Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here

If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.

AoC isn’t Punishing its Frustrating

2

Comments

  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    It’s not fun or meaningful. No one, in real life or videos games, enjoys the feeling of going back words or getting worse at something. Is a negative feeling that serves no purpose but to make a game hardcore in a way that isn’t fun, but instead annoying.

    Also, just look at history. Wow took over the world and a large part of that is credited to it having gotten rid of outdated mechanics like XP Debt or loot dropping.

    Demon souls, Fromsoftwares dark souls before dark souls, had XP debt which was taken out in every subsequent game but it was deemed not fun difficulty.

    If a game company known for its hardcore games decides to remove a mechanic because it’s shitty and not fun, you know might want a o take notes as to why.
    I mean - your character died. Ashes does nothave permadeath but you are complaining about XP debt?
    Death is supposed to be negative. The player should have a negative feeling when their character dies.
    In Ashes I have not died often enough to feel like I'm going backwards. Rather - it just adds 10-15 minutes to my Leveling time. If your character dies a bunch of times, you probably should feel like the character has "gotten worse" for a while. The character DIED.
  • Its_MeIts_Me Member, Alpha Two
    edited January 11
    RonDog98 wrote: »

    I’m not saying any one of these is bad in a vacuum, I’m saying that all three together suck and will discourage a large number of players.
    Also, there’s a difference between “participation trophy players” and players who don’t want their time to wasted.

    XP debt is an outdated mechanic and there’s a reason that almost no games utilize it. It is not a rewarding type of difficulty and it psychologically not fun.

    Also, nothing about removing XP debt goes against any of the core pillars of this game.

    Hell, I think making all your materials recoverable on death also doesn’t go against it.

    Waste is a subjective term but in the purest sense, anyone this concerned about wasted time should consider avoiding games all together and stick to real life.

    I found humor in your statement that xp debt is wrong because 'it is not fun or meaningful' and that dropping loot is okay but you want it all recoverable. The fact that you feel a risk/penalty should be fun and you think that there should be no risk to dropping loot, just demonstrates your confusion on what a penalty is.

    XP debt is not an outdated mechanic but by your suggestion that almost every consequence is bad (xp debt, dropping materials not against core ect.), I see why I might have hit a nerve bringing up participation trophy types of players. 😉
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure we can recover everything if we make it back in time
    Iirc half of what we dropped gets completely destroyed rn. So we always lose at least something on death. Well, unless you had no gatherables at all on you.
  • RonDog98RonDog98 Member, Alpha Two
    Pyrolol wrote: »
    You could jsut exploit the no exp debt punishment, if this wasn't in the game instead of running everywhere I would just die and then can respawn at the embersping ive set for home. There's a reason for these punishments, it's to stop expolits and also make it more challenging gameplay too

    Sorry Mate, people are already doing this XPdebt is annoying but again players value time more than anything.

    XPdebt serves no purpose but to be annoying.
  • RonDog98RonDog98 Member, Alpha Two
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    Let’s start with this:

    Ash’s is a game with XP debt
    At least 25% material loss on death
    And some of the most insane travel time in any game.

    First one is objectively bad game design

    Second one, in my opinion, should be tweaked so that you either don’t lose materials on PVE death or make it so you can recover 100% of dropped materials.

    Question: Why is xp debt "objectively bad game design"?

    It’s not fun or meaningful. No one, in real life or videos games, enjoys the feeling of going back words or getting worse at something. Is a negative feeling that serves no purpose but to make a game hardcore in a way that isn’t fun, but instead annoying.

    Also, just look at history. Wow took over the world and a large part of that is credited to it having gotten rid of outdated mechanics like XP Debt or loot dropping.

    Demon souls, Fromsoftwares dark souls before dark souls, had XP debt which was taken out in every subsequent game but it was deemed not fun difficulty.

    If a game company known for its hardcore games decides to remove a mechanic because it’s shitty and not fun, you know might want a o take notes as to why.

    Context is important here. You talk about Fromsoft games here but they work very differently to Ashes. When you die in a Fromsoft game all the enemies respawn and some of the runs from the closest bonfire to the boss you died on are brutal, usually comprising of tight corridors with lots of mobs that you have to fight through or dodge past, and every time you get hit on one of those runbacks you lose health and/or healing that you might need for the boss fight. That is the true punishment for dying in those games, so there was no need to add exp debt on top of it, which is probably why they took it out.

