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

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

This green? #002e00
Or this green? #bbfcbb

You decide.

That is kind of what I am saying.

Everyone has their own opinion of what green Ashes is - but no one knows what green Intrepid have in mind.

bloodprophet

Noaani. Define what PvX means to you not what someone else thinks it means

bloodprophet wrote: »

Noaani. Define what PvX means to you not what someone else thinks it means

What I think it means doesn't matter.

What matters is that there are many different definitions that different people have, and all of them are right.

BaSkA_9x2

I don't think I'm able to say I'm part of the target audience.

Sure, AoC will have many elements I like, but if the game do not click with me, I won't play it. It's happened to other games I spent money on in the past and will surely happen again in the future.

I hope the game feels good (to me), doesn't feel like a chore 90% of the time and that the class I choose feels good to play.

If none of these boxes are ticked, although I might be "the target audience", I sadly probably won't play it.

bloodprophet

Noaani wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Noaani. Define what PvX means to you not what someone else thinks it means

What I think it means doesn't matter.

What matters is that there are many different definitions that different people have, and all of them are right.

Don't dodge the question.

bloodprophet wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Noaani. Define what PvX means to you not what someone else thinks it means

What I think it means doesn't matter.

What matters is that there are many different definitions that different people have, and all of them are right.

Don't dodge the question.

I'm not dodging it, I am saying that the question is in no way related to the topic.

bloodprophet

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

What did you think the x meant.

Again, what I think it means is unimportant.

What you think it means is unimportant.

What Neurath thinks it means is unimportant.

What is important is that the three of us all have different meanings for it - and all of them are both right and wrong because there is no definition for it.

On the contrary you have dodged the direct question of what you think several times already.
Why?
We are asking what you think it means.

bloodprophet wrote: »

We are asking what you think it means.

That both PvP and PvE are unavoidable to progress.

Now, explain to me what this adds to the conversation?

Noaani wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

We are asking what you think it means.

That both PvP and PvE are avoidable to progress.

Now, explain to me what this adds to the conversation?

Noaani: 'The sky isnt a real color because everyone has a different opinion!'

Everyone: 'gives their explanation of the color they see. Some explain Raleigh scattering.'

Noaani: 'See it isn't real you disagree.'

Bp: 'what color do you see though'

The point of asking is because you come off as arguing the color didn't exist rather than just 'here is the different ways we detect the color. It matches these scientific principles probably'.

It makes it easier to -gasp- relate to you and try to explain things in a way you will understand better. Shocking in a public discourse forum I know.

JustVine wrote: »

Noaani: 'The sky isnt a real color because everyone has a different opinion!'

This is a pretty poor analogy to make here.

It would work if we were talking about a natural phenomenon, or basically anything that isn't purposefully man made.

With the sky, there is no "one correct color" to call it other than just blue, because there is no one to ask what color it was made to be, and everyone looking at it does have a different opinion of it, and sees it differently to others, and even differently to themselves on different days, or at different times of the day.

However, if you ask the same question of a painting of the sky, there is one correct answer - the color (or blend of colors) that was used to in painting it is the color it is. This is not subjective, but objective. There is one clear answer, and the person that painted that painting should be able to give you that answer.

Ashes of creation is a man made thing, as such, there is one correct answer as to what PvX in Ashes should mean.

Yet here we are with all these differing meanings that many of us have placed on it.

Some of us have tied it to gear, some to content, some to progression, some see it as simply as an unspecified ratio of a blend of game modes, some see it ass a specific ratio of a blend of game modes, some are saying it has elements of two modes that could be separated, some say it has those same elements mixed.

Yet some are also saying that it's obvious what it means, and those that can't figure it out are obviously missing something.

Those of you in this thread, feel free to tell each person with a different take on what PvX means exactly what it is they have wrong with their interpretation, because I am not brave enough to pick any one of the above and say "this is the right one".

But if we are obviously missing something, as some of you have claimed, I am sure you are able to pick the right one - go for it.

And then we have to take in to account that this is only one of the two terms Intrepid use to describe the game that are essentially meaningless due to being un-defined.

The other is "sandpark" - and I am quite happy to go over this whole thing again with that term if any of you think you are accurate enough in your understanding of what that term actually means.

Or... or, we could just all agree that these terms leave too much ambiguity to be used as informative marketing for a product that we are not yet able to see in it's final form, and are not able to get first hand accounts of from other users.

Which is what I said in the first place.

