What features you dislike in MMOs and hope Ashes won't have?

r a wrote: »

Content or ability to progress that is locked behind hours of story mode. I really hated it when I had to suffer for so many days in some games doing the main storyline just to be able to progress/unlock something as it was the only way to obtain that specific thing. I think there should be some alternative to that. Not everyone likes to do storyline (so-called main quests) in games.

Dygz wrote: »

Ghoosty wrote: »

@Dygz Archeage is a sandbox MMO. Even it has a main storyline. If AoC has more theme-park element, we should expect for a main storyline as well.

You really didn’t address what you said.
What I’m responding to is the notion of “doing the main storyline to unlock something” in a game where the primary focuses are Node progression, Religious progression, Social Org progression, Caravan runs and Sieges.
I’m not aware of ArcheAge having those features.

mcstackerson wrote: »

Ghoosty wrote: »

@Dygz Archeage is a sandbox MMO. Even it has a main storyline. If AoC has more theme-park element, we should expect for a main storyline as well.

I wouldn't call archeage strictly a sandbox as the lead designer's goal for Archeage was to make it a sandpark. He wanted to combine the two so you had a sandbox game with some themepark elements to help guide players through the game.

Ashes seems to be doing something similar and i believe they have used the sandpark/themebox term before, I just think it's wrong to try to say ashes should have a story because AA has a story and it's a sandbox.

Ghoosty wrote: »

@Dygz Archeage is a sandbox MMO. Even it has a main storyline. If AoC has more theme-park element, we should expect for a main storyline as well.

I've asked that question few months ago and this was Steven's answer:

Ghoosty

@mcstackerson I played with AA. Somewhere around lvl 30 I realized that the theme-park elements are just decorations. The main money generation was the tradepacks or high level craft skills. If I want to be effective in theme-park contents, I must do the sandbox part of the game to get proper equipment. Probably the original goal was to make a kind of hybrid but my feeling was that this is a pure sandbox game. So I quit.

@Dygz "in a game where the primary focuses are Node progression, Religious progression, Social Org progression, Caravan runs and Sieges."

First the progression can mean lot of things. Reputation farm like wow is also a kind of progression. Nobody said that the religious and social org progression is a primary focus. Node progression is OK, it is really a main focus, but you do not have to be citizen in any node. If they think about it as a enjoyable possibility they must provide something to them as well.

I do not see why these functions should exclude the main story possibility even the unlocking part of it. Just a fast thoughts: We start to repopulate the new world. But the main enemy is the corruption. Corruption can be lead by an entity. This entity can have leaders, solders. The quests can be elastic so the first lvl4 node trigger a main story-line continuity. For example somewhere a corruption lieutenant appeared, but only the most devoted warriors can resists him. So you have to do a quest to prove your devotion. Unless that, the NPCs do not let you in a place where this lieutenant can be find.
Other thing is that there will be instanced content. The main focus is the open world, but there will be instanced content as well. For instanced content you can do any personal restriction for any reason.

Hopefully they do not do these, but the node progression as main focus does not exclude the possibility.

Dygz wrote: »

Ghoosty wrote: »

@Dygz Archeage is a sandbox MMO. Even it has a main storyline. If AoC has more theme-park element, we should expect for a main storyline as well.

You really didn’t address what I said.
What I’m responding to is the notion of “doing the main storyline to unlock something” in a game where the primary focuses are Node progression, Religious progression, Social Org progression, Caravan runs and Sieges.
I’m not aware of ArcheAge having those features.

This isn't the first time you've seen a game system and made an assumption to an unrelated system based on that first system.

I mean, just because Ashes has nodes, religion and social entities, doesn't mean it won't have major quest lines.

In fact, I'd happily wager that religions and social organisations will have their own major quest lines associated with them - and if the Intrepid team are even remotely good at story telling, there will be connecting threads between all of those stories.

noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Ghoosty wrote: »

@Dygz Archeage is a sandbox MMO. Even it has a main storyline. If AoC has more theme-park element, we should expect for a main storyline as well.

