A point about the subscription-only model

This post is to give praise for the decision to go with a subscription-only model and outline one notable reason why it's such a good idea.

A big problem with MMO's who use box prices is the separation of content locked behind the investment and effort of the players.
Many players today, as seen in other MMO's, treat MMO worlds as single-player RPG's like Skyrim. As if you're supposed to experience all the content. They feel like they're entitled to experience all the content just because they've paid for the game with a box price and therefore pressure the developers into helping them do so. This is how pay-to-win systems become a thing. Because few players can actually put in the time and effort to naturally progress to all the content the MMO provides. But all the content is seldom designed to be seen by a single player. There's just too much of it.

And this is why the lack of a box price is such a good idea. Because no player now owns the game world. They're not entitled to experience all the content, and should hopefully not feel the same FOMO that kills other MMO's.

The issues I'm talking about are clearly seen in World of Warcraft where each update introduces several new catch-up mechanics so that each casual player gets to experience all that they paid for, and at the same time making perfectly good old content irrelevant and skippable through level-boosts. But through Ashes subscription-only model, I hope players can relax their FOMO and give the developers the freedom to make a good game for the invested players instead of a game for everyone.

But those are just my thoughts. What do you think? Feel free to dissect this topic. Keep it civil!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

It took years before Archeage had even a single max'd out item using a system similar to the enchant system Ashes is going to have.

Literally no one ever "got through" the content.

There is a theoretical limit to progression with systems like this, but it is not one that players are likely to reach. As such, in practice, there is no limit on progression.

Well, by content I didn't necesarelly mean ''having the top level gear and mounts and stuff'' (although it was part of what I meant, I admit, and I stand corrected if things stand as you put them, I admit I'm not faimilar with Archage or the system in question).

What I meant was more in the lines of ''there will be more levels, zones, instances, battlegrounds, node siege and caravan systems, classes, specs, etc to experience.''

Having to go through 30 extra levels for examples, through several extra zones, through several other instances and battlegrounds, in the context of world pvp and extra profession content... that's great.

People shouldn't want to skip those extra 30 levels, those extra dungeons and zones and .... yeah.

Hope things are more clear now.

Sorry if I was unclear so far.

Noaani wrote: »

I think you have mis-understood what has been said in this regard.

Steve s comments in this regard have all been more directed at the fact that players will still be in all areas of the world and so not leave starting areas abandoned, and that lower level materials will be needed for higher level crafts, meaning higher level people may want to harvest in lower level areas.

I'm pretty sure Steven said that ''old raid content'' will be relevant because ''old raid content'' items will be able to be smelted/disenchanted for valuable mats.

So people would still get ''old players'' for old raids.

Or maybe I misunderstood this.

Either way, this is what I meant.

maouw

what if you take catch-up mechanics and apply them negatively:
slow-down mechanics for those on the cutting edge?

Ravel

I am confused now. AoC is not a subscription model only, afaik.It is nice you do not need to pay a box price, because it lowers the threshold to try the game, but I understand there will be a cash shop, so how can it be called subscription only?

ShadonSol

Ravel wrote: »

I am confused now. AoC is not a subscription model only, afaik.It is nice you do not need to pay a box price, because it lowers the threshold to try the game, but I understand there will be a cash shop, so how can it be called subscription only?

When you say stuff like "sub-only" or "free to play", that refers to what's required to play the game. And since you only need an active subscription for AoC, it has a subscription model. The cash shop will be purely cosmetic and Steven has emphasized multiple times that in-game achievable stuff will be on-par. Hope that clarified things a bit!

Noaani

Ironhope wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

It took years before Archeage had even a single max'd out item using a system similar to the enchant system Ashes is going to have.

Literally no one ever "got through" the content.

There is a theoretical limit to progression with systems like this, but it is not one that players are likely to reach. As such, in practice, there is no limit on progression.