I will add my definition to the pile.

Player versus Variable, where the variable purposely does not exclude any given activity found in an mmo.

Environment, Player, Objective, Raid, Resources (crafters know what I mean)

You can plug in any of those known possible variables into the x and it still made sense when talking about the game.

It's designed to tell you something. But it's also designed to make you fill in the blanks. Because that's what good marketing does. But it's also built this way to avoid sticky labels that would cause people to hold a strong belief not easily explained away that it is only one type of game. It is good marketing, but not informative beyond giving you a general sense that they want to aim at making something where all the variables matter.

Other than your definition everyone else's definition given fits this model. It's not that they aren't different. It is that they are all CORRECTLY different.

Now that I have described the marketing equivalent of Raleigh scattering I am sure you all have much to discuss.

JustVine wrote: »

It's designed to tell you something. But it's also designed to make you fill in the blanks. Because that's what good marketing does.

Good marketing of a product, sure.

Intrepid aren't marketing a product yet though, they are marketing a concept.

As you have a background in marketing, I'm sure you understand the difference.

bigepeen wrote: »

Open world PvP isn't fair. You can be outnumbered, or be caught in a situation where everyone is at low health after killing a group when another group shows up, for example. These situations aren't fair, and it's unlikely that you will fight in completely fair situations in open world.

Ashes has open world PvP combat with Corruption, so it depends on what is meant by fair.

What I hate about the PvP-Optional servers I've played in early EQ and WoW is being forced into a hardcore activity when I'm in the mood for casual activities. Typically, right after I've spent my hour of PvP and I'm away in a secluded area waiting for the timer on PvP flag to expire. Especially, when I can be corpse camped, looted, gain xp debt, etc if I lose, but even if I win - that just adds more time to PvP flag. So that is a lose/lose scenario for me. Even if I win the battle, I still lose because PvP flag time gets reset. And I have to hope I make it far enough away to not be roped back into another unwanted battle before I'm fagged as PvE again.

Ashes is actually more fair than that.
If I don't want to fight, I can just die and gain the normal death penalties. I don't have to worry about corpse runs. Supposedly can't be corpse camped. Loot is just resources; not gear. And...I won't be flagged as a combatant.
Corrupt characters suffer death penalties at 4 times the normal death penalty and have a chance to drop loot which others can pick up. Sure, they could have friends kill them to work of the Corruption, but that still leaves them with 4x the time it takes them to work off the penalties compared to me.
So, that is somewhat of a lose/win scenario. Even if I lose the battle, I still win. My killer gets 4x the death penalty I do - and they have to die in order to work off the Corruption. And, I don't have to wait for a PvP/combatant flag to cool down.

Which means, if I don't want to fight, it's probably easy enough to just let my attackers kill me and then continue to do what I was doing. Albeit with a bit of xp debt.

It's really just a matter of seeing how well Corruption works as a general deterrent.
Steven expects it to work fairly well because it works well in Lineage 2 and Corruption is a bit harsher than Karma.

We just have to see.

akabear wrote: »

All these additional mechanics suggestions look like a trend to not have the community decide the rules of fair play and exercise justice but the dev`s to provide mechanics to control it..

...from sandbox to themepark to sandbox to themepark again.

A community of gamers do recognize the concept of fair play.
That is precisely why typically in most MMORPGs there are separate PvE-Only servers.
It's precisely why, while I am PvP-Optional - I typically move from the PvE-Optional servers to the PvE-only servers. And the PvE servers typically have a higher population than the PvP servers.

Gamers primarily just care about domination and winning. They don't care about fair play, they will do anything the game allows to them to do to win. Hence, the fiasco of New World trying to be a hardcore open world PvP-centric game.

Ashes is a themebox; not a sandbox.

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I think if you got mixed up with a good guild that was progressing and the guilds problems became your problems. You would be so focused on everything you need to do to make yourself and your guild more powerful. That you would not care about having a mount collection or exploring every zone. You would be too busy crushing it with an actual team of humans to care about end-games the way FFXIV and WOW have them. Things like instanced raids would not matter because your guilds dealings would be too important.

This wasn't addressed to me, so... I understand that you were saying the person you responded to has a mindset/playstyle similar to yours and you understand that you and I do not...