You really didn’t address what I said.
What I’m responding to is the notion of “doing the main storyline to unlock something” in a game where the primary focuses are Node progression, Religious progression, Social Org progression, Caravan runs and Sieges.
I’m not aware of ArcheAge having those features.

This isn't the first time you've seen a game system and made an assumption to an unrelated system based on that first system.

I mean, just because Ashes has nodes, religion and social entities, doesn't mean it won't have major quest lines.

In fact, I'd happily wager that religions and social organisations will have their own major quest lines associated with them - and if the Intrepid team are even remotely good at story telling, there will be connecting threads between all of those stories.

Yes, that is true. However, not all the point. The question isn't the number of quest lines, it is how reliant players will be on them in order to progress. i.e how much of progress/content will be locked behind quests which will be my next Q&A question

Magic Man wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Ghoosty wrote: »

@Dygz Archeage is a sandbox MMO. Even it has a main storyline. If AoC has more theme-park element, we should expect for a main storyline as well.

You really didn’t address what I said.
What I’m responding to is the notion of “doing the main storyline to unlock something” in a game where the primary focuses are Node progression, Religious progression, Social Org progression, Caravan runs and Sieges.
I’m not aware of ArcheAge having those features.

This isn't the first time you've seen a game system and made an assumption to an unrelated system based on that first system.

I mean, just because Ashes has nodes, religion and social entities, doesn't mean it won't have major quest lines.

In fact, I'd happily wager that religions and social organisations will have their own major quest lines associated with them - and if the Intrepid team are even remotely good at story telling, there will be connecting threads between all of those stories.

Yes, that is true. However, not all the point. The question isn't the number of quest lines, it is how reliant players will be on them in order to progress. i.e how much of progress/content will be locked behind quests which will be my next Q&A question

Oh for sure. Somehow the discussion of you nit wanting content locked behind quests got turned in to someone thinking there wouldn't be any quest lines in Ashes - not a sentiment I can personally leave on the table without commenting.

I personally hope there is some content locked behind quests, but I wouldn't want to see too much of it.

If there is a large overland area or a whole dungeon that is behind an access quest, I would consider that to be really bad. On the other hand, a room in that dungeon or a small corner of an overland area could require an access quest if it made sense.

noaani wrote: »

This isn't the first time you've seen a game system and made an assumption to an unrelated system based on that first system.

I mean, just because Ashes has nodes, religion and social entities, doesn't mean it won't have major quest lines.

In fact, I'd happily wager that religions and social organisations will have their own major quest lines associated with them - and if the Intrepid team are even remotely good at story telling, there will be connecting threads between all of those stories.

It’s not the first time you have erroneously accused me of making assumptions.
I haven’t made any assumptions.
I have spoken directly with the game devs several times.
In this case, I am questioning the player suggestion that Ashes is likely to have a main storyline that takes precedence of the numerous other forms of progression in the Ashes game design.

I expect all forms of progression will have stories that are tied together in some manner - and they will all create some larger narrative.
That is not the same thing as everyone being required to complete the quests in a main story line the likes of saving Mt. Hyjal from being complete razed by fire or completing Wrath Of The Lich King.

No one has stated that Ashes won’t have any quest lines. That notion is just another example of your poor reading comprehension. And another example of your penchant for straw man arguments.

Magic Man wrote: »

Yes, that is true. However, not all the point. The question isn't the number of quest lines, it is how reliant players will be on them in order to progress. i.e how much of progress/content will be locked behind quests which will be my next Q&A question

Yep. I haven’t had time to get back around to exploring your vision of this.

When I played vanilla EQ, I mostly ignored quests. I found those quests to be too tedious and preferred to grind.
In the early days of EQ2 someone mentioned gathering up the quests in the local area and I realized that those quests gave me considerably more xp and more rewards for stuff I was already doing, like gathering resources and killing mobs. Plus, stories were attached that provided details about what was happening in the area and I could learn about the interests and concerns of individual NPCs - which helps with emersion.

What is your hope of what players will be doing and (might want to be doing) to progress that doesn’t rely on quests??
How do you hope we will progress without quests?

unknown

This content has been removed.

