Longevity

I didn't know exactly where to ask this but if it's not the place please tell me! I few questions for developers and would love to hear from some other players' opinions. I am so excited about the game to release but I am concerned about longevity. Will this game have enough story and common ground between servers to make it relatable. For example, World of Warcraft has built so much lore with characters like Sylvanas, the lich king, and many more. Does Ashes intend to create this depth in characters and lore? I think the story is a huge part of what attaches people to video games would love to see more lore developed before release.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

George_Black

Lore is not the only retainer in mmos.

I think a challenging mmorg can last if:

max lv cap takes a couple of months to reach with a 5 hours of smart gameplay every day.
gear crafting and looting takes time and effort
guild gameplay (wars, sieges, territory domination)
open world pvp (real friendships and rivalries)
large map with diverse biomes
challenging quests for group gameplay that enables a character to enter exclusive content, like the grand olympiad of L2 (most satisfying competition in any game ever ever ever).
yearly exansions introducing, +10 lv cap, new gear tier, new world bosses, new map zones, 1-2 new cities/castles to be dominated by guilds, 1-2 new skills per class for the new lvs and balance adjustments. Content in other words to challenge players that reached the cap for the next 4-5 months (xp gain has to be a lot harder for max lv yes?). Let's not kid ourselves, in mmorpgs only new servers are friendly to new players. Anything else dumps down content.

Then there are games like Elder Fashions Online that every three months throw in new gear designs for people to farm from the same old content, a small new map corner with a copy past story quest line and a couple of houses for you to decorate, while you spend money in the cash shop for a gambling chance and getting that useless and weird looking steampunkhorse or that skeletal-ghost with sprinkly aura cat ice mount.
A never ending single player rpg experience with none of that challenge nonsense.

daveywavey

They're pretty keen on lore, yeah. And cos it's their own IP, they can go wherever they like with it. Just get stuck into it when it comes.

Lore Dynamic

Stephen Sharif has mentioned that lore is very much an important part of Verra. But it'll be up to us (returning to Verra from Sanctus, or up from the Under Realm) to learn how/why/what ways Corruption has effected the planet and magic.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Lore
We're keeping lore very close to the chest and the reason for that is because it is very rich. It is diverse. It will have applications outside of just the MMORPG. We intend to take it much further, but I want it to be something that the players get to reveal themselves, that's not just handed to them and then the experience is lost. They should feel when they're experiencing this that it relates to them on a personal level.[5] – Steven Sharif

The lore & story will be revealed WHILE we are playing Ashes of Creation.

As for longevity....

You know about the node system, yes?!

The world/cities/dungeons as you see them one month- won't necessarily be the same the following month.

Talents

I mean it will never be on the same level as the Warcraft series. WoW already had 10 years worth of lore to use before it even launched.

I also disagree that lore is what keeps people playing a game. I could not tell you any lore about any MMORPG I played. An MMORPG I consistently go back to is OSRS which I've played since 2005 and I couldn't tell you shit about its lore or story. I also played WoW, ArcheAge, TERA, Aion, etc. with ArcheAge being my favourite MMORPG of all time, yet I can't tell you shit about any of their lore.

Same with tons of other multiplayer games I played a ton. I played Halo 3 for over 5 years from 2007 - 2013 almost daily, yet I honestly hardly anything about Halos story apart from the basic campaign missions I played.

Hellfar

George Black wrote: »

[*] yearly exansions introducing, +10 lv cap, new gear tier, new world bosses, new map zones, 1-2 new cities/castles to be dominated by guilds, 1-2 new skills per class for the new lvs and balance adjustments. Content in other words to challenge players that reached the cap for the next 4-5 months (xp gain has to be a lot harder for max lv yes?). Let's not kid ourselves, in mmorpgs only new servers are friendly to new players. Anything else dumps down content.
[/list]

I hope they end up straying away from large player power increases and instead learn more towards a horizontal distribution of content throughout the game's lifespan. In the long run, vertical progression would lead to abandoned content that was once the end game, but no longer, and may even become soloable. I would like to see the available content at launch still be worthwhile and challenging 4 years into the game.

