Do you think you are a part of the "Target Audience"? Why or Why not?

I was going to ask this in the related thread, but I feel this question is specific enough to need a separate thread.

I'll start:

I think I am a part of the target audience. Here is why.

I value the emergent storytelling that comes from a persistent open world competitive environment as the apex of modern gaming. Games like Eve, Darkfall Online, Lineage 2, and Mortal Online have been among my favorite examples. Games where the world is not an instanced theme park, but a theater of war for real-world people to not have to role-play, but to actually be a part of a real war. To me, the drama and betrayal that comes from these environments is better than any book I can read or movie I can watch.

This is what Ashes is trying to do with the node and corruption systems. The node system turns the traditional MMORPG world into a living, breathing theater of war. No longer will zones, be static areas for developers to tell their stories, but instead they will be dynamic areas for players to live their stories.

What also appeals to me about Ashes is that, unlike the four games listed above. Ashes has what those games have, and the features of a modern MMORPG. Mounts, cosmetics, housing, and good graphics. I have always said that I love Sci-fi, but if there was a fantasy game that was like EVE with modern third-person combat. That would be the game for me. Ashes is not exactly that, but it is a close enough cousin to get me excited and accept some of the things I feel are flaws.

If you think I am not a part of the "Target Audience", based on anything I have just said. I invite you to tell me why as well.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

CriminalCupcake wrote: »

I feel that the major systems such as guilds, town mayor, sieges, etc are against solo play. I feel that the intense loot drop from PvP is against solo play. Even running your materials from one node to another in a caravan, if you are solo, you defend solo.

Intense loot drop is only for Corrupt players. I have a feeling you don't intend to be gaining Corruption often.

CriminalCupcake wrote: »

Everything boasted about this game has been group play, Guild association, and being banded together. We already have people complaining in forums about *the game being too hard*. I'm not exactly saying that because I know what i signed up for lol, but I think others here also feel they aren't the target audience, and I think i see that in their posts. Call me asinine or pretentious, that's ok im cool with it. Its all about the feeling that 'I' get.

Lots of people tend to focus on group play.
But, again, Social Orgs and Religions can be solo play.
It's not as easy to find dev quotes about solo play, but they exist.
I think the people complaining about Ashes being too hard haven't played. But that, again, is not about the target audience, that is who will actually play after everything is implemented.

CriminalCupcake wrote: »

Also does anyone else feel like the forums are dying? I know it's a lull time between tests but... I see the same names only in recent discussions. There's only a dedicated few.

(Always feels like mostly the same people to me - though, I don't think I see Nagash on as much. Also, feels like there have been a few new people this past week or so).

Dygz

Ravel wrote: »

It is good to hear that even when Intrepid misses the target completely when releasing AoC, I will still be part of the target audience.
But that is of little importance. What is important, for me, is, not whether I am in the target audience for AoC, but whether I will like the game, and that is not entirely in the hands of Intrepid.

So, am I in the target audience?

If, AoC is able to attract the more social players and less the competitive players of games that are constantly e-peening, then I am the target audience.

Right. This is kinda my point.
I'm definitely in the target audience. Whether I will enjoy the game once the game launches is questionable and depends on how well they nail the implementation.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

Other people's capacity to tell themselves that the game will turn out to be something they enjoy has nothing to do with the development or the marketing.

Exactly.
Whether it's something a fan will actually enjoy is different than the target audience.

Azherae wrote: »

Dygz started this with the assertion that everyone on the forums believes they are part of the target audience, was told 'no' by at least two people, and then as usual 'decided that those people were wrong'.

I don't think I decided that those people are wrong about what they believe.
I'm sure they know what they believe.

Your perspective is in no way what I'm challenging with this response, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't even remotely underscore Dygz's point, because Dygz's point started from the usual position of 'whatever someone says a thing is meant to be, is what it is'. Starfish.

Probably something like that, I think.
I expect people to mean what they say.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

If Cupcake had left the words 'solo player' out of their post altogether, Dygz wouldn't have been able to latch onto them. There are multiple issues with being a solo player in Ashes that do not currently have any presented solutions, so those players are left hoping.

Players left hoping is different than being the target audience.
What are the issues with being a solo player that makes solo players not part of the target audience?

I dunno what "wouldn't have been able to latch on" means.
I asked for clarification.