    Ashes doesn't work like that. Not only do the mobs not all instantly respawn when you die, but it's far easier to avoid groups of mobs in Ashes than it is in a Fromsoft game, plus you don't really need to save resources for some kind of boss fight at the end of the runback. Completely different scenario.

    But let's run with your idea anyway. Let's say we remove the exp debt and allow players to recover 100% of their dropped loot. What then is the consequence for dying? Is there even a consequence at all?

    Following from that, if there is no consequence to dying, what purpose does death even have in the game? If death is meaningless, losing health is also meaningless, at which point we might as well get rid of the player health bar entirely. This is where I'm at when it comes to modern WoW. Outside of mythic dungeons or raids there is no consequence for dying at all. Oh sure you lose a tiny bit of time on the runback but that's it, and in fact sometimes you can abuse that by intentionally dying knowing the game will respawn you closer to your desired destination. The same applies to FFVIX, GW2, ESO, the list goes on. None of them have any true consequence for dying and because of that the world feels inconsequential and meaningless to traverse (in my opinion).

    I would argue that one of Ashes biggest strengths is that the world feels dangerous. You can die very easily if you aren't careful, and death does have meaningful consequences.

    EDIT: I'd like to add to this that punishment in a video game isn't a bad thing. A punishment like exp debt is the game telling you "you f***ked up, learn from your mistake" which is good, and reflects real life. The time when punishment is bad is when the game punishes you for doing things that it has previously taught you.

    Here's an example. In Paper Mario Sticker Star there is a level that, in order to progress, you have to stand still in the sinking sand, which then drops you down to the exit. In the very next level, without any hint or warning, doing the exact same thing gives you an instant game over. THAT is bad game design, because the game expected you to do a certain action, then immediately punishes you for doing that same action later on.

    Couple of notes, Fromsoftware has actually moved further away from long run backs with every new game. Why? Because it’s not fun difficulty. Elden ring for example barely has run backs at all after boss wipes. You now have a company renowned for hard difficultly they both took out run times and XPdebt.

    That being said, it’s one I’m fine with in Ash’s.
    Also. Travel time so long often time mobs ro respawn when you die. Also, have you played a souls game? It’s incredibly easy to run past almost all the Mobs because of how tight their hot bosses are. It’s way more dangerous to try and run past mobs in ashes and it isn’t event close.

    I would like to restate my main point which is: travel time, XP debt, and partly not recoverable loot is too much all together.

    I would get rid of XP debt and make it so 30% of loot drops on death not 50 and as long as you make it to your corpse first, you get all of it back.
  • RonDog98RonDog98 Member, Alpha Two
    edited January 11
    lukedawuke wrote: »
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    lukedawuke wrote: »
    wasting a players time? youre a tester bro lol

    What a useless comment. As a tester I’m giving feedback on a core part of the game I disagree with.

    That’s the literal purpose of these forums.

    youre just mad the game isnt noobified for people like you and want devs to change that.. hence why you called yourself player and not tester in the op, youre clueless

    I wish you the best and hope you find the joy in life you are so clearly lacking. God speed, brother.
  • RonDog98RonDog98 Member, Alpha Two


    Dygz wrote: »
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    Again, I like the run time I think it’s necessary and fine.
    I’m even saying dropping some materials is okay, but I think they should all be recoverable if you make it back in time.
    XP debt is bad design and should be gone, especially given everything else in AoC meant to punish you.
    I'm pretty sure we can recover everything if we make it back in time - if someone else hasn't looted the Ashes.
    Steven's threshold is that XP debt is OK, but losing Levels is not.

    We do not recover all materials lost, only 25%
  • RonDog98RonDog98 Member, Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    [quote=

    Its_Me wrote: »
    RonDog98 wrote: »

    I’m not saying any one of these is bad in a vacuum, I’m saying that all three together suck and will discourage a large number of players.
    Also, there’s a difference between “participation trophy players” and players who don’t want their time to wasted.

    XP debt is an outdated mechanic and there’s a reason that almost no games utilize it. It is not a rewarding type of difficulty and it psychologically not fun.

    Also, nothing about removing XP debt goes against any of the core pillars of this game.

    Hell, I think making all your materials recoverable on death also doesn’t go against it.

