Ashes of Creation - Fiery Chaos Freeholds in your grassy fields

Its been announced by the team that short of player response and review that they currently have no intention to limit the use of cosmetics related to biomes and in effect the aesthetic of the world will be defined by players who intend to do the following:

""snowy mountain and then suddenly you turn the corner to see my freehold with a beach oasis skin on it and I sit atop of Mr. Stufferton, the magically animated stuffed poodle mount."

" large green happy field with butterflies, then suddenly you see my freehold tower with the skin on it of a dreadlord tower black and fiery. "
or"

Staff Post:
A segment of the quote:
"As of this time we haven't announced any restrictions on what kinds of cosmetics you could use in certain areas/biomes"
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/49096/brine-and-bounties#latest

This personally is a 100% deal breaker for me, Im not interested in playing yet another one of these mmorpgs, and I made my feelings abundantly clear.

Players who bought these aesthetics may be fine with it, but I would be interested in whether this world which will be the actual reality of the game acceptable to others.

as a noteworthy point: at present there is no intention to allow players to disable player bought cosmetics in-game, so that they arent affected by other players intending to choose to do this to the world... all while paying a sub fee...

So please post your opinions and comments, does this world sound acceptable to you? I for one feel a little side-swiped by the imagery depicting one thing and the intent being in effect the exact opposite (a beautiful immersive world which matters vs a cosmetic driven world dominated by cash-shop cosmetics, out of place free-holds and players riding corgis while changing their race to angels and demons....) but that is just me.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Khronus

@Dreoh Not sure you fully understand my comment but that's ok. I appreciate that you "sometimes" open my comments to see my perspective even though you have me on ignore lol. I guess I do have some value in my comments or you wouldn't even bother.

I'm sorry if you feel I am putting arguments into your mouth. I am literally responding to your comments. You told me if I don't like something I should be arguing for it on the forums.

Your criticism and view for what AoC should be, is NOT what my vision of what AoC should be. Find the balance.

Nerror

Dreoh wrote: »

Immersion is subjective, but there's also an objective core to it.
Gandalf pulling a gun out of his hat is objectively anti-immersive. Guns don't exist in Middle Earth.
Gandalf pulling a chicken out of his hat is subjectively anti-immersive. Gandalf may or may not be the kind of wizard to do that, and wizards being able to do that is up for interpretation.

Right, but we as players cannot add our own stuff like guns to the game universe. Stufferton is real in Verra. It's part of the canon and lore. Whether or not people feel like Stufferton is immersion breaking in AOC is purely a subjective matter. As goes for all the other cosmetics in all the settings.

Dygz wrote: »

Well, no, ALL immersion is not subjective.
It's like a bad piece of meat.
There is meat that is objectively bad and there is meat that is subjectively bad.
Doesn't matter whether an individual thinks the meat is subjectively good or bad - if it's objectively bad, the person who eats will likely become ill.

I don't think the meat analogy fits at all. We are talking about different ways to season the meat, from a predetermined menu, according to taste, not about something that can make you physically ill vs. something that won't, regardless of how it tastes.

Dygz wrote: »

Just because a person subjectively feels something is immersion-breaking does not make it objectively so.
Illusions in a high fantasy/high magic fantasy setting are not objectively immersion-breaking, rather it is consistent with the genre and with the specific setting - if the specific setting includes illusions.
That illusions are subjectively immersion-breaking to some individuals doesn't change the objective fact.

It doesn't make it objectively so because there is zero objective component to it. I think you are conflating immersion with what is considered "appropriate" setting choices for high fantasy. They are not the same thing. Immersion is a feeling you can have. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't think they have defined cosmetics as illusions in Verra. I think that is just your personal interpretation. Correct me if I am wrong

Dygz

No. You are talking about a different analogy that does is not actually analogous.
Seasoning is about what someone likes. Immersion-breaking is not about what someone likes.

Verra is a high fantasy/high magic world that includes illusions. That is objective.
What Dreoh is saying is that he doesn't like illusions and wishes Verra did not include them. That is subjective.
That is not the same thing as illusions being objectively immersion-breaking to the setting.

Illusion: a false appearance or deceptive impression of reality.