Ghoosty wrote: »

Progression can mean lot of things. Reputation farm like wow is also a kind of progression. Nobody said that the religious and social org progression is a primary focus. Node progression is OK, it is really a main focus, but you do not have to be citizen in any node. If they think about it as a enjoyable possibility they must provide something to them as well.

I do not see why these functions should exclude the main story possibility even the unlocking part of it. Just a fast thoughts: We start to repopulate the new world. But the main enemy is the corruption. Corruption can be lead by an entity. This entity can have leaders, solders. The quests can be elastic so the first lvl4 node trigger a main story-line continuity. For example somewhere a corruption lieutenant appeared, but only the most devoted warriors can resists him. So you have to do a quest to prove your devotion. Unless that, the NPCs do not let you in a place where this lieutenant can be find.
Other thing is that there will be instanced content. The main focus is the open world, but there will be instanced content as well. For instanced content you can do any personal restriction for any reason.

Hopefully they do not do these, but the node progression as main focus does not exclude the possibility.

No one has said that there is any primary progression focus in Ashes. Which is precisely why I’m questioning the expectation of a focus on some kind of main storyline.

We do not have to be a citizen of a Node I order to participate in the progression of a Node. Everything we do in the vicinity of a Node adds to Node progression, regardless of whether we have picked up a quest associated with our activities. It’s just highly likely that we will get more xp and more rewards when we also have a quest for those activities. I don’t understand why that is a concern.

Instances are supposed to be rare.
They will likely open for major events, but that is not necessarily the same thing as a main storyline.

Corruption is a force that Ashes characters will have to combat, but it is a fundamental game mechanic that cannot be defeated as part of a main storyline.

I’m not sure what is meant by proving devotion to defeat a “Corruption Lieutenant”.
We do know that players will have to defeat the current masters of the Castles before we can take control of them. Steven and Jeffrey expect it will be very challenging to defeat those masters. I expect, from what they have said, that completing specific quests will be required to defeat them.
I don’t know that defeating those masters should be considered main storyline since we don’t have to defeat them if we don’t want to, AFAIK.
A clearer question for the devs to scope that out might be asking what how server progression would be affected if we left the NPC masters in control of the Castles.

Seems like Ashes has many story modules that come on line as we progress Nodes in various ways and as we move through the various other forms of progression.
Different servers could have very different “main storylines” in terms of overall narrative.
Some things will be locked behind quests for sure. We know some things will be locked behind which specific structures get built.
Seems likely that some things will be locked behind events regardless of whether they are completed as part of a quest - like depleting an area of a specific resource or specific mob population.

Dygz wrote: »

Magic Man wrote: »

Yes, that is true. However, not all the point. The question isn't the number of quest lines, it is how reliant players will be on them in order to progress. i.e how much of progress/content will be locked behind quests which will be my next Q&A question

Yep. I haven’t had time to get back around to exploring your vision of this.

When I played vanilla EQ, I mostly ignored quests. I found those quests to be too tedious and preferred to grind.
In the early days of EQ2 someone mentioned gathering up the quests in the local area and I realized that those quests gave me considerably more xp and more rewards for stuff I was already doing, like gathering resources and killing mobs. Plus, stories were attached that provided details about what was happening in the area and I could learn about the interests and concerns of individual NPCs - which helps with emersion.

What is your hope of what players will be doing and (might want to be doing) to progress that doesn’t rely on quests??
How do you hope we will progress without quests?

@Dygz I find most quests in MMORPGs tedious as well; they make it feel too 'artificial'. I like the idea of there being quests that reward me for what i plan to do in the first place and yes it is always good to know more about the place and its past etc as long as the story is told in a good way (people say FFXIV is great and all with story telling but i find it too brain dead and dunno how to feel when people say such things

) then they say ''it's a great RPG, just not your thing'' and i'm like...suuuure.

As for my ideal progression in an MMO - I'd like to have a pure sandbox with quests that relate to lore and imo they should always remain optional for progression. i.e make everything a player does that ultimately help a node develop (which should be the main goal of all players) rewarding including PvP - it should be a good way to boost XP. This might be too far fetched for Ashes as they want to have quests for everything. You want a license - quest, want to remove your corruption - quest, want to obtain augments - quests, want to launch a mayoral caravan - quests.