    Waste is a subjective term but in the purest sense, anyone this concerned about wasted time should consider avoiding games all together and stick to real life.

    I found humor in your statement that xp debt is wrong because 'it is not fun or meaningful' and that dropping loot is okay but you want it all recoverable. The fact that you feel a risk/penalty should be fun and you think that there should be no risk to dropping loot, just demonstrates your confusion on what a penalty is.

    XP debt is not an outdated mechanic but by your suggestion that almost every consequence is bad (xp debt, dropping materials not against core ect.), I see why I might have hit a nerve bringing up participation trophy types of players. 😉
    Its_Me wrote: »
    RonDog98 wrote: »

    I’m not saying any one of these is bad in a vacuum, I’m saying that all three together suck and will discourage a large number of players.
    Also, there’s a difference between “participation trophy players” and players who don’t want their time to wasted.

    XP debt is an outdated mechanic and there’s a reason that almost no games utilize it. It is not a rewarding type of difficulty and it psychologically not fun.

    Also, nothing about removing XP debt goes against any of the core pillars of this game.

    Hell, I think making all your materials recoverable on death also doesn’t go against it.

    Waste is a subjective term but in the purest sense, anyone this concerned about wasted time should consider avoiding games all together and stick to real life.

    I found humor in your statement that xp debt is wrong because 'it is not fun or meaningful' and that dropping loot is okay but you want it all recoverable. The fact that you feel a risk/penalty should be fun and you think that there should be no risk to dropping loot, just demonstrates your confusion on what a penalty is.

    XP debt is not an outdated mechanic but by your suggestion that almost every consequence is bad (xp debt, dropping materials not against core ect.), I see why I might have hit a nerve bringing up participation trophy types of players. 😉

    Wasted time is time that doesn’t feel meaningful, useful, or respected.

    I do like the pseudo intellectual take that everything is subjective. Objectivity, or the closest we can get to it, comes from data.

    Data points to XPdebt being phased out because it’s not fun and no one wants to deal with it. Your punishment for death is dying, the time wasted, and the run back to where you were.

    Dropping loot has risk because a player can pick it up. You are rewarding for not giving up and getting back to your corpse by retrieving all your loot.

    If you can’t make it back, or someone else grabs it, you’ve been punished with permanent loss.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited January 11
    Ludullu wrote: »
    Iirc half of what we dropped gets completely destroyed rn. So we always lose at least something on death. Well, unless you had no gatherables at all on you.
    Oh. Yeah... I think I just did the one starting gather wood quest, so... I haven't had any "materials" on me to notice that in Alpha 2. I was thinking of just general loot, I guess.
    (I haven't checked to see if we lose anything actually - I barely even look at my Inventory.)
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    My main issues with XP debit is all of you would still play and love the game if it were gone, but there are an unknown number of potential players who won’t play the game because of it.

    This game needs to attract a healthy full player base, and XP offers nothing positive and only negative.

    It is an objective negative for this game to implement it.

    Sure, but I also play Throne and Liberty as my main game now, and therefore I'm not as hardcore as the people who want to play Ashes.

    But that's kind of the point. It's not necessarily a negative, because people who really don't want exp Debt have an objectively better (using your logic) game to play already, considering their main playstyle profiles.

    Why should AoC strive to compete with a game for an audience that is better suited for that game already? It makes no sense as even a business plan.

    Removing XP debt does not drastically change the formula of the game.

    Also, just because a game doesn’t have an XP debt doesn’t make it an all around objectively better or more complete game.

    Classic wow is very popular, if classic wow added XP debt nothing about the game formula would change, it would just introduce something 90% of players don’t want and there for it’s a negative.

    I'll try to clarify what I meant a bit more because I agree with you, Throne and Liberty originally had exp debt, then they removed it in favor of something more sensible for their version of a strong PvX game, and I don't think anything was negatively affected at all.

    What I'm saying is that Intrepid believes they have a design where Exp Debt is important to shape player behaviour in the way they want. We aren't seeing that design in full, but it's a good 'signal'. If you 'show players' that you want to create a game where that sort of feeling is important, and the players can decide in advance "I don't like those feelings" then great, they will go play Throne and Liberty.