Nagash

Luck for me tombs like great anywhere

Khronus

Nagash wrote: »

Luck for me tombs like great anywhere

Really hoping to see some decrepit cemeteries down below. I don't think it would make sense to see cemeteries up above after 1000 years right? Down below we should see how the gross Tulnar race handled their dead imo.

Nagash

Khronus wrote: »

Nagash wrote: »

Luck for me tombs like great anywhere

Really hoping to see some decrepit cemeteries down below. I don't think it would make sense to see cemeteries up above after 1000 years right? Down below we should see how the gross Tulnar race handled their dead imo.

I mean ruins can been seen so why not tombs ^^

Khronus

@Nagash Ok ok, that makes sense to me. I was just thinking certain landscapes after 1000 years may be reduced to dust or covered (like in a desert). However, a snowy landscape would seem hardly touched aside from levels of snow. I'm a huge fan of anything skeleton so even if it is added and doesn't make sense, I will love it haha.

Under Verra though has some serious potential to see fresh graves. This would be so cool so have some undead bosses down there with fresh corpse ghoulies!

Nagash

Khronus wrote: »

@Nagash Ok ok, that makes sense to me. I was just thinking certain landscapes after 1000 years may be reduced to dust or covered (like in a desert). However, a snowy landscape would seem hardly touched aside from levels of snow. I'm a huge fan of anything skeleton so even if it is added and doesn't make sense, I will love it haha.

Under Verra though has some serious potential to see fresh graves. This would be so cool so have some undead bosses down there with fresh corpse ghoulies!

So tomb kings time.

EVEN BETTER!

Rinta

McMackMuck wrote: »

I will be mildly disappointed each time I see "immersion breaking" cosmetics, but it's not an immediate deal breaker for me...

Jamation wrote: »

I have mixed feelings about this because, using the example of a beach house in the snow, I know I wouldn't necessarily want to see it...

I'm on board with these more balanced opinions.
I know I won't enjoy some of the more ridiculous and immersion-breaking cosmetics / freehold arrangements, however if the the gameplay and community are enjoyable - I will tolerate it, and who knows, might even dabble in the madness on occasion. It's all about pros and cons, and while it's not a straight up deal breaker to me - it is definitely a "con".

Dreoh

Dygz wrote: »

No. You are talking about a different analogy that does is not actually analogous.
Seasoning is about what someone likes. Immersion-breaking is not about what someone likes.

Verra is a high fantasy/high magic world that includes illusions. That is objective.
What Dreoh is saying is that he doesn't like illusions and wishes Verra did not include them. That is subjective.
That is not the same thing as illusions being objectively immersion-breaking to the setting.

Illusion: a false appearance or deceptive impression of reality.

This is not true. I never said I don't like illusions. You're altering my argument, either maliciously or ignorantly.
In fact, my favourite class of all time is Mesmer in GW2. The Illusionist.

My argument is that I don't like theme-creep cosmetics and I think your excuse is cheap reasoning you're using just because you want it in the game. Or you're making an excuse that makes something you also hate more acceptable for yourself.

Dreoh

Nerror wrote: »

Dreoh wrote: »

Immersion is subjective, but there's also an objective core to it.
Gandalf pulling a gun out of his hat is objectively anti-immersive. Guns don't exist in Middle Earth.
Gandalf pulling a chicken out of his hat is subjectively anti-immersive. Gandalf may or may not be the kind of wizard to do that, and wizards being able to do that is up for interpretation.

Right, but we as players cannot add our own stuff like guns to the game universe. Stufferton is real in Verra. It's part of the canon and lore. Whether or not people feel like Stufferton is immersion breaking in AOC is purely a subjective matter. As goes for all the other cosmetics in all the settings.

See the problem there is you're right, but you're also wrong. Greed and monetization always eventually taint the canon and lore of a world.
The real question is, if the cosmetic shop and the need for financial gain didn't exist, would Stufferton also exist in Verra?
Stufferton became canon, but so did Jedi force healing, and we all know how people feel about that.

If a musket weapon skin was announced in a world that supposedly has no gunpowder, would you consider muskets canon?

Dygz

Dreoh wrote: »

This is not true. I never said I don't like illusions. You're altering my argument, either maliciously or ignorantly.
In fact, my favourite class of all time is Mesmer in GW2. The Illusionist.