I think WoW is a testament to how vertical progression makes content stale in the long run. And, let's not forget about the stat squishes.

George_Black

Wow shouldnt be used as an example to AoC.
AoC has not one feature that suggests an experience like wow.

How can you compare the vertical progression of a different game to this one?
I dont buy to any of the 'horizontal progression' and 'old content being relevant'.

If I had a great week in the starting zones, a great month in the med lv zones, another great month in the high end zones and the current end cap provides me with challenge and pvp opportunities, why would I ever cry about starting zones not being relevant anymore?

As for the 'horizontal progression', in ESO and ffxiv I had 1 toon that was my PvE PvP and crafting character, I maxed out all the non class or weapon skill lines, in addition to class and weapons, and never once did I felt any of that was meaningful.
Btw any new lv cap for those two stale games wouldnt make sense, but not when it comes to an open world with free player interaction and guild map domination.

Yes, I look forward to big expansions once a year or two for new lv, gear and zones.
Yes, I dont care for newer players catching up, it's never realistic, unless lvling up becomes easy in the game, or was like this since day one.
New servers are for new players.

Salty

I am making a comparison to WoW because it has withstood the test of time. Many MMORPGs have come and gone and they are still there with an active fan base. What is that they've done right? One of those things I believe to be their ability to capture you into their world. The cinematics was unreal and rememberable for me at least. It would be a shame if ashes miss' the mark.

Talents

Honestly, it sounds like you want a game with immersive characters and cinematics, and if I'm being honest, I don't think Ashes will have much of that. Now I'm not saying there won't be decent lore and stuff, but it's definitely not the main focus of the game like in Final Fantasy XIV.

The cinematics that WoW do (like the expansion cinematics) cost literal millions to make. Intrepid doesn't have the money to do those types of cinematics. You'll get "in-game" cinematics such as this one since they're fairly easy to do in Unreal Engine, but don't expect ones like WoW.

We already know that there is going to barely any voice acting in Ashes of Creation, just basic Greeting/Farewell messages from NPCs because of how expensive it is.

McShave

The story will be told by the player's actions. Sylvanas and the Lich King will be players on your server that you know of because of their leet skills and crazy awesome gear. I wouldn't expect to be drawn into the story of the world, but into the players and community that will build up on your server.

Amma

Salty wrote: »

I am making a comparison to WoW because it has withstood the test of time. Many MMORPGs have come and gone and they are still there with an active fan base. What is that they've done right? One of those things I believe to be their ability to capture you into their world. The cinematics was unreal and rememberable for me at least. It would be a shame if ashes miss' the mark.

What they did right was to be the first mmo of its kind. Sure there were other mmos before like Ultima Online, but they looked different for example its isometric view.
When you have a kind of monopoly then you have all the millions of players.
I played wow for many years since BC. I didnt know anything about the lore, but what made the game addictive for me at the beginning was that big world with all of its possibilities to explore.
But that wasnt what kept me there. Most of the years it were the people in our guild who i knew then for years who got me to play the game. Its the social aspect that holds you in such a game, at least thats what it was for me.
I think every other mmo that is like WoW would have a similar success over the years, if they had the monopoly at the beginning, because even if the game gets worse from year to year, the social aspect can still hold you there.

daveywavey

Amma wrote: »

But that wasnt what kept me there. Most of the years it were the people in our guild who i knew then for years who got me to play the game. Its the social aspect that holds you in such a game, at least thats what it was for me.

Absolutely. I've carried on playing dying games that had no more dev involvement, just cos of the people I played with.

If a game can get its social interactions right, it can help to cover up lots of little errors/mistakes. People will generally stay.

winner909098

Talents wrote: »

Honestly, it sounds like you want a game with immersive characters and cinematics, and if I'm being honest, I don't think Ashes will have much of that. Now I'm not saying there won't be decent lore and stuff, but it's definitely not the main focus of the game like in Final Fantasy XIV.

The cinematics that WoW do (like the expansion cinematics) cost literal millions to make. Intrepid doesn't have the money to do those types of cinematics. You'll get "in-game" cinematics such as this one since they're fairly easy to do in Unreal Engine, but don't expect ones like WoW.