    But a game like EVE has a powerful 'cost' to dying that is necessary for the feelings of its sandbox nature. Ashes is also a similar type of game, if you don't like that type of game, then what exactly do you want that isn't provided by another game?

    Removing exp debt can drastically change the formula of a game, we just haven't had any games recently that were built with the base design that can actually be affected. EXP Debt is a deterrent from certain approaches to problems. The 'problems' in AoC are an entirely different type than most other games.
    "I blame society."
    "For what...?"
    "Just about everything, really."
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    Removing exp debt can drastically change the formula of a game, we just haven't had any games recently that were built with the base design that can actually be affected. EXP Debt is a deterrent from certain approaches to problems. The 'problems' in AoC are an entirely different type than most other games.
    I believe it's just yet another tool to push people towards pvping. War-based pvp in particular. In L2 people lost a ton of xp even despite lowered penalties in wars, so Steven took it even further and made it only gear decay (allegedly, supposedly).

    Mob strength pushes people towards grouping up, and we've yet to see mobs difficult enough to make groups wipe on them over and over again, so until then pve death penalties are not really all that much of a factor.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Ludullu wrote: »
    High risk pushes people towards better mitigation of it.

    You say that like it is a good thing.

    Mitigation if risk means lowering risk. It means keeping things as easy as you can. It means not taking on content that poses a risk, because the penalties are too high. Putting thisnin players hands means people are going to - generally speaking - stick to easier content, that is inherently more boring.

    This isn't good game design. It literally makes for a game where no one is challenging themselves.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    This isn't good game design. It literally makes for a game where no one is challenging themselves.
    The weak don't - yes. The strong persevere. L2 had deleveling and people would lose weeks, if not months of progress after a massive pvp fight for a boss or a certain goal. People still played and fought each other.

    And yes, I know your usual repsonse of "people will just go play other games these days".
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Ludullu wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    This isn't good game design. It literally makes for a game where no one is challenging themselves.
    The weak don't - yes. The strong persevere. L2 had deleveling and people would lose weeks, if not months of progress after a massive pvp fight for a boss or a certain goal. People still played and fought each other.

    And yes, I know your usual repsonse of "people will just go play other games these days".

    That's probably because L2 was fun within its niche at the time.
    Ashes suffers from the identity crisis of (originally) marketing itself as a game for many types of player to enjoy.

    We all know how this part happened, but in the end, that whole 'the strong persevere' thing only happenswhen there is not any other accessible game offering similar experiences while still also giving the 'weak' a place.

    I guess you can lmk if you just don't put any stock in the observations of behaviours of competitive players from other genres, but if you do, we now have literal decades of data about it. MMORPGs were the genre 'most lacking' that data because they 'played it safe' for a decade.

    Of course there will always be people who push, there are still hundreds of people playing Mortal Online 2 right now.

    But Ashes completely lacks the incentive structures required to be terribly different from MO2 at this time, so you will obviously get a lot of people saying 'we should have a less challenging game since you are't actually incentivizing the challenges'.

    By this, I mean simply that the strong can easily absorb the strain and challenge associated with exp debt, while the weak suffer disproportionately for trying to get stronger without receiving handouts/pity from them. And that isn't something people like as much. No matter what you remember from the good days, remember that this is not L2, the suffering involved in being weaker is definitively greater.
    "I blame society."
    "For what...?"
    "Just about everything, really."
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    I guess you can lmk if you just don't put any stock in the observations of behaviours of competitive players from other genres, but if you do, we now have literal decades of data about it. MMORPGs were the genre 'most lacking' that data because they 'played it safe' for a decade.
    I'm not fully sure if the competitive players from other genres behave the same way the mmo ones do. Both on the good side of behavior and the bad.

    Mainly exactly for the reason that all the players who might've been competitive in the mmos in the past (or others with similar mentality) have left for other games, which then created their own behavioral patterns and cultures.
    Azherae wrote: »
    No matter what you remember from the good days, remember that this is not L2, the suffering involved in being weaker is definitively greater.
    And this is why I've always tried suggesting middlegrounds for systems. The "BHs should be returning the victim's loot to them", "event-based pvp should remain as promised, with minimal penalties, while also highly accounting for the possibility that the strong ones will always try to bully the weak ones", "proper hardcore pve should be instanced and with limited-to-no penalties on death" - are a few of those suggestions.

