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

George_Black

Noaani wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

The corruption system works fine since 2003.
There wont be guild/group corruption bs.
Move along.

The downside to this line of thought is that the MMO community is significant different to what it was back then.

We are more informed, better organized and have much, much better communication.

This means any weakness in any system would be 10 times worse now than back then. Just because it worked back then, doesnt mean the same system will work now.

No.
People are more entittled. I hope AoC sticks to their guns. After all, either you create a solid passion product, or you go wow clone and cash in.

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

The corruption system works fine since 2003.
There wont be guild/group corruption bs.
Move along.

The downside to this line of thought is that the MMO community is significant different to what it was back then.

We are more informed, better organized and have much, much better communication.

This means any weakness in any system would be 10 times worse now than back then. Just because it worked back then, doesnt mean the same system will work now.

No.
People are more entittled. I hope AoC sticks to their guns. After all, either you create a solid passion product, or you go wow clone and cash in.

There are more than two options, and there is no reason a passion product cant take inspiration from what used to work and modify it to fit in to today's climate.

In fact, I would say doing that is a requirement of a passion project, otherwise it's just a clone of L2 instead of WoW - and that is no less bad.

I do agree with you about people being more entitled though. However, that doesnt stop them being better informed and better organized.

bigepeen

Things that I want: A game that emphasizes PvX, and makes open world PvP fun, meaningful, and not opt-out. I'm looking for a big open world that has risk and reward, not just a reward treadmill that we find in so many games.

Things that I don't want: Any P2W or pay for convenience. I also don't want a lobby MMO where people spend time removed from the open world in instances; there are plenty of games that already do that.

As far as I know, all of these fall in line with the game design that Intrepid has advertised so far.

Songcaller

Noaani wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

The corruption system is only there to protect the sheep. Many of the wolves have called for it to be removed or lessened so they can hunt at will.
Why you think the hunters(wolves) want to be punished for hunting?

I made a joke over a year ago about the removal of the corruption system. It turned into a 4 or 5 hour debate with Noanni lol.

You spelt my name wrong.

Yeah I'm dyslexic and didn't scan for a confirmation post. Also, it's the thought that counts

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

The corruption system is only there to protect the sheep. Many of the wolves have called for it to be removed or lessened so they can hunt at will.
Why you think the hunters(wolves) want to be punished for hunting?

I made a joke over a year ago about the removal of the corruption system. It turned into a 4 or 5 hour debate with Noanni lol.

You spelt my name wrong.

Yeah I'm dyslexic and didn't scan for a confirmation post. Also, it's the thought that counts

To be fair, the list of people that have spelt it that same way on accident is somewhat distinguished.

Songcaller

Noaani wrote: »

To be fair, the list of people that have spelt it that same way on accident is somewhat distinguished.

Yeah, it wasn't meant to be a malicious error but I haven't edited the error away either lol.

Dygz

Okeydoke wrote: »

I could be wrong dygz but I think he's saying he thought steven had a more hardline stance on corruption and that it'd be so harsh that essentially no one would ever risk corruption.

This is a line of thought from phase 2 of the militant pvers handbook. If you can't abolish the system, castrate/neuter it to meaninglessness.

Uh. No. Because then there would be no point in having Bounty Hunters.
Gaining Corruption is supposed to be relatively uncommon - not practically non-existent.

Okeydoke

Exactly

Noaani

bigepeen wrote: »

I'm looking for a big open world that has risk and reward, not just a reward treadmill that we find in so many games.

I agree with this.

The question I have for people (Steven included) is this; if I am out with my guild of 40 people,and we run across a group of 8, what penalty do we face from attacking them?

We are going to win, and some of us are going to gain corruption. However, thay corruption will be worked off before anyone can kill those that gained corruption.

To me, this sounds like a reward treadmill.

George_Black

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

I'm looking for a big open world that has risk and reward, not just a reward treadmill that we find in so many games.

I agree with this.

The question I have for people (Steven included) is this; if I am out with my guild of 40 people,and we run across a group of 8, what penalty do we face from attacking them?

We are going to win, and some of us are going to gain corruption. However, thay corruption will be worked off before anyone can kill those that gained corruption.

To me, this sounds like a reward treadmill.

Word gets out. An enemy guild shows up. Big pvp. Great story for the server to discuss for days to come.

So what if you got away with it this time?

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

bigepeen wrote: »

I'm looking for a big open world that has risk and reward, not just a reward treadmill that we find in so many games.

I agree with this.

The question I have for people (Steven included) is this; if I am out with my guild of 40 people,and we run across a group of 8, what penalty do we face from attacking them?