Azherae wrote: »

Some of the issues literally cannot be solved without diminishing some of the benefits of grouping. That's a known part of design (or at least I HOPE so or there will be some unpleasant awakenings later), and Ashes has explicitly stated multiple times that they will prioritize the grouping aspect.

That again, is about implementation and is different than target audience.
In what ways will soloing in Ashes diminish the benefits of grouping??

Azherae wrote: »

It doesn't matter if Intrepid 'hopes' to fulfill the wishes of two diametrically opposed groups within the same design space, because the possibility of doing so may be beyond their reach.

While that is true, it's different than target audience.

Azherae wrote: »

You are a solo player who wants them, or (I doubt this) does not yet realize the parts of it that will make your experience lesser. Cupcake might just not want them, or just 'already can see the parts that will diminish their experience'.

It seems to me that Cupcake is unaware of the systems that are planned for solo players because Cupcake states "Everything boasted about this game has been group play". That quote simply isn't true.
Lots of people in the forums focus on group and bitch about solo play even being a possibility in MMORPGs.
And, while the devs focus on hyping group play, they have also spoken about the systems they have for solo players because they want solo players to have a home in their game. That inherently means that solo players are a part of the target audience.
Whether people believe the devs will succeed in supporting solo players satisfactorily is different than who is the target audience.

Azherae wrote: »

Except that Dygz' quote inexplicably treats 'solo players' as a monolith.

I don't think I agree.

Azherae wrote: »

"Ashes says it will appeal to solo players" and since you are a Solo player and it appeals to you, they have done as they said? They have met the bare minimum requirement of at least some percentage of solo players?

I'm pretty sure I've said a bunch of times that target audience is different than what the devs actually end up implementing. Target audience is also different than actual successful appeal.
Perhaps the intended question is: Do you think you are the primary audience?

Azherae wrote: »

"Some subset, including myself, of the total varied concept of 'solo players', has been convinced that they are part of the target audience."

I think this is moot.
I conceded to you on the first page that there are people here who believe they aren't in the target audience.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

The dev decisions are to design for all MMORPG fans.

I know hundreds of MMO players that know for a fact that they are not a part of Ashes target audience - and that is a group that expands to tens of thousands when you expand beyond the people I know.

That group is people that primarily play MMO's for top end raid content. Ashes is not at all targeted at these people.

These people have every other aspect of MMO's at their disposal, and have rejected all other aspects as being less enjoyable than top end raid content. Ashes isn't going to magically make these people enjoy crafting or PvP more than they enjoy raiding, and since Ashes is absolutely not going to support a top end raid scene, this game is straight up not for people that want one.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

The dev decisions are to design for all MMORPG fans.

I know hundreds of MMO players that know for a fact that they are not a part of Ashes target audience - and that is a group that expands to tens of thousands when you expand beyond the people I know.

That group is people that primarily play MMO's for top end raid content. Ashes is not at all targeted at these people.

These people have every other aspect of MMO's at their disposal, and have rejected all other aspects as being less enjoyable than top end raid content. Ashes isn't going to magically make these people enjoy crafting or PvP more than they enjoy raiding, and since Ashes is absolutely not going to support a top end raid scene, this game is straight up not for people that want one.

Are you in that group?

Okeydoke

Watching animals breed
Carebear tears on tap
I can get people off my lawn
Just kidding

Yes I feel like I'm in the target audience. Fully funded, well funded, no publisher pushing nonsense, Western, old school and new school at the same time, pvp is not an afterthought but a core and critical part of the game. Just everything, I could list it all out but it's all in the wiki. The wiki is mmo porn.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

The dev decisions are to design for all MMORPG fans.

I know hundreds of MMO players that know for a fact that they are not a part of Ashes target audience - and that is a group that expands to tens of thousands when you expand beyond the people I know.

That group is people that primarily play MMO's for top end raid content. Ashes is not at all targeted at these people.

These people have every other aspect of MMO's at their disposal, and have rejected all other aspects as being less enjoyable than top end raid content. Ashes isn't going to magically make these people enjoy crafting or PvP more than they enjoy raiding, and since Ashes is absolutely not going to support a top end raid scene, this game is straight up not for people that want one.

Are you in that group?

Undecided.

