well over 20 years - despite trying very hard to find an actual point to leveling past what I mentioned above.
If no one but you is interested in the discussion within the thread any more, the thread dies.
This is not the first thread about this particular topic. I guess it remained active long enough, so there is a chance that mods/devs are at least informed about it
Comments
Yes, if I can't see something, I consult those I trust that are able to provide me that information.
As you've seen.
For reference: Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from goal-based sports such as football and hockey, that means to change the rule or criterion ("goal") of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an advantage or disadvantage.
So here is the whole chain of events: > Information got confirmed by other people
> You ignored it again because it doesn't fit your narrative
> I emphasized that you intentionally ignored it again
> You haven't acknowledged or admitted that despite it being public and obvious
> I called you out like a dozen of times already on using logical fallacies and manipulations in your comments
> You never acknowledged or admitted that, even though it's obvious. Damn, you haven't even said something like "Okay, I should have probably phrased it better"
> I call you out again
> You keep switching topics, moving the goalposts and say literally anything for the sole purpose of just arguing and/or increasing your post count on the forum, idk. Makes no sense either way.
As long as I'm here, you won't be able to do that without being called out until the moment you actually start conducting a discussion in a proper manner, like a grown-up adult.
This is untrue, because I never set goalposts in place.
You made a statement, I argued the first and most obvious issue I had with it. I never once claimed it was the only issue.
Once that issue was partially resolved, I reconsidered my position based on the information as it was then understood by me. This still left me with a number of other disagreements with it, of which I have so far only bought up one.
Yeah, some of it isn't true.
So the game is already segregating players. Especially if we consider nodes and our supposed affiliations with them, so some people (and most definitely some guilds) will only be farming within one node, in order to level it up as fast as possible and lock out anything around it.
And just to make it clear, I'm not saying to make leveling 1k hours or anything like that. I think the current plan for ~230h is more than fine, especially if Intrepid manage to stick to their promised content release pace.
Level segregation doesn't do this. It only lowers meaningful player interaction.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_advancement
We don’t have a strictly level 25 zone. Instead, that zone might have some level 10 creatures near the road, some level 20 creatures deep in the forest, and some level 30 creatures up the mountain. These ratios will change based on the Nodes that inform them, becoming generally more dangerous as the Node grows.
So even when higher lvl stuff appears - there'll still be lower lvl stuff, which means that there'll still be more lowbie content due to how many low lvl nodes there'll be. And only Metros will spawn top lvl content, so by default it'll be of the lowest amount.
And I mainly believe this because replacing lower-lvled mobs with high lvl ones would fuck over pretty much ever newcomer, cause they'd had to spend hours roaming the map trying to find mobs at their lvl (let alone finding quests and stuff that would help them level).
But having that AA-like leveling would go directly against Steven's promise of having an enjoyable and fun leveling process.
Also, even if you did have that leveling, the hardcore players would always be further in progress, which would just turn interactions to something very similar to the 30vs50 one above. Segregation by lvl lets casuals interact with each other w/o stumbling upon hardcores that will mop the floor with them.
Of course, it's still a very general and layman's explanation. It does not explain how game devs define RPGs nor include a list of features that game devs would use to differentiate an MMO Survival game from an MMO RPG.
Nightingale is more of an RPG than original NW, but the devs will tell you it's not an RPG and that they plan on adding more RPG elements. Very similar to NW.
What are the distinct features missing from Nightingale that make it a Survival game while original NW (release) was an RPG?
That's all irrelevant to the context of this discussion in any case because the point is that NW does not have Classes, so it's absurd to use that as an example of a game with a short time span for reaching max Class Level.
I'm not talking about NW in pre-Beta. I'm talking about NW at launch.
Original NW does not have Classes.
Yep. NW has a variety of progression paths that are not Class progression.
Which makes it absurd to compare the short time it takes for non-Class progression paths to the time it takes to reach Class progression Level cap. That is comparing berries to oranges.
Sure. Both NW and MMORPGs have several progression paths.
But the key progression path for MMORPGs is growing oranges. NW doesn't grow oranges. NW grows strawberries and raspberries and black berries. But it's not an orange grove, it's a grocery story that's trying to become orange grove, but starting by growing berries. NW Aeturnum is an orange grove.
I have no clue what makes you think that you disproved my point that original NW does not have Classes.
A simple version of it is that while it may be that a node has leve 10, 20 and 30 content, it isn't just that one node that is influencing the content. If the node itself is a part of a larger cluster, it will have to have higher level content.
However, since this isn't something we have any information on and all we can do is talk logic and opinion, I'm not overly interested in getting in to it any more than that.
Correct.
However, you did accuse me of some, though they were all ones you didn't fully grasp the meaning of.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is all you need to know about @Noaani
Static MMORGS have fixed Level 50 locations.
Ashes has dynamic locations that fluctuate back and forth between Stage 0 and Stage 6 as Nodes rise and fall. And the Levels of content also fluctuate accordingly as Nodes rise and fall.