    In other words, I'm a professional fence-sitter, trying to have and eat all my cake on my fence.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited January 12
    Ludullu wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    This isn't good game design. It literally makes for a game where no one is challenging themselves.
    The weak don't - yes. The strong persevere.

    It isn't often you are objectively wrong, so I'm assuming this is a misunderstanding.

    People (not gamers, every one) will naturally limit the amount of risk they put themselves under. Some people will allow more risk than others, but everyone has their limit.

    This is the basis of gameshows like Deal or No Deal. This is the basis for poker. This is the basis for blackjack. Needless to say, this is known and understood.

    If you put someone in a situation where they can risk $5 for a 10% chance of winning $100, most people would take those odds. If you increase the amount of money people have to risk from that initial $5 up to $10, many people will opt out. Increase it up to $15, and almost everyone will opt out.

    This translates to MMO's just fine too. EVE's mantra of "don't fly what you can't afford to lose" is literally the same concept - people self regulating risk by simply not putting themselves in a situation where they are likely to lose more than they want to lose.

    In a game like Ashes, that shows up as people taking more people than the content itself dictates, or taking on easier content even if the reward isn't as good.

    Now, you may want to say something along the lines of " but some people will still take risks", which is why I think you are misunderstanding. Yes, people will still take some risks, because everyone has their own level of risk acceptance.

    However, even the people that would qualify as "the strong" in your post above are subject to this. They may be taking risks that others aren't, but there is still a point where they would stop and rethink. They would have to, because they stand to lose too much if they don't constantly consider the risk.

    These people aren't going to walk up solo to a raid boss thst is 30 levels above them and just have a go. There is a line somewhere between that extreme and putting themselves at zero risk for everyone, even these people. However, the greater the penalty, the lower that line will be - self preservation has to be a consideration for everyone

    This is something that EQ2 is a great example of. The game launched with a reasonably death penalty. Not too harsh, but enough for people to be risk averse. People would only run groups with close to an optimal mix of classes, and with gear that was basically on par with what the content offered. Raids at the time were quite simple by design, as they needed to be.

    The developers removed the bulk of that death penalty half way through the initial content cycle (ie, before the first expansion). Their argument at the time was basically "if a gamer doesn't feel a sense of failure for dying, a death penalty isn't going to make the feel that sense of failure".

    All of a sudden, people were not just running that same content with sub-optimal groups, they were attempting it with less than full groups. Sometimes it worked, but sometimes it didn't - in a spectacular fashion.

    The content was exactly the same, the player characters were exactly the same, but due to less of a penalty, players were able to take risks trying things out, not stressing if it didn't work.

    This massively increased the amount of fun players could have. It is a big part of the reason the game has (or had, I can't speak to it now) such an incredibly low level of toxicity.

    Now, you could then go on to say "but that isn't what Ashes is, Ashes is a game about risk, and that risk is coming from its death penalty". As a statement, this is something I completely agree with. My initial point wasn't that Ashes needed to change, it was that it is bad game design - and it IS bad game design.

    The thing is, Ashes is being built on a foundation of bad game design.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Now, you could then go on to say "but that isn't what Ashes is, Ashes is a game about risk, and that risk is coming from its death penalty". As a statement, this is something I completely agree with. My initial point wasn't that Ashes needed to change, it was that it is bad game design - and it IS bad game design.
    Bad for whom though? For the masses? For the majority of players? Or for literally everyone?

    Cause I'm sure it's bad for the majority, otherwise WoW wouldn't be the go-to mmo in people's minds. But, as been discussed countless times here, Ashes will be for the minority. And I don't think that the current penalties or difficulty of the game is anywhere near to even put a dent in that minority's willingness to risk that penalty for a good reward.
  • RonDog98RonDog98 Member, Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    My main issues with XP debit is all of you would still play and love the game if it were gone, but there are an unknown number of potential players who won’t play the game because of it.

    This game needs to attract a healthy full player base, and XP offers nothing positive and only negative.

    It is an objective negative for this game to implement it.

    Sure, but I also play Throne and Liberty as my main game now, and therefore I'm not as hardcore as the people who want to play Ashes.

    But that's kind of the point. It's not necessarily a negative, because people who really don't want exp Debt have an objectively better (using your logic) game to play already, considering their main playstyle profiles.