Unlike most of the people I play MMO's with, I enjoy PvP and crafting quite a lot. I still prefer raiding to anything else in an MMO (top end raiding is a far bigger challenge than top end PvP)

I have been saying for about a year now that I am unsure if I am actually going to play this game when it launches, and if I were offered a refund for what I have spent, I would take it.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

The dev decisions are to design for all MMORPG fans.

I know hundreds of MMO players that know for a fact that they are not a part of Ashes target audience - and that is a group that expands to tens of thousands when you expand beyond the people I know.

That group is people that primarily play MMO's for top end raid content. Ashes is not at all targeted at these people.

These people have every other aspect of MMO's at their disposal, and have rejected all other aspects as being less enjoyable than top end raid content. Ashes isn't going to magically make these people enjoy crafting or PvP more than they enjoy raiding, and since Ashes is absolutely not going to support a top end raid scene, this game is straight up not for people that want one.

Are you in that group?

Undecided.

Unlike most of the people I play MMO's with, I enjoy PvP and crafting quite a lot. I still prefer raiding to anything else in an MMO (top end raiding is a far bigger challenge than top end PvP)

I have been saying for about a year now that I am unsure if I am actually going to play this game when it launches, and if I were offered a refund for what I have spent, I would take it.

Makes sense.

Vhaeyne

I was delighted to wake up to 33 new replies in this thread. I did take the time to read through them all, but to address everything of interest would take me hours with as long-winded as I can be.

Also, happy to see we are not dropping lists anymore and having a discussion. While insightful, a list of likes is not what I was asking for. I should have been more explicit.

No doubt, there is some pointless arguing when it comes to who ashes is for. Intrepid will say that the target audience is MMORPG players, and this is not wrong. They will also tell you that Ashes is not something every MMORPG player is going to like. This is also not wrong as well. Some people are having an issue reading between the lines here, and it is just leading us to debating in circles.

We need to understand that a call for anyone to try the game is not a promise that the game is will be desirable for everyone. Like it or not, there is a failure of communication here between Intrepid and the player base. @Noaani would not feel that he may want a refund if this was not the case. There would not be so many new people on the forums every week, surprised to learn about core mechanics or systems that are dealbreakers for them.

The fact that we have so many people in this short thread on the fence about Ashes is evidence of that. I want Ashes to do well because it is the type of game I like. Other people want Ashes to do well because they think Ashes is the type of game they will like. Intrepid saying things like we will tweak things in Alpha and Beta gives players false hope that the game will change to their liking.

The problem is that some of these possible "Tweaks" would ruin the game for me and make it amazing for someone else. Something as simple as the existence of a single PvE server would devalue all the meaning and effort of obtaining anything on a PvX server. I would lose interest entirely.

Again, I want Intrepid to try and be more clear on the design goals of Ashes and what will or will not change. Just them saying there will be tweaks as needed is leading some people on with false hopes and burdening other players with what may be false worries.

I want to know what won't be tweaked? What, do I not have to be worried about?

This is a question only Intrepid could answer.

Okeydoke

I agree maybe Intrepid should clear certain things up, just to do it. But I don't see why they HAVE to any more than any other game. Does Pantheon Rise of the Fallen have to come out and reiterate that their game is a pve focused game with no open pvp? No I doubt it. You go to their website or other sources of info and read about the game and decide if it's for you.

The problem in the case of Ashes is people read what the game's all about and then decide to try to get it changed to what they want, instead of just going to Pantheon that is what they want like wtf.

If there was some ambiguity in Intrepid's designs I'd understand more. But it's all laid out point blank in wikis, dev streams, Steven interviews. I really don't remember, did Archeage have to constantly come out and say yep were still making the game we said we were making?

More clarity is better and Intrepid might as well just do it. But this is beyond clarity for some people, it's not about clarity for them, it's about an agenda and pushing for it no matter what.

Vhaeyne

Okeydoke wrote: »

I agree maybe Intrepid should clear certain things up, just to do it. But I don't see why they HAVE to any more than any other game. Does Pantheon Rise of the Fallen have to come out and reiterate that their game is a pve focused game with no open pvp? No I doubt it. You go to their website or other sources of info and read about the game and decide if it's for you.

The problem in the case of Ashes is people read what the game's all about and then decide to try to get it changed to what they want, instead of just going to Pantheon that is what they want like wtf.