Well, by content I didn't necesarelly mean ''having the top level gear and mounts and stuff'' (although it was part of what I meant, I admit, and I stand corrected if things stand as you put them, I admit I'm not faimilar with Archage or the system in question).

What I meant was more in the lines of ''there will be more levels, zones, instances, battlegrounds, node siege and caravan systems, classes, specs, etc to experience.''

Having to go through 30 extra levels for examples, through several extra zones, through several other instances and battlegrounds, in the context of world pvp and extra profession content... that's great.

People shouldn't want to skip those extra 30 levels, those extra dungeons and zones and .... yeah.

Hope things are more clear now.

Sorry if I was unclear so far.

Catch up mechanics don't allow for skipping levels. They allow for speeding up progression.

Every MMO ever released (that I am aware of) has players spend more time progressing their gear than their character level. This is why most catch up mechanics are gear based, not level based.

The most basic of these are skipping steps towards higher end gear.

Imagine a game where you have a linear gear set progression. You get item 1, use it to make item 2, then item 3, 4, 5, and 6. Each step in that represents a weeks worth of effort per step, per item.

Players play the game for a year, and so have a mixture of 52 items upgraded to a higher step. Great, good for them. Then the developers introduce steps 7 and 8 to the game, each of which take 3 weeks of effort to get, well before anyone has managed to get all of their items to step 6.

However, because the developers want new players to have a reasonable chance at catching up, rather than requiring them to go through that whole process and take a year just to get to where current players are today (a year later, players will have progressed up to steps 7 and 8). So, what the developers do is they eliminate steps 2 and 4, meaning players can go 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and then 8. This cuts 2 weeks off the time it takes these new players to get items up to step 6, allowing them to catch up a little faster to where players are.

This is the basic outline of most catch up mechanics other than the "WoW" system. In WoW, all they do is slap on a few new levels, give quest gear at that new level cap that is almost as good as (or better than) top end gear from the previous level cap, and then new players need not even concern themselves with what happened before the level cap increase.

Being the "WoW" way, this is obviously something I am not overly in support of.

Uncommon Sense

Shouldn't need catch up mechanics in a sandbox type mmo.
The players who get ahead will need to help newer players get established as the in game society dynamics will require it.

And new players should see veterans as something to aspire too.

It should not be required in a well designed game in needing to bubble wrap or hand hold the new player.

TheDarkPaladin

ankh wrote: »

I've always enjoyed the "catch up mechanics" that unlock when a certain number of players hit certain milestones. Of course, those are most applicable to games in which whales can take off from the start and leave everyone else in their dust, but in a game like Ashes having small boosts to exp gain after a bunch of people hit level cap could help those who find the game late get into all the world-altering content without getting crushed until they give up or bypassing all the "low level" content

NO.

Ravel

ShadonSol wrote: »

Ravel wrote: »

I am confused now. AoC is not a subscription model only, afaik.It is nice you do not need to pay a box price, because it lowers the threshold to try the game, but I understand there will be a cash shop, so how can it be called subscription only?

When you say stuff like "sub-only" or "free to play", that refers to what's required to play the game. And since you only need an active subscription for AoC, it has a subscription model. The cash shop will be purely cosmetic and Steven has emphasized multiple times that in-game achievable stuff will be on-par. Hope that clarified things a bit!

I am not sure what you explained. Except the concept of: what's in a name. To that I say: ok.

But when a game developer invests time and money to set up a cash shop and create content for it, and also makes it a subscription game, to my mind it is only a marketing ploy to frame the game as subscription only. But to me the developer is clearly double dipping like the rest of them (game publishers).

Not that I mind, but I still do not understand how anyone can call that a subscription only model.

Noaani

Uncommon Sense wrote: »

Shouldn't need catch up mechanics in a sandbox type mmo.
The players who get ahead will need to help newer players get established as the in game society dynamics will require it.

And new players should see veterans as something to aspire too.

It should not be required in a well designed game in needing to bubble wrap or hand hold the new player.