    Why should AoC strive to compete with a game for an audience that is better suited for that game already? It makes no sense as even a business plan.

    Removing XP debt does not drastically change the formula of the game.

    Also, just because a game doesn’t have an XP debt doesn’t make it an all around objectively better or more complete game.

    Classic wow is very popular, if classic wow added XP debt nothing about the game formula would change, it would just introduce something 90% of players don’t want and there for it’s a negative.

    I'll try to clarify what I meant a bit more because I agree with you, Throne and Liberty originally had exp debt, then they removed it in favor of something more sensible for their version of a strong PvX game, and I don't think anything was negatively affected at all.

    What I'm saying is that Intrepid believes they have a design where Exp Debt is important to shape player behaviour in the way they want. We aren't seeing that design in full, but it's a good 'signal'. If you 'show players' that you want to create a game where that sort of feeling is important, and the players can decide in advance "I don't like those feelings" then great, they will go play Throne and Liberty.

    But a game like EVE has a powerful 'cost' to dying that is necessary for the feelings of its sandbox nature. Ashes is also a similar type of game, if you don't like that type of game, then what exactly do you want that isn't provided by another game?

    Removing exp debt can drastically change the formula of a game, we just haven't had any games recently that were built with the base design that can actually be affected. EXP Debt is a deterrent from certain approaches to problems. The 'problems' in AoC are an entirely different type than most other games.

    I’ll be clear, I will play ash’s regardless of XP debt or not. My opinion on it is dying already is frustrating, and when I get hit with XP debt I’m like man this is stupid but whatever.

    I’m a hardcore MMO fan and I think ash’s has enough going for it I can overlook some bad design choices here and there. I’m not most players though, and I would like most players to stick around so I can have a more meaningful experience down the road.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited January 12
    Ludullu wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Now, you could then go on to say "but that isn't what Ashes is, Ashes is a game about risk, and that risk is coming from its death penalty". As a statement, this is something I completely agree with. My initial point wasn't that Ashes needed to change, it was that it is bad game design - and it IS bad game design.
    Bad for whom though? For the masses? For the majority of players? Or for literally everyone?

    Cause I'm sure it's bad for the majority, otherwise WoW wouldn't be the go-to mmo in people's minds. But, as been discussed countless times here, Ashes will be for the minority. And I don't think that the current penalties or difficulty of the game is anywhere near to even put a dent in that minority's willingness to risk that penalty for a good reward.
    It is bad for everyone - even if many don't ever notice it.

    Literally every player playing Ashes will be more risk averse in terms of their decision to run content with the players on hand, the classes on hand etc. Instead of running a piece of content with the 6 you have on hand, you will want to find 2 more to fill out your group (or, in many cases, you will want 12+ people to run content made for 8). With less of a death penalty, there is no real reason to not at least attempt to run that content with fewer people.

    While Ashes is indeed going to be very different to WoW, that doesn't mean it is going to be different in every way possible.
  • RonDog98RonDog98 Member, Alpha Two
    Ludullu wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    This isn't good game design. It literally makes for a game where no one is challenging themselves.
    The weak don't - yes. The strong persevere. L2 had deleveling and people would lose weeks, if not months of progress after a massive pvp fight for a boss or a certain goal. People still played and fought each other.

    And yes, I know your usual repsonse of "people will just go play other games these days".

    This shouldn’t be shrugged off as a usual commit, it’s a fact. MMOs are a genre that can barely sustain its self, you need to consider how to attract as many people as possible in ways that don’t hurt the core philosophy.

    Ash’s wants to have grand battles and server wide struggles for power. Those are end game systems and players need to want to stick around to the endgame.
  • RonDog98RonDog98 Member, Alpha Two
    Ludullu wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Now, you could then go on to say "but that isn't what Ashes is, Ashes is a game about risk, and that risk is coming from its death penalty". As a statement, this is something I completely agree with. My initial point wasn't that Ashes needed to change, it was that it is bad game design - and it IS bad game design.
    Bad for whom though? For the masses? For the majority of players? Or for literally everyone?

    Cause I'm sure it's bad for the majority, otherwise WoW wouldn't be the go-to mmo in people's minds. But, as been discussed countless times here, Ashes will be for the minority. And I don't think that the current penalties or difficulty of the game is anywhere near to even put a dent in that minority's willingness to risk that penalty for a good reward.