Ghoosty

Dygz wrote: »

"in a game where the primary focuses are Node progression, Religious progression, Social Org progression"

Dygz wrote: »

"No one has said that there is any primary progression focus in Ashes. "

I am sorry, I do not want further discussion with you.

Nagash

Tsukasa wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

ferryman wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

ferryman wrote: »

@UndeadCanadianGamer Yes I have red the information behind the races, nothing special there, and with generic races I referred for humans, elfs, dwarfs and Orcs. All seen too many times in too many games already.

It was good you remind me we are not in Alpha 1 yet, I had forgotten that already... *sigh*

The most used (and worst) argument in these forums for everything. *facepalm*

I do wish games would expand into other races or at least have their own unique races

Yeah that could be one option and will hopefully also happen with future expansions. Still it would be nice to have something less used or unique, and straight from the start, but I understand it may be too late to demand such a thing. I guess you had something like skaven or undead in your mind?

not many games let you play as undead but what I had in mind was races like naga or demons you know something you only see as npcs

While doing it I realized that both concept arts have same upperbody pose "charging energy". You could actually merge them into a more realistic look.

whats even better is I have both of those items ^^

Dygz wrote: »

I have spoken directly with the game devs several times.

Yeah, not something to brag about - we've all seen you asking questions without offering up full context, receiving answers based on a different context and then assuming the answer given was under the assumption of the context you had in mind but didn't actually mention.

Lets be clear here, the original person that asked the question said they don't like content locked behind storylines. Not main quests. Not "the main quest".

Storylines.

You said

Dygz wrote: »

I'm not really sure what "main storyline" means when we will primarily be focused on progressing regions and Nodes and Religious and Social organizations.

In response to a question about content locked behind story lines.

That amounts to you saying that you do not think that progressing regions and Nodes and Religious and Social organizations will involve stories.

All I am saying is that each of those things WILL have a story, a story that is likely interconnected in some way, and that there may or may not be content locked behind those stories.

You seem to disagree with that, somehow.

Magic Man wrote: »

@Dygz I find most quests in MMORPGs tedious as well; they make it feel too 'artificial'. I like the idea of there being quests that reward me for what i plan to do in the first place and yes it is always good to know more about the place and its past etc as long as the story is told in a good way (people say FFXIV is great and all with story telling but i find it too brain dead and dunno how to feel when people say such things ) then they say ''it's a great RPG, just not your thing'' and i'm like...suuuure.

As for my ideal progression in an MMO - I'd like to have a pure sandbox with quests that relate to lore and imo they should always remain optional for progression. i.e make everything a player does that ultimately help a node develop (which should be the main goal of all players) rewarding including PvP - it should be a good way to boost XP. This might be too far fetched for Ashes as they want to have quests for everything. You want a license - quest, want to remove your corruption - quest, want to obtain augments - quests, want to launch a mayoral caravan - quests.

Mmmmn. So....
In vanilla EQ, IIRC, even figuring out the keywords to trigger the quest givers to give you a quest rather than lore was tedious. And then the quests were typically epic quests for some legendary item.
EQ2 quests were more like WoW quests. I don't find those quests to be tedious because they just reward significantly more xp than what I would receive via grinding.
Grinding is going to be slow because progression in RPG is supposed to be relatively slow. It's not really supposed to be that we reach max level in a 3-6 weeks.

For me, I would rather be gathering up NPC related stories in the region where I'm adventuring. I like helping people, so, if I can get a significant amount of xp as a reward for helping an NPC collect resources that I'm going to be grinding in any case, that's great.

In Wizard101, players do have to complete main storyline quests in order to gain access to new worlds. Technically, it's possible to ignore the main storyline and still progress, but I don't know why anyone would want to do so in that game.
In Wow, I've played the carebear challenge (no killing) by only gathering resources. You basically have to ignore the main storyline to successfully completer the carebear challenge -- reaching max level with no kills.