Also, Metros don't segregate by Adventurer Level. Metros will have player Adventurers between Level 5 - 50.
And a few below Level 5.
Guilds will not be farming within one Node. They won't even be farming within one Metro.
Part of the Risk v Reward and Meaningful Conflict arise from seeking valuable resources only available in rival Cities and Metros.
Metros will segregate players by creating locations with top lvl mobs.
I went into what I expect from node growth here
Some guilds will 100% sit in one node with the explicit goal of it locking out other nodes and becoming the highest lvl node in the region.
You're not a hardcore challenge player, so this motivation is not familiar for you.
or
Reaching the level cap and realizing that certain portions of content is locked and/or gatekept by hardcore players who have no further options to progress, in terms of locations?
And basically, both casual and hardcore players end up in the same environment that is fine for hardcore players. but not for casuals. It would be the same story I described here previous that happened with Wars and Invasions, when casual players reached the level cap, but still had to chance to participate in them.
Node Sieges begin at Stage 3. Mob levels will fluctuate as Nodes rise and fall even before the first Metros.
No. They won't.
Players below Level 50 are not going to abandon their Citizenship just because a City progressed to a Metro and some Level 50 mobs begin to appear. You can be a lowbie Citizen of a Metro and hunt mobs in other Zones.
And then come back to the Metro for Crafting and Trading, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by 100%.
Sure we can expect many Guilds to try that. Doesn't mean they can create a Metro that has 100% Level 50 citizens.
Whether or not I'm a Hardcore Challenge player has nothing to do with the fact that it's built into the Risk v Reward design for players to farm in rival Nodes in order to obtain Resources that are not in their own Nodes. And also to muck up the Land Management of rival Nodes.
Although, I think you may be talking about what would motivate Guilds to focus on building up their own - that's a truism that does not negate my point.
Casual-Time player? Casual- Challenge player? Or both?
I also don't know what you consider to be a "meaningful interaction".
I also don't know what kinds of experiences you think are "better".
I don't really think the Levels of who they're surrounded by matters much to the Casual-Challenge player. Especially when they are participating in Node Sieges and Caravan Offense/Defense. But I'm not expecting many Casual-Challenge players to play Ashes.
I don't know that Casual-Time players have the time to worry about the Levels of the other players around them when they're out Adventuring. Again, depends on whether they are Questing or participating in Caravan Offense/Defense or Node Sieges, etc. If it's Questing, they probably try to grab one of each Primary Archetype for an 8-person Group. And try to be sure that everyone is close enough in Level to get decent XP.
If they're participating in Caravan Offense/Defense or Node Sieges, or Crafting or Trading, they probably don't care much about Level differences.
Steven wants everyone to always be contemplating the Risk v Reward of Level discrepancy for Harvesting/Gathering.
Elitist gamers probably always care about the Levels of the other players near them.
I have no idea what you are trying to describe.
I'm not aware that certain portions of content can be locked or gatekept by Hardcore players - and, again, I don't know if you are referring to Hardcore-Time players or Hardcore-Challenge players or both.
The vast majority of MMORPG players are some form of Casual. I do expect that relatively few Casual-Challenge players will be playing Ashes.
As I've previously informed you, players have many other separate progression paths to pursue beyond reaching max Adventurer Level: Artisan, Social Org, Religion, Racial, Node, Guild, etc so, by design, there will still be many, many hours of progression left after reaching max Adventurer Level.
Reaching max Adventurer Level does not deplete options to progress.
I also don't know what you mean by locations - because locations are dynamic, rather than static. And the content in those locations are dynamic, rather than static.
Again, I don't know what you mean.
Ashes is designed for Hardcore-Challenge gamers. I don't expect many Casual-Challenge players to be playing Ashes of Creation.
I don't know what kind of environment you think Casual-Time players will be in in Ashes of Creation where they won't be able to participate.
They will be able to participate in Node Sieges and Node Wars and Guild Wars and Guild Sieges and Castle Sieges and Caravan Offense/Defense before and after reaching max Adventurer Level.
And also Story Arcs and World Events and Monster Coin Events. They might have some difficulty competing with veteran max Adventurer Level Groups in Dungeons/Raids for a while.
But, Ashes has way more stuff to do after reaching max Adventurer Level than just Dungeons/Raids.
Interested to see valid points for or against it from other people
The trick here isn't to outright prevent those interactions from happening, the trick - much like the claim with showing health information - is to limit it.
Unlike with health information, I don't see a point to a leveling process other than as a means to learn your class, the game world and the game in general. It is nothing more than an unnecessary obsticle past that point. I see no benefit at all in needlessly prolonging that process.
This is unlikely to be something that anyone here will dissuade me of, as it is an opinion I have held for well over 20 years - despite trying very hard to find an actual point to leveling past what I mentioned above.
Bumping threads is against the third rule of these forums.
If no one but you is interested in the discussion within the thread any more, the thread dies.