If there was some ambiguity in Intrepid's designs I'd understand more. But it's all laid out point blank in wikis, dev streams, Steven interviews. I really don't remember, did Archeage have to constantly come out and say yep were still making the game we said we were making?

More clarity is better and Intrepid might as well just do it. But this is beyond clarity for some people, it's not about clarity for them, it's about an agenda and pushing for it no matter what.

I like what you are saying and agree to an extent. The problem is that we have people like Noaani who are on the fence. I have talked with Noaani on here for a year now, and I don't get the impression that he supported Ashes because he is dumb and does not know what he likes.

I think it is far more likely that he has had to parse through contradictory Dev quotes for years after taking the Kickstarter at base value. Which has left him confused about if he is going to like Ashes. This confusion is a problem for many of us. I stated at the start of this thread that I love Ashes because it has roots in many of my favorite games. As far as I know, it still does.

There is little confusion about Pantheon and Mortal Online because the devs are far more explicit about what they want the game to be. Those two games are both MMORPGs and yet could not be more different. Ashes may or may not be somewhere in between, and to what extent we don't yet know. To me, that is a problem.

I am worried the game may change to be something I don't like.

Okeydoke

I've only been fully following the game for a year and a half or so, so if there was more ambiguity back then before I got here, then I understand.

I don't know what's in Noaani's heart and mind or what his impressions were throughout his whole experience with this game. So this is just me talking, I don't presume to fully know or understand anyone's exact experience.

But just in the case of Noaani, what does he care about most? Top end raiding content that can pretty much only be done to his standards in pvp free instances. Well that's almost the exact opposite of what Ashes is.

"Ashes of Creation will be a seamless open-world experience." - May 2017

"Instancing is only going to happen in certain dungeons where the desire is to have greater narrative appeal. Outside of these and arenas there will not be too much instancing anywhere else.[3]" - May 2017

It's not until early to mid 2020 that Steven quotes the 80/20 rule of open/instanced. So maybe there was some ambiguity for awhile.

Not that any of this really matters. Does everyone watch every live stream or interview Steven does? Of course not.

I think you're right, some more clarity would be good.

Edit: So essentially I changed my mind while writing this post. I still don't think Ashes owes any more explanations than any other game though.

Sathrago

Vhaeyne wrote: »

There is little confusion about Pantheon and Mortal Online because the devs are far more explicit about what they want the game to be. Those two games are both MMORPGs and yet could not be more different. Ashes may or may not be somewhere in between, and to what extent we don't yet know. To me, that is a problem.

I am worried the game may change to be something I don't like.

This right here is the fine line a game developer needs to walk. Having a vision for the game that is stable but willing to make changes to upgrade the game for a better experience, even if it turns out to be different from their initial take. However knowing how far to go with such changes is extremely difficult, and most normal people would get annoyed or insulted when their ideas/creations get rejected.

It is only natural, yet this causes such an issue for them. The sad thing is many games completely ignore this issue, leading them to focus so heavily on "I am right the masses are stupid and should go play another game" that they forget they are alienating more people than just the idiots talking nonsense.

Look at Mortal Online 2, They have an insane crafting/gathering system that is supplemented by a wide range of limited skills that creates a unique player experience where choices matter, Yet interacting with these systems mostly entails the PVE side of the game. Which, if you have not seen yet, is garbage. A.I for pets/npcs in the world is really really bad, It's not enjoyable to go out and fight creatures that have not even been programed for you to block with a shield.

Yet, their focus is all about pvp. They have an entire half of the game that is being overlooked for a tiny fraction of hardcore pvpers. It obviously makes the game feel unfinished, yet to a degree that they shouldnt even be talking about an early release... But here we are, nearing an early release with so many features still not added in the game and many clunky unrefined mechanics and bugs.

The game has the potential to be more than just a niche hardcore pvp sandbox mmo. The foundations are within the game already, they are just squandering it to spend more time on the pvp aspect. This is why I feel the same about ashes of creation with it's proposed features. The potential is there, and unlike Mortal Online 2, I believe steven and crew are working towards a building an entire game. Rather than focusing on one aspect and calling it a day once that particular feature is finished.

Dygz

Okeydoke wrote: »

If there was some ambiguity in Intrepid's designs I'd understand more. But it's all laid out point blank in wikis, dev streams, Steven interviews. I really don't remember, did Archeage have to constantly come out and say yep were still making the game we said we were making?