Ashes is a themebox. There will be plenty of progression that is tied to quests and plenty of progression that is not tied to quests. We can progress our characters via exploration or via Caravan runs or Sieges or by erecting specific buildings in towns and cities and metros without those activities being tied to quests. There will likely also be some quests available for those activities.
But, Ashes isn't really about an individual player character being required to pursue a specific set of quests in order to progress. If you don't want to participate in a quest to kill the Winter Dragon, you won't have to. Other players will likely kill the Winter Dragon for you.
On the other hand, you might want to kill the Winter Dragon - quest or no quest - in order to quickly put an end to the perpetual winter plaguing your town. When Winter Drakelings attack your city, you won't have to go grab a quest to defend your city. And the result of that attack will progress the narrative whether you win that battle or lose.
If you win that battle, you will gain significant rewards despite it not being a quest.

Ghoosty wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

"in a game where the primary focuses are Node progression, Religious progression, Social Org progression"

Dygz wrote: »

"No one has said that there is any primary progression focus in Ashes. "

I am sorry, I do not want further discussion with you.

Ha. You completely change the meaning of the first quote by not including the first part of the sentence.

The complete sentence in the first quote states: "What I’m responding to is the notion of “doing the main storyline to unlock something” in a game where the primary focuses are Node progression, Religious progression, Social Org progression, Caravan runs and Sieges."
Notice that I include Caravans runs and Sieges as primary focuses for Ashes gameplay.
That is not the same thing as stating that one type of progression has a greater focus than any other type of progression.

Where you say, "Nobody said that the religious and social org progression is a primary focus..."
No devs have talked about things locked behind a main storyline, as far as I know. I'm not aware of the devs mentioning anything about a main storyline.
The devs have talked about how Node progression and Religious progression and Social progression and Caravan runs and Sieges impact gameplay. These are the features the devs primarily focus on when discussing Ashes gameplay that impacts the world, rather than talking about a "main storyline".

Ghoosty

@Dygz In that sentence you listed the primary focuses, later you denied that there is any primary focuses. If we extend the list with another primary focus it will not change the the meaning of the sentence.

noaani wrote: »

Lets be clear here, the original person that asked the question said they don't like content locked behind storylines. Not main quests. Not "the main quest".
Storylines.

Um. Here is the full quote:
"Content or ability to progress that is locked behind hours of story mode. I really hated it when I had to suffer for so many days in some games doing the main storyline just to be able to progress/unlock something as it was the only way to obtain that specific thing. I think there should be some alternative to that. Not everyone likes to do storyline (so-called main quests) in games."

Lets be clear that main quests is mentioned and main quests is presented to be synonymous with main storyline.

noaani wrote: »

In response to a question about content locked behind story lines, you said:
"I'm not really sure what "main storyline" means when we will primarily be focused on progressing regions and Nodes and Religious and Social organizations."

That amounts to you saying that you do not think that progressing regions and Nodes and Religious and Social organizations will involve stories.

Nope. That, again, is your poor reading comprehension.
The terms used were "main storyline" and "main quests". The key points there being main.
Progressing regions and Nodes and Religious and Social organizations are modular components than can be completed in many different orders and configurations - resulting in different servers having significantly different narratives.
So, I don't understand how there can be a "main storyline" or a "main quest line".
It's not like we will all (every server) be systematically progressing through one main storyline, like Wrath Of The Lich King.
That is not at all the same thing as saying that those modular pieces -progressing regions and Nodes and Religious and Social organizations- won't be connected to stories or quests.

noaani wrote: »

All I am saying is that each of those things WILL have a story, a story that is likely interconnected in some way, and that there may or may not be content locked behind those stories.
You seem to disagree with that, somehow.

Seems that way to you because of your poor reading comprehension, but I agree with that.
What I said is that I'm not sure what is meant by "main storyline" when we have these modular components that can be completed in a different order and in different configurations, resulting in significantly different worlds and significantly different narratives.

Ghoosty wrote: »

@Dygz In that sentence you listed the primary focuses, later you denied that there is any primary focuses. If we extend the list with another primary focus it will not change the the meaning of the sentence.

In the first quote I listed several features that devs have stated we will be focused on - as far as I know they have never mentioned a "main storyline" and the modular nature of the features a listed seem to preclude a "main storyline" that all servers will be focused on. Which is why I said that I'm not sure what "main storyline" means.