We are going to win, and some of us are going to gain corruption. However, thay corruption will be worked off before anyone can kill those that gained corruption.

To me, this sounds like a reward treadmill.

Word gets out. An enemy guild shows up. Big pvp. Great story for the server to discuss for days to come.

So what if you got away with it this time?

That isn't going to happen every time though. It may happen some times, but in order to happen it requires a guild of similar size, similar persuasion, and similar location to all be online at that point in time and all have nothing better to do.

But then, even *IF* this happens, that isn't a penalty though.

There was still corruption gained with no real penalty, or chance of a penalty.

Is that not something you are as against as me? You want risk vs reward, that means there needs to be risk. Right now, in a moderate sized group, there isn't any risk.

Edit; or do we all secretly just want a game where the bigger group will always just curb stomp the smaller group?

George_Black

The bigger group will always win. Unless the small group plays against 5 yearolds.

I am totally ok with a large number of players PKing everything in sight and then managing to get away.
Make friends. Make guilds. Start animosity. Have fun.

I have been there and it works fine. People got used to instanced content and opt in pvp. I cant convince anyone. Let them try the game on release

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

The bigger group will always win.

Not the point.

There is supposed to be risk in attacking other players.

Attacking in a large group means there is no risk. It isn't about "managing to get away" at times.

Either the game has risk vs reward at all levels, or it should have it at none.

If the solution to problems like this is always "next time, bring more friends", then most people are going to hear that as "next time, play a different game", and that is what they will do.

Why have corruption at all as a mechanism to decide whether it is worth attacking other players or not when that decision is skewed towards always just attacking them the more you outnumber them?

That is the point.

Okeydoke

There is risk there, minimal if you're engulfed by a friendly zerg, but still risk. I think it is a valid concern, the way zergs and the corruption system interact, we'll have to see how it plays out in development. But I think its partly going to be by design. Strength in numbers is just a reality.

How do you counter it? Strength in numbers yourself. Take note of who killed you and get revenge at some point. Sometimes you're just going to get merc'd though. Sometimes you're just going to be on the losing side of an engagement. Everyone will at times. Move on from it and do the same thing to them that they did to you.

George_Black

Many times we saw zergs in L2 with reds in between them.

We rushed a target and looted the gear. We got killed as well but it was fun ruining the day of one red zergling.

I dont want to see guild penalties for pk. It's just stupid.

Noaani

Okeydoke wrote: »

How do you counter it? Strength in numbers yourself.

That is a slow burn for any games death.

If you can only go out and play the game if you are in a group of 40+ players, how long do you expect the average player to stay subbed to the game?

akabear

Have to agree with George on this one.

Yes, sometimes a guild did do a sweep as a larger force and even do sustained pvp with some reds in the mix.
But it was still a risk.. only the bold or the mistaken ventured forth red. And yes, sometimes they came unstuck. Wars were sometimes invoked this way, when one party did not want to play ball.

And there were still opportunists that popped the reds, and ran off with the gear.

And a well organised and skilled small group can put a less skilled zerg on its knees. And sometimes even an individual, in my L2 days experience.

Okeydoke

You're whittling it down to just that scenario, that's not going to be the way it goes every time. Zergs are a problem in many pvp mmos though. Ashes is at least taking a stance on trying to minimize them.

But everyone's not just going to be repeatedly mowed down by 40 man zeros. If thats the way the game turns out then the devs fucked up. Its going to happen sometimes. Sometimes it might be done to you and sometimes you might be the one doing it. Welcome to a pvp game.

Noaani

Okeydoke wrote: »

You're whittling it down to just that scenario

That is because any scenario that is advantageous to players will become the predominant scenario.

I agree, if the game ends up being something where large groups of players just kill smaller groups of players without needing to put any thought in to it, the developers would have failed.

What ideas can we possibly come up with to prevent this from happening...

George_Black

Noaani wrote: »

Okeydoke wrote: »

How do you counter it? Strength in numbers yourself.

That is a slow burn for any games death.

If you can only go out and play the game if you are in a group of 40+ players, how long do you expect the average player to stay subbed to the game?

Ye because around every corner there will be 40 dudes that want to PK.

The ideas are there:
Progress takes time instead of endgame crap.
Items have value instead of being a matter of an instanced run.
Different biomes offer different gatherables, instead of everybody going to cyrodiil to zerg around.
There will be node activities, instead of everybody lving up and "that's it. Im done. Let's kill noobs".

These things prevent fantasy scenatios of 40 men wanting to pk you.

Child Item