    I just hope there’s more than 100k of you to keep this game alive. I myself will, but if the game dies to too few players, we just have these forums posts to look at.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    Ludullu wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Now, you could then go on to say "but that isn't what Ashes is, Ashes is a game about risk, and that risk is coming from its death penalty". As a statement, this is something I completely agree with. My initial point wasn't that Ashes needed to change, it was that it is bad game design - and it IS bad game design.
    Bad for whom though? For the masses? For the majority of players? Or for literally everyone?

    Cause I'm sure it's bad for the majority, otherwise WoW wouldn't be the go-to mmo in people's minds. But, as been discussed countless times here, Ashes will be for the minority. And I don't think that the current penalties or difficulty of the game is anywhere near to even put a dent in that minority's willingness to risk that penalty for a good reward.

    I just hope there’s more than 100k of you to keep this game alive. I myself will, but if the game dies to too few players, we just have these forums posts to look at.

    Honestly, the game needs more than 100k.

    With the way events and sieges and stuff are being done, you need a server per area. This game is essentially dead in any part of the world thst doesn't have a server.

    If you consider NA east and west, EU, Oceania and Brazil to the the areas in which Intrepid maintain servers, that is 250k players needed to maintain one server per region.
  • RonDog98RonDog98 Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    Ludullu wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Now, you could then go on to say "but that isn't what Ashes is, Ashes is a game about risk, and that risk is coming from its death penalty". As a statement, this is something I completely agree with. My initial point wasn't that Ashes needed to change, it was that it is bad game design - and it IS bad game design.
    Bad for whom though? For the masses? For the majority of players? Or for literally everyone?

    Cause I'm sure it's bad for the majority, otherwise WoW wouldn't be the go-to mmo in people's minds. But, as been discussed countless times here, Ashes will be for the minority. And I don't think that the current penalties or difficulty of the game is anywhere near to even put a dent in that minority's willingness to risk that penalty for a good reward.

    I just hope there’s more than 100k of you to keep this game alive. I myself will, but if the game dies to too few players, we just have these forums posts to look at.

    Honestly, the game needs more than 100k.

    With the way events and sieges and stuff are being done, you need a server per area. This game is essentially dead in any part of the world thst doesn't have a server.

    If you consider NA east and west, EU, Oceania and Brazil to the the areas in which Intrepid maintain servers, that is 250k players needed to maintain one server per region.

    That’s what worries me. It needs the population or like a GW2 or ESO while trying to be infinitely more niche than those.

    I would try and lessen the punishments that start from the second a character is made and focus more on meaningful endgame.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Literally every player playing Ashes will be more risk averse in terms of their decision to run content with the players on hand, the classes on hand etc. Instead of running a piece of content with the 6 you have on hand, you will want to find 2 more to fill out your group (or, in many cases, you will want 12+ people to run content made for 8). With less of a death penalty, there is no real reason to not at least attempt to run that content with fewer people.
    Do you really think Ashes will have pve difficult enough to warrant this? Because, no matter how much I want it, I personally don't see that happening rn.

    But even if it did. The ones who do risk it and go with fewer people to those locations will win more if they succeed. Risk/reward and all that. And if the choice was between "death penalties are lower, but more people are willing to die to mobs" vs "DPs are the same, but only the risk-takers are willing to die to mobs" - I personally prefer the latter one.

    And everyone who's too afraid to do that content with as few people as they can, can just enjoy their lower rewards. And if this exact parts of the game, out of all the other features, is the thing that makes or breaks the game for them - so be it.
    RonDog98 wrote: »
    I just hope there’s more than 100k of you to keep this game alive. I myself will, but if the game dies to too few players, we just have these forums posts to look at.
    My current estimate for the 6+month post-release timeline is 200-300k monthly players worldwide. That's if the game manages to deliver on all the current promises and doesn't have absolutely game-breaking bugs/exploits on release.

    I also think they might go higher in concurrents per realm, which would also increase max population of a server, so those 200-300k would be, maybe, 3-4 servers. 1 na, 1 sa, 1 sea, 1 eu. Maaybe another eu or, most likely, 1 cis server. With regional pricings that'd be smth like 3 na servers ~70k subs each. And that's roughly $36mil a year, not counting cosmetics. At 200 employees at median $150k/y, it leaves 6mil for servers. Somewhere before 2020 Steven said that their expected income per user is closer to $21 (cause cosmetics and shit), but even if that goes down due to economic bs by the time the game comes out - that's still just money on top.