My argument is that I don't like theme-creep cosmetics and I think your excuse is cheap reasoning you're using just because you want it in the game. Or you're making an excuse that makes something you also hate more acceptable for yourself.

It's not a matter of what I want in the game. It's what is in the game. And what's in the game fits with the setting.
An illusion is a false appearance or deceptive impression of reality. Skins and cosmetics create a false, deceptive impression of gear, mounts, buildings, etc. in the reality of Verra.
You are stating you don't want that because it breaks YOUR immersion. Which means you don't like the illusions Ashes of Creation provides in its setting.
And all I'm saying is that, objectively, it is not immersion-breaking because these illusions match the high fantasy/high magic setting of Verra.

You are creating a lot of false dichotomies.

daveywavey

Khronus wrote: »

Down below we should see how the gross Tulnar race handled their dead imo.

I don't know that they can add that into an age restricted game.

Shabob

Will it break immersion? I guess it could be off putting. I plan on putting my freehold in an aesthetically pleasing area that matches the theme of my freehold. I would bet many players plan on doing the same.

To call it a deal breaker though, that seems like an ultimatum and you're trying to hold the Dev's hostage to your opinions. That isn't healthy.

Roelath

Just make weather impact the way the structure looks? There are seasons in the game and if you're in a region that is winter just add snow to it. The Blazing Gate surrounded by snow and the lava cooled off further would be neat. I think the addition of foreign objects adds in a bit of mystery and antagonism towards a rival with those skins. It might make you more likely to burn down their node to see it removed.

Ventharien

@Dreoh Both you and OP are arguing from subjective standpoints that the devs can't possibly make gameplay decisions on. What you don't want to see is immersion to me. I want to be walking into the frozen wastes and see a magical pool of flowing water. Or a huge mushroom, or solitary tree in the middle of a desert. It would be Immersion breaking if there was some arbitrary magic rule that stops me from building something. It's my freehold, i'll build how i want.

I think from the replies you can see your view point is pretty outnumbered by those that disagree with you, and those that don't care. So why should the devs change a thing?

Dreoh

Ventharien wrote: »

@Dreoh Both you and OP are arguing from subjective standpoints that the devs can't possibly make gameplay decisions on.

Why can't they make gameplay decisions on it? Because you say they can't?

Ventharien wrote: »

What you don't want to see is immersion to me. I want to be walking into the frozen wastes and see a magical pool of flowing water. Or a huge mushroom, or solitary tree in the middle of a desert. It would be Immersion breaking if there was some arbitrary magic rule that stops me from building something. It's my freehold, i'll build how i want.

Nobody says those things can't exist, as they exist all the time in fantasy settings.
I'm fine with it as long as it makes sense, but if we eventually suffer theme creep, as cash shops always do, I personally don't want to see the stuffington version of a house next to a house that fits the setting.
That's when you enter the same visual ridiculousness as the "When your custom character is in a serious cutscene" meme

Ventharien wrote: »

I think from the replies you can see your view point is pretty outnumbered by those that disagree with you, and those that don't care. So why should the devs change a thing?

Number of opinions doesn't make an argument worth more or less.
Number of opinions does influence decisions sometimes though you're right.
I would also say those that don't care don't matter. They literally contribute nothing to the argument.

I'll even respond to this by saying Devs catering to the popular masses isn't always as productive as it sounds. Players will always optimize the fun out of a game given the chance, and they will always ask for shortcuts to difficult tasks, even when the fun of a game comes from those difficult tasks.
In that same vein players will cry for "cooler" cosmetics and such, endlessly pushing the bar of what's acceptable, until we suffer theme creep. It's inevitable, but doesn't have to be quick.
I think it's disingenuous to say because something is popular means devs have to cater to it or even that they shouldn't do what's unpopular for the long-term health of the game.

In the end, it is their decision. I'm just putting my arguments out there about how I feel about the game, as should you. But don't tell me my opinions don't matter because they're unpopular.

Ventharien

Your opinions literally don't matter. Neither do mine. As individuals. When this community comes together against any particular aspect of the game, Intrepid has a good track record of at least looking into the subject, and sometimes even pausing their chosen course of action. This topic is not one of those things.

