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.
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.
Comments
Meaningful conflict and combat in an RPG comes from the story, much like how meaningful conflict and combat in a film or book comes from the plot. You could have the most badass fight sequence ever but without some kind of plot or story to drive it, the action is pointless.
Let's do a little thought experiment here. I want you to think of the most memorable fight scene in any book, film, TV show or game. Now, think about what made that fight so memorable. Chances are it was because you connected with the characters involved. You understand them and were rooting for them to win. This connection sucks you into the action and gets you invested in it.
Combat is fun.
Why should we look for ways to avoid fun?
The only genre I can think of where avoiding combat is demanded of the player is survival horror, which in itself is a very niche genre.
Yeah, I can't think of any others either.
That would be because there aren’t any others. That’s the only type where you have to avoid combat.
I'm trying to think of any Roguelikes that see players need to avoid combat, but I came up against two major issues there.
The first is that while I know what a Roguelike game is (it is a game that is like the game Rogue...), I actually don't know of any other than Rogue, and have not played any at all - this makes it hard to think of one where you have to avoid combat.
The second issue is that Roguelikes are even more of a niche genre than survival horror (more niche than survival horror comedy with 8-bit graphics, I would assume), so even if I could think of one, it doesn't really change the points being made here at all.
Yo, idiot. Please do not put words to my name . I did not say what you quoted. Please assign the correct quote to the correct person.
I think they must have lost track or got confused.
Acts with a superiority complex, claiming everyone else is stupid and then resorts to the finest of all school-boy traditions:
"You disagree with my opinion so you must be an idiot, la la la la..."
Your self-inflated ego is obnoxious and I’m not sure if you have the social awareness to understand this, but people don’t like you. And it’s not because they’re “too stupid” or “trying not to understand” like you try to insist; it’s because you’re a know-it-all who actually knows very little at best as seen by posting articles that have little to no relevance to the points you assert, or is intentionally trolling people. I‘ll assume you’re doing it intentionally, but mostly since I would like to think no one could inherently have such a grating personality.
The short translation: People are gonna hate you in-game if you don’t learn to reign in your insults and annoying “tech speak” where it’s clearly not needed, wanted, or contextually relevant to the discussion.
The only one who came out swinging with judgement and toxicity is you. I don’t need to cite unrelated academic papers like some in order to see how people don’t enjoy your presence is a discussion, namely due to extreme amounts of condescension and abrasiveness paired with a complete lack of willingness to expand on your stance in a coherent way. Also, it may do you some good to actually make a brief google search so you understand what a white knight is.
I’ll be blocking you so don’t expect any more entertainment of your ”high society, low relevancy” ramblings, they haven’t provided any decent points yet. I’ll let noanni sufffer that special hell if they choose to.
I mean, your idea of entering a thread seems to be to disregard everything that has been said before, make a completely out of context statement, and then turn the thread in to a discussion on that.
I've not seen you reply to a single post in a thread that was posted before you posted in that same thread - which clearly shows a complete lack of consideration for other points of view.
That said, your most recent post on the combat tracker thread will have a response from me in a few hours - it's long enough that I want a proper keyboard.
We know that nodes aren't new. In fact, nodes as a general sense have been around since the 70's in computer science - that I know of.
We played BDO. It has nodes. Path of Exile uses a node system for it's skill tree, as do many other games.
It isn't the fact that this game is using the word "node" that is exciting - as that doesn't mean anything. It is what those nodes actually do - or what players can do with them - that is exciting.
When players talking about Ashes talk about "nodes", it isn't just the fact that it is a node that they are talking about - it is the fact that it is a game with a city that players can build and destroy and rebuild and make decisions about and vote on leadership.
That is what is exciting - not the word "node".
There are games like travian or EVE online which are mainly interesting because they give players tools and free will to do whatever they want
They are realistic because you can lose everything there. In travian, some people spend 3k dollars per month and can lose everything if they are stupid or have bad luck
If you have more to lose in game (time, money and dedication for example), there are more emotions, calculation and good decisions
If someone in travian is annoying me, i can just remove him from game. Of course if he has influence, or big army himself, he can defend
It allows weak players with good diplomacy skills lead, same as midgets can be feared leaders of mafia. Even though weak physically, even try to do something against them and you are dead or worse
If one player is stupid enough to be warmongering, he won't mess up things for a long time. If you give people power to remove those they don't like, things begin to get interesting
If there are no consequences, and players can ruin game for everyone by let's say spawn killing, or doing bad decisions, that is good way to make a game a dead one
If better thing is to talk dragon out of attacking a city, so be it. If it's better to split than steal, let's do it. If peace is better than war, that's amazing. If you need mindless entertainment, go watch game of thrones or something
I'm sure we will. Whatever digital tripe you're insisting on sure doesn't sound like it though.
Up next for @ekadzati: heading over to a FPS game discussion board to push for a stronger gun control message.
No one is going to push for gun control in shooter games, same as no one is going to lobby for removal of cars in car racers
MMORPGs stand for 'massve multiplayer online role playing games'. RPGs can be won without fighting, sometimes like in real life pushing for fight can make you lose, or get a bad ending. And, well, realistic role playing game is realistic. You don't pick up a fight with everyone, if you want to do so, go play league or counter strike. Or even wow, with stupid quests like 'go kill 10 dogs', doing things just for the sake of it.
Wow is pointless in general, we should go more in EVE tracks (eve is far from perfect tho).
Let's say in knights of the old republic you could kill 2 characters or make them join you. My friend was really surprised you don't have to fight with them.
And MMOs can have no fight involved at all
I really hope intrepid won't cater to degenerate desires of some smug murricans, only thinking about violence and guns. Don't waste good ideas trying to please brainlets
You are bringing up an idea of player agency, where a player is given a choice to play out situations how they please, and making the leap that less combat would be better in MMO. You bring up a single player example of being able to choose a non confrontational dialogue choice, in a game where the remaining 98 percent is forced combat. Especially in the multiplayer content. Conflict breeds good story. If there is no chance of combat, there is no conflict, and if combat has solid you lose situations, that's bad design.
There should be a way to allow players to punish others for bad decisions, but also a way to resolve conflict without fighting/losing resources.
We can't have meaningless conflicts, fake artificial conflict without a point or meaningless fights.
Let's say some people are really annoying me with all shit they say. Or I annoy you because you disagree with me. We have true conflict right now, one side can prove they rights. By civil discussion, or, if one side will not listen, by war. There are other reasons for it too, like betrayal lets say. One player did a very bad decision of betraying the other, and now they can either resolve it peacefully, or, if it's a situation without hope, they can punish traitor by going to war with him. That war should have consequences for both sides. Also smaller scale, like if player has not perfect reputation he can be hunted or sth. It needs to be balanced, but if someone talks shit and will get hit, and will lose his time/money/dedication invested, he might rethink his stances on things. Things like "okay so now fight because i said so" is one way to make a game a dead one. Fake drama is also terrible, unless you can punish those talking shit, then that's good. If you really can hurt them
And omgosh, you guys are boring. I mean, it takes real skill to make something fun boring, I'm surprised.
Here I was thinking that was something you would never learn - you proved me wrong there.