    And this is not accounting for potential downsizing (as A LOT of studios do after release) or potential renting of their proprietary tech which could bring in either pure profits or at least stabilize their bottom line.

    They could also sell sub bundles on release, which would give them a cash cushion, and if by that time there's no good mmos - they'll most likely hit 1mil+ subs on release as well, cause people are always hungry for the next big thing.

    Oh, Steven has also floated around the idea that they might go for different publishers in other regions, which would give Intrepid some more cash as well.
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    You know there's a huge flaw to the world when the wizard can bend spells around obstacles but the only method of transport is family transport there and blood porting back. For someone who claims to have a wealth of mmo experience, I can only state that the combat system and general ethos is more tabletop than laptop.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited January 12
    Ludullu wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Literally every player playing Ashes will be more risk averse in terms of their decision to run content with the players on hand, the classes on hand etc. Instead of running a piece of content with the 6 you have on hand, you will want to find 2 more to fill out your group (or, in many cases, you will want 12+ people to run content made for 8). With less of a death penalty, there is no real reason to not at least attempt to run that content with fewer people.
    Do you really think Ashes will have pve difficult enough to warrant this?

    It will happen, but more to the point - risk aversion is a consideration in PvP as well.

    Imagine the PvP in a game where people are too scared to engage unless they know they will win, vs a game where they have nothing at all to lose and so can freely engage in PvP just for fun.

    I've said this before, but Intrepid know this to be true. There is a reason death penalties for sieges, wars and caravans are planned to be almost non-existent - they want people participating.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    There is a reason death penalties for sieges, wars and caravans are planned to be almost non-existent - they want people participating.
    And, as I said, I'm totally fine if the properly difficult pve is instanced and has no penalties on tries, just as pvp events have close-to-no penalties because they're meant for people to die over and over again within a fairly short timeframe.

    I just don't see open world pve being anywhere that difficult (even if I want it to be). And the pvp involved in that content will come either from wars or from corruption, both of which are controlled by their own limiters on the frequency of victim's losses.

    There's also always the lessening of the penalty if you die flagged, so even if the pvp happens outside of events or PKs - the victims will lose less.
  • CawwCaww Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    ... game where they have nothing at all to lose and so can freely engage in PvP just for fun....
    A system where PvP is risk free as a default player mode and then "flagging up" would indicate to players they are willing to PvP for consequences and loot (however that could be determined) might be a draw for the average PvE player.

  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Caww wrote: »
    A system where PvP is risk free as a default player mode and then "flagging up" would indicate to players they are willing to PvP for consequences and loot (however that could be determined) might be a draw for the average PvE player.
    There's no "risk free" pvp though, unless I misunderstand what you mean by "default player mode". Do you mean that anyone can die at any time w/o losses? Cause dying in itself will 100% be a loss, especially if literally anyone can kill you at any time w/o penalty.

    And if you do want to keep corruption in that kind of system, then how?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Ludullu wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    There is a reason death penalties for sieges, wars and caravans are planned to be almost non-existent - they want people participating.
    And, as I said, I'm totally fine if the properly difficult pve is instanced and has no penalties on tries, just as pvp events have close-to-no penalties because they're meant for people to die over and over again within a fairly short timeframe.

    Keep in mind, while my example was PvE, this isn't a PvE/PvP thing.

    It is a risk thing. Any situation in which players have a choice, and one of the options could lead to death, this whole thing plays its part.

    That inherently includes PvP. However, more often than not it will be a mix of both. Players not willing to go after content without a safety net to protect them from potential PvP, for example.

    There is no point in trying to break it out in to a PvP/PvE thing.
    I just don't see open world pve being anywhere that difficult (even if I want it to be). And the pvp involved in that content will come either from wars or from corruption, both of which are controlled by their own limiters on the frequency of victim's losses.
    Perhaps.

    However, read what you typed with a critical mind. You are saying Ashes is an open world PvP game, but where open world PvP is curtailed to the point where the game may as well not be an open world PvP game.

    It's almost as if open world, always on PvP only exists in Ashes today in order to keep that box checked for marketing purposes.
Sign In or Register to comment.