Later, I said that no one said there were primary progression focuses.
That quote does not say, "No one said there are no primary focuses."
Two different topics.

I contrasted a list of gameplay features the devs have said players will be focused on against the concept of a "main storyline": a speculative feature I've heard nothing about, AFAIK.
You then made an argument contrasting Religious and Social Org progression v Node progression.
And I replied that that argument is beside the point... it's really a separate topic.

Dygz wrote: »

Magic Man wrote: »

@Dygz I find most quests in MMORPGs tedious as well; they make it feel too 'artificial'. I like the idea of there being quests that reward me for what i plan to do in the first place and yes it is always good to know more about the place and its past etc as long as the story is told in a good way (people say FFXIV is great and all with story telling but i find it too brain dead and dunno how to feel when people say such things ) then they say ''it's a great RPG, just not your thing'' and i'm like...suuuure.

As for my ideal progression in an MMO - I'd like to have a pure sandbox with quests that relate to lore and imo they should always remain optional for progression. i.e make everything a player does that ultimately help a node develop (which should be the main goal of all players) rewarding including PvP - it should be a good way to boost XP. This might be too far fetched for Ashes as they want to have quests for everything. You want a license - quest, want to remove your corruption - quest, want to obtain augments - quests, want to launch a mayoral caravan - quests.

Mmmmn. So....
In vanilla EQ, IIRC, even figuring out the keywords to trigger the quest givers to give you a quest rather than lore was tedious. And then the quests were typically epic quests for some legendary item.
EQ2 quests were more like WoW quests. I don't find those quests to be tedious because they just reward significantly more xp than what I would receive via grinding.
Grinding is going to be slow because progression in RPG is supposed to be relatively slow. It's not really supposed to be that we reach max level in a 3-6 weeks.

For me, I would rather be gathering up NPC related stories in the region where I'm adventuring. I like helping people, so, if I can get a significant amount of xp as a reward for helping an NPC collect resources that I'm going to be grinding in any case, that's great.

In Wizard101, players do have to complete main storyline quests in order to gain access to new worlds. Technically, it's possible to ignore the main storyline and still progress, but I don't know why anyone would want to do so in that game.
In Wow, I've played the carebear challenge (no killing) by only gathering resources. You basically have to ignore the main storyline to successfully completer the carebear challenge -- reaching max level with no kills.

Ashes is a themebox. There will be plenty of progression that is tied to quests and plenty of progression that is not tied to quests. We can progress our characters via exploration or via Caravan runs or Sieges or by erecting specific buildings in towns and cities and metros without those activities being tied to quests. There will likely also be some quests available for those activities.
But, Ashes isn't really about an individual player character being required to pursue a specific set of quests in order to progress. If you don't want to participate in a quest to kill the Winter Dragon, you won't have to. Other players will likely kill the Winter Dragon for you.
On the other hand, you might want to kill the Winter Dragon - quest or no quest - in order to quickly put an end to the perpetual winter plaguing your town. When Winter Drakelings attack your city, you won't have to go grab a quest to defend your city. And the result of that attack will progress the narrative whether you win that battle or lose.
If you win that battle, you will gain significant rewards despite it not being a quest.

Yes he clearly misunderstood nvm that

What bothers me is the uncertainty tbh. What if i have to keep quests all the time till i each max level because it is the most efficient way of gaining XP? Honestly, i want to be left alone and do whatever i want - helping something or someone, doing things and being rewarded for them. When someone tells me 'you need this quest to achieve this' etc i find myself in a position where my freedom is restricted. I want to feel the adrenaline early on (level 10 - 15) by engaging in PvP and kill some mobs that aren't mindless creatures and actually offer a challenge. Don't get me wrong, i like quests when they are fun and interesting. What i'm against is having to rely on them and gameplay consisting of chain quests that take you to level 50 (or whatever is the max lvl). Sure, other stuff will give XP as well but would it really compare to what you get from quests which takes you nicely from lvl 1 to 50? I plan on asking that question for the livestream this month.