My bartle score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
So, it would never be that joining a guild would lessen my desire to explore every zone.
I would never being interested in "crushing it". Crushing it is not the motivation I have for being social in MMORPGs. I would rather go visit my guild members' freeholds to take a look at their mount collections.
I would probably spend more time holding mount races on their freeholds than I would out in the world "crushing it" with them.
Although, Ashes Castle Sieges are fun, so my would be doing some of that together, regardless of whether we actually "crush it".

Lots of different playstyles in MMORPGs and Ashes has almost everyone of them as their target audience...according to Jeffrey. All playing on the same server. The challenge is having all those playstyles willing to play together on the same server.
Though Jeffrey indicates that different servers will have different concentrations of the playstyles, so it will be fairly easy to find a server that best fits your playstyle as those with similar playstyles migrate to the same server.

Ashes doesn't have an end game, so I definitely wouldn't be caring about endgame.

mcstackerson wrote: »

I'm pretty sure i did.

When it comes to PvX, It's either PvPvE or player vs anything. I'm not sure what more you want. If PvE means player verse environment and pvp means player vs player, how is it hard to understand pvx is player vs both environment and player.

While i agree sandpark is a little weirder and is more of a term we use because of people's bias for both sandbox and themepark games but i also don't see it as being a hard thing to understand if you can define the two others. Sandbox is a game focused on player freedom and agency, you are free to do what you want. Themepark is focused on curated content i.e. linear questing and progression. A Sandpark is a game that has elements of both, usually using themepark elements to get players into the game and then give them the freedom of the sandbox.

When it comes to how MMO’s have been traditionally designed, most gamers are familiar with two distinct types of gameplay loops: the “theme park”, and the “sandbox”. The vast majority of MMO’s we’ve all seen come and go in the gaming industry have been of the theme park variety – these games put the player onto a specific path, guiding them along, with plenty of pretty sights in between the same old quest hubs, very little in divergent paths, virtually no freedom in player progression. Recently the MMO genre has seen some games of the sandbox nature come onto the scene, but despite the ultimate freedom the sandbox affords players, many are left wanting more, as there is by definition no pre built world content, no human touch, just the vastness of the “sand” for lack of a better term. Thus many MMO players often find themselves caught between the repetitive rock of the theme park or the vast dead spaces of the sandbox’s hard place. This chasm between the state of MMO gameplay loops is where we intend to inject Ashes of Creation’s Node system.

In order for sandbox mechanics to mean something, there must be curated content to accompany the player’s choices. Which means, as the developers, we must create that Themebox style content but for every possible path the community may take.
---Steven Sharif

Noaani wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

It's designed to tell you something. But it's also designed to make you fill in the blanks. Because that's what good marketing does.

Good marketing of a product, sure.

Intrepid aren't marketing a product yet though, they are marketing a concept.

As you have a background in marketing, I'm sure you understand the difference.

Actually it's the reverse. It'd be bad marketing of a product because more concrete examples are required at that stage of production. Where as here they benefit in not committing to a single idea or being pigeonholed into one because it better allows them to attract donations and investments.

A key rule when analyzing marketing: Just because the marketing doesn't work on you doesn't mean it's not effective. You might not be close to their average target audience.

JustVine wrote: »

Actually it's the reverse. It'd be bad marketing of a product because more concrete examples are required at that stage of production. Where as here they benefit in not committing to a single idea or being pigeonholed into one because it better allows them to attract donations and investments.

A key rule when analyzing marketing: Just because the marketing doesn't work on you doesn't mean it's not effective. You might not be close to their average target audience.

Just to be clear, you are saying it is good marketing for Intrepid to not be clear about the game they intend to make at this point in time because it may cause people that are not interested in the final product to unwittingly give Intrepid money.

Whereas, contrast that to what I am saying, which is that it is bad marketing for Intrepid to not be clear about the game they intend to make at this point in time because it may cause people that are not interested in the final product to unwittingly give Intrepid money.

Now, if that is not what you are saying, by all means clear it up.

if it is what you are saying, I think most people can draw their own conclusion from those two statements.

Songcaller

Noaani wrote: »

That both PvP and PvE are unavoidable to progress.

Now, explain to me what this adds to the conversation?

So all MMOs are PvX by the power of your logic. I think you've taken the umbrella term too far. Even in PvP Servers you must PvE to reach max level and therefore progress. You can't avoid the PvE, even twinks have to be levelled to the optimum level. Level 1 twinks are the exception of course but level 1 twinks are often used solely for PvP and therefore are only PvX in terms of gear used. Its rare to find level 1 PvP Armour, I've never seen it and I've never used it.

Edit: Spelling mistakes.