You say in one sentence, all these things people are saying are fine as long as they make sense (i guess to you) but in the next say if someone had a stufferton house it would bad. The skin and house have an in game and lore description, whether you like it or not. So really all you're saying is you have an aesthetic you prefer and you only want to see the aesthetic you prefer. Which is fine, you do you, it's just almost noone is going to back that move, either because they don't care, or they find your stance stupid.

Like the OP had in his post, It's a deal breaker for him, so bye i guess. Just one of those things you either accept or go find another way to enjoy your time. Unless of course you can alter your argument in some way to get a bigger market share of the community.

Tacualeon

Archeon wrote: »

Staff Post:
A segment of the quote:
"As of this time we haven't announced any restrictions on what kinds of cosmetics you could use in certain areas/biomes"
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/49096/brine-and-bounties#latest

This personally is a 100% deal breaker for me, Im not interested in playing yet another one of these mmorpgs, and I made my feelings abundantly clear.

Players who bought these aesthetics may be fine with it, but I would be interested in whether this world which will be the actual reality of the game acceptable to others.

as a noteworthy point: at present there is no intention to allow players to disable player bought cosmetics in-game, so that they arent affected by other players intending to choose to do this to the world... all while paying a sub fee...

Cosmetic is the second source of revenue after monthly pay.
Disable cosmetic will never be an option. Ever.
Other players will have to accept it or leave. Money talks.

This is no bussiness shaming. We play videogame with our eyes and people have to pay rent.
Is either monthly pay+cosmetics.
Or monthly pay+pay2win.

Dreoh

Ventharien wrote: »

Unless of course you can alter your argument in some way to get a bigger market share of the community.

Who says I'm trying to get a bigger market share of the community?
I personally know that I never said that I was.

You're telling me that because my opinions on this matter aren't popular, they're worthless.
And that they only have worth if I can make them popular.
Like I said in my last comment, and like I'll repeat again for you..

Popularity has no bearing on the validity of an argument.

Ventharien wrote: »

Your opinions literally don't matter. Neither do mine. As individuals. When this community comes together against any particular aspect of the game, Intrepid has a good track record of at least looking into the subject, and sometimes even pausing their chosen course of action. This topic is not one of those things.

You're right, but you're also terribly wrong.

Yes individual opinions don't really matter in the great scheme of things, the same as a single voter's vote doesn't.

But a communities opinion is made up of individual opinions. So yes, individual opinions do matter.

In addition, the pitting of contrary ideas helps form meaningful compromise and offers opportunities for new ideas to come to light.

You coming in to here telling people that their feedback and opinions don't matter and that if they don't have a popular opinion then they shouldn't even bother is counterproductive at best.

Ventharien wrote: »

You say in one sentence, all these things people are saying are fine as long as they make sense (i guess to you) but in the next say if someone had a stufferton house it would bad. The skin and house have an in game and lore description, whether you like it or not. So really all you're saying is you have an aesthetic you prefer and you only want to see the aesthetic you prefer.

Do you see how my comment is made up of more than one sentence? It's because all those sentences make a whole comprehensive argument. You can cherry-pick sentences out of context all you want to fit any narrative.

I've already gone into great detail about my opinions on theme creep in other threads, and how games and other media who fall prey to monetary greed always eventually suffer it.
You say I have an aesthetic I prefer, but in actuality what I prefer is thematic consistency, regardless of aesthetic. It's a clear, definable difference.

Ventharien wrote: »

Which is fine, you do you, it's just almost noone is going to back that move, either because they don't care, or they find your stance stupid.

Almost no-one is not no-one
People who don't care have no bearing on these decisions, and do not matter. I even find it ridiculous whenever someone boasts that they don't care, the act itself is an oxymoron.
I don't care if people find my stance stupid. I myself find many stances stupid. Popular stances can be stupid. At the risk of bringing up politics, popular stances got us 4 years of ridiculousness in the White House.

Yes, I do think Intrepid will do what they think is best for the game.
I also know they are always looking for and accepting feedback. Steven himself constantly reminds us that he wants the community to offer feedback and suggestions.
Your stance is directly contrary to this.

Child Item