We already know that there is going to barely any voice acting in Ashes of Creation, just basic Greeting/Farewell messages from NPCs because of how expensive it is.

The video was great, though I didnt know it existed! If stealing a precious artifact from a city is a way to help with a siege, then count me in!

PlagueMonk

Amma wrote: »

Salty wrote: »

I am making a comparison to WoW because it has withstood the test of time. Many MMORPGs have come and gone and they are still there with an active fan base. What is that they've done right? One of those things I believe to be their ability to capture you into their world. The cinematics was unreal and rememberable for me at least. It would be a shame if ashes miss' the mark.

What they did right was to be the first mmo of its kind. Sure there were other mmos before like Ultima Online, but they looked different for example its isometric view.
When you have a kind of monopoly then you have all the millions of players.
I played wow for many years since BC. I didnt know anything about the lore, but what made the game addictive for me at the beginning was that big world with all of its possibilities to explore.
But that wasnt what kept me there. Most of the years it were the people in our guild who i knew then for years who got me to play the game. Its the social aspect that holds you in such a game, at least thats what it was for me.
I think every other mmo that is like WoW would have a similar success over the years, if they had the monopoly at the beginning, because even if the game gets worse from year to year, the social aspect can still hold you there.

I really wouldn't say they were the first. There were many others that had 3D modeling like DAoC, Everquest and Even EQ2 by a month. No, what Blizzard did was take all the elements that made the other games good and re-package them under Blizzard's slick and polished commercial label. People knew Warcraft and more importantly they knew Blizzard so they had multiple brand recognition working for them as well. All that came together at the exact right time to capture a large percentage of the gaming population who were burned out on other MMOs and looking for something new.

AoC on the other hand will be an evolution of the MMO. While there is a lot of familiarity with other MMOs, AOC will also offer things we have never seen before like a complex node system combined with a full time PvP experience. I doubt it will be a WoW killer but it should offer something unique that will lure a lot of players to play it and hopefully stay for a long while.

Dargron

Salty wrote: »

I am making a comparison to WoW because it has withstood the test of time. Many MMORPGs have come and gone and they are still there with an active fan base. What is that they've done right? One of those things I believe to be their ability to capture you into their world. The cinematics was unreal and rememberable for me at least. It would be a shame if ashes miss' the mark.

A far better comparison for Ashes of Creation is probably EVE Online, another popular MMO that has also stood the test of time (longer than WoW by a year) and seems far more comparable in overall game design. EVE Online doesn't rely on cinematics, epic NPC Heroes & Villains, nor an overarching narrative for player retention. In EVE Online, the players themselves and the rise and fall of the empires they create within the game are the overarching narrative - the only lore comes from the games backstory and interpreting clues and information witnessed within the gameworld.

HiddenDaggerInn

George Black wrote: »

Lore is not the only retainer in mmos.

I think a challenging mmorg can last if:
max lv cap takes a couple of months to reach with a 5 hours of smart gameplay every day.

gear crafting and looting takes time and effort

guild gameplay (wars, sieges, territory domination)

open world pvp (real friendships and rivalries)

large map with diverse biomes

challenging quests for group gameplay that enables a character to enter exclusive content, like the grand olympiad of L2 (most satisfying competition in any game ever ever ever).

yearly exansions introducing, +10 lv cap, new gear tier, new world bosses, new map zones, 1-2 new cities/castles to be dominated by guilds, 1-2 new skills per class for the new lvs and balance adjustments. Content in other words to challenge players that reached the cap for the next 4-5 months (xp gain has to be a lot harder for max lv yes?). Let's not kid ourselves, in mmorpgs only new servers are friendly to new players. Anything else dumps down content.

Then there are games like Elder Fashions Online that every three months throw in new gear designs for people to farm from the same old content, a small new map corner with a copy past story quest line and a couple of houses for you to decorate, while you spend money in the cash shop for a gambling chance and getting that useless and weird looking steampunkhorse or that skeletal-ghost with sprinkly aura cat ice mount.
A never ending single player rpg experience with none of that challenge nonsense.

Sounds like you're describing WoW 2 No thank you, no way do I want to have to level more after my max and get new gear!