More clarity is better and Intrepid might as well just do it. But this is beyond clarity for some people, it's not about clarity for them, it's about an agenda and pushing for it no matter what.

I think there's a considerable amount of ambiguity - people tend to read and interpret what they want and ignore what doesn't fit their playstyle. They then pretend it's not in the game design.

The wiki is great, but sometimes you have to have a solid idea of what you're looking for to find the quote you know exists.
And often it's best to review the actual source, rather than rely on the wiki summary/paraphrase.

Okeydoke

Dygz wrote: »

I think there's a considerable amount of ambiguity - people tend to read and interpret what they want and ignore what doesn't fit their playstyle. They then pretend it's not in the game design.

That's more so wishful thinking on an individuals part. But just writing my response to Vhaeyne I realize now there was some ambiguity, or lack of clarity for awhile.

Vhaeyne

@Sathrago

I agree that Mortal's decision to launch early is crazy with the current level of finish on the game. I also think that for what Mortal is trying to do, the vision seems much more clear to me. Which is why I used it as an example. I am not worried that the Mortal will change too much.

I know the focus for Mortal 2 will always be open world PvP. I never expected Mortal 2 to be anything more than a niche hardcore sandbox MMORPG. I don't have any worries about Mortal 2 at this time.

I just am slightly annoyed they are doing the early launch.

Azherae

As an example of ambiguity that cleared up a lot for me in a positive way, that might not seem to make a lot of difference to others, on a recent stream, Steven verified how many Guilds could be in an Alliance, and that Guilds could only technically be in one Alliance.

Before that point there were quite a few things to be concerned about that would have emerged from a different answer. Getting that answer, for me, alleviated a lot of my concerns about the game.

I'll give an equivalent concept for New World to clarify why. When I heard that New World was going to be faction based PvP with self crafted gear, my first thought was 'wait, what's their system for preventing the snowball?'

And then I watched the news through the testing phases, looking for it... aaaaand... nothing, at least so far.
Now of course one could say 'they'll obviously change it, why would they leave it like that?'

But would you bet on it? i.e. preorder New World before you saw the change?

Okeydoke

Azherae wrote: »

But would you bet on it? i.e. preorder New World before you saw the change?

I already did preorder it before I knew it was a problem. But yeah New World has some major flaws including snowballing. I haven't heard anything about a fix for it either.

Dygz

Vhaeyne wrote: »

There is little confusion about Pantheon and Mortal Online because the devs are far more explicit about what they want the game to be. Those two games are both MMORPGs and yet could not be more different. Ashes may or may not be somewhere in between, and to what extent we don't yet know. To me, that is a problem.

I am worried the game may change to be something I don't like.

Of course, I would say that is because the target audience is all MMORPG fans.
You can find a dev quote supporting pretty much any MMORPG playstyle:

If you want to be a Crafter and you are really into crafting goods for other people and selling them on the market place, you can do that. You don't have to participate in any of the other systems if you don't want to. There's a role for almost every style of player.
--- Jeffrey

Multiple playstyles should be relevant and viable. Additionally, you have a spread between casual players and hard-core players; and most of us exist somewhere on that spectrum. The progression path in a society or religion is more conducive to the time we have to play. Whereas, someone else may be playing several hours a day, and they have a better opportunity for the raid/level progression that might require some more dedication. So we want to have these different progression paths available to accommodate the different times in our lives that we have to play the game. And all of those types of progressions will make us relevant in some way shape or form to the general world.
– Steven Sharif

The idea is to incorporate some significant chunk of time but still respect the casual player, because you know the way we respect the casual player is not everything is driven in our game through the adventuring progression line. Not everything is driven through your class level per-se. There's a lot of different progression paths that are available and make you relevant within certain systems and mechanics within the game; and some of those paths are more casual friendly and some of those paths are more hardcore friendly. So with regards to the adventuring class, the idea is to make sure that investment needs to be pretty significant and that the reward then is respective of that investment.
– Steven Sharif

There will still be instanced dungeons. Some instanced dungeons will be present and those will be created for solo quest-lines or group quest-lines.
– Steven Sharif

If there is a problem with the devs creating systems so that there's a role for almost every style of player, it's that the devs won't explicitly say which playstyles are not included in their target audience.

Child Item