George_Black

Never played wow.

Katak

Hellfar wrote: »

I hope they end up straying away from large player power increases and instead learn more towards a horizontal distribution of content throughout the game's lifespan. In the long run, vertical progression would lead to abandoned content that was once the end game, but no longer, and may even become soloable. I would like to see the available content at launch still be worthwhile and challenging 4 years into the game.

I think WoW is a testament to how vertical progression makes content stale in the long run. And, let's not forget about the stat squishes.

Player power is kept in check through multiple means, such as non-scaling damage (the damage of attacks doesn't change based on the level of your target, only by their resistances and other defenses).

Also, there is great design care in keeping all areas active and revisited by players. The node system itself almost corrects this problem, but there are other factors, such as available resources and quests/tasks that may take 'advanced' players back to where they started.

ariatras

Longevity is a difficult one. It hinges on a few factors. The first one will be your server's community. As witnessed by a lot of MMO's there tends to be faction imbalance. Luckily in Ashes you can freely switch "faction" or in this case citizenship. It may compound the problem, or it may solve it. It is something to keep an eye on regardless.

Another important factor would be over the course of your game, how invested are you in your character? This often overlooked I feel. There's a balance in for example. The amount of effort you have to put it for the amount of reward. If it takes too much effort for too little reward, people tend to lose interest. Too little effort and too much reward and people don't value the reward, and often by extension their character. When was the last time you started with gear that had no stats? Even the very popular WoW, at first didn't start giving you single stat points until level 10 where you got your first class quest reward proper. Whenever you level up, you get some dopamine, without actually gaining too much power. The old talent system for WoW for example. You didn't really have all that much choice, but it was always exciting to get a new talent.

Another factor. Is what I do fun? What you'll mostly find yourself doing is combat. Even when out mining, you can get attacked, both by mobs and players. So nailing combat is extremely important. There's a few things that are important here. Fluidity is one. But a degree of choice helps too. I can't wait to test this out by the way.

Yet another factor. Community. How easy is it to find people with a similar outlook on how to play? Are there even more options available? When you are bored in-game for whatever reason. Perhaps you're waiting for that last bit of exp for your node progression. Will the game not just encourage you to play together, but actually require you to? To tackle some problems. In other words, will the game naturally and organically cause you to build friendships with people as you progress? So when the time comes where you just don't feel like anything. You still log on to chat with your friends. When -that- happens. You know you're in business.

maouw

The games I've played the longest are the ones with interdependent systems. I think these are the best because:

They don't have carrot-on-a-stick (extrinsic) motivators, and are instead motivated by other aspects of gameplay which means much lower burnout, and you do things for contextual reasons.
They allow you to vary your in-game activity without "falling behind" since investing in other areas of the game indirectly enhances the core focus of the game (big numbers - for most games).
You aren't forced into a certain playstyle (whereas dailies coerce you into doing certain things that you grow to hate)
It's a really natural way to add pacing to the game in a way that makes sense. One moment your brain is on high alert in combat, another you're sitting on a mount with friends, and in another moment you're doing a cost-benefit analysis of items in the market. (Pacing and flow!! The secret sauce to everything)

There's just something wrong when a system is trying to induce self-motivation - like a towel trying to dry another towel.

Damokles

To everyone who brought on WoW as an example.

WoW only survived because of three simple facts:
1. It had a good grafic and gameplay since the beginning with a cult following already being established by earlier games. This brought in their hardcore playerbase and their innitial casual playerbase together with the social aspects of the game, which ensured that players kept on playing the game.
2. It began a rapid decline after the third expansion, but managed to hold on to many of their hardcore playerbase, because they already invested huge amounts of time and resources into the game to this point and didnt want to "lose" that by jumping ship to another game. Activision did that in combination with winning a huge casual playerbase with the implementation of LfG and LfR.
3. They held themselves over water, because they switched to a model of instant gratifaction. Everything you do nowadays in WoW does SOMETHING. It may give you some new shiny piece of gear or a pet or a new skin etc. You would have to invest serious time for such a thing back in the day's of classic or TBC.

Child Item