Sandbox or themepark have no effect on the need for catch up mechanics.

The only thing that does have an effect is the presence or absence of post-launch progression. If they never add progression to the game, there is no need for catch up mechanics.

There are no social dynamic requirements that would see established players needing ro help new players several years after release.

Uncommon Sense

Most Sand box game have horizontal progression so no catch up is required. Themeparks are typically linear progression making catchups more prevalent. But It primarily the power creep that has the most detrimental impact to the new player experience later in the games life cycle.

There is some crossover. GW2 sort of made gear progression irrelevant and the way player level is scaled to the environment makes old content somewhat relevant. However i personally do not like world environment scaling. Instance/PVP scaling is fine.

But i can log out for GW2 for 2 years log back in an my old characters are still viable...

However to compare a expansion+$shop and a Sub+$shop.

Gw2 expansions often act as a platter for the cash shop offerings to expand. Each game expansion offers a new mechanic. Glider/glider skins. mounts/mount skins. More global crafting materials and items $inventory/bagspace...

GW2 is so full of item bloat and management I stopped playing. Ther's just too much too much. Character progression and power creep is 1 thing, But Item variety and stuff bloat is almost just as bad as a new player to "catch up" to.

I can't recall if intrepid is planning on level cap increase with expansions. Not sure i would with 64 player archetypes+augments. But i don;t think linear progression is a design element Ashes is leaning on. So catching up should not be a major concern. But a cosmetic only store with no convenience items gives me some hope that item and inventory bloat will not eventuate.

Time/reward. If you put in the effort then it should show. If a new player then gets a 'boost/catch up' how does that make the veterans efforts justified.

I suppose I came from the boomer oldschool mindset of winners and losers and not everyone got a participation reward.

A true sandbox like Minecraft has none of these issues.

Nerror

Uncommon Sense wrote: »

I can't recall if intrepid is planning on level cap increase with expansions. Not sure i would with 64 player archetypes+augments. But i don;t think linear progression is a design element Ashes is leaning on. So catching up should not be a major concern. But a cosmetic only store with no convenience items gives me some hope that item and inventory bloat will not eventuate.

Steven has mentioned increasing the level cap a couple of times in a future expansion, so it's definitely on the table. But they do have a lot of horizonal/parallel progression in the game planned already.

tautau

While I personally don't like 'catch-up' mechanics at all, I won't complain about them if the developers are able to implement them in such a way that 1. we have a steady stream of new players joining the game a couple of years down the road and 2. the catch-up isn't too fast. If it takes me, playing from day 1, two years to do something, I'll be grouchy if a new player does it in two months.

The two year grind for me was great fun, don't deprive the new player of that experience. But yeah, new players are good to have around, too!

Noaani

Uncommon Sense wrote: »

Most Sand box game have horizontal progression so no catch up is required. Themeparks are typically linear progression making catchups more prevalent. But It primarily the power creep that has the most detrimental impact to the new player experience later in the games life cycle.

This is kind of a red herring here.

First of all, we are talking about Ashes, not "most sandbox MMO'S".

Second, Ashes will have both horizontal and vertical progression. This is a given.

Third, look at a game like EVE. It is as horizontal progression based as any game out there. Yet, it still takes months for a new player to become relevant in that game - and EVE has introduced a number of catch up mechanics.

Uncommon Sense wrote: »

I can't recall if intrepid is planning on level cap increase with expansions.

Larger expansions will add new content and increase various aspects of the game.
Increased level cap.
New gear sets.
New zones.
New bosses.
New skill levels.
Increased power levels.
Gear upgrades.

This is why catch up mechanics in Ashes are just going to be a fact, eventually.

Noaani

tautau wrote: »

While I personally don't like 'catch-up' mechanics at all, I won't complain about them if the developers are able to implement them in such a way that 1. we have a steady stream of new players joining the game a couple of years down the road and 2. the catch-up isn't too fast. If it takes me, playing from day 1, two years to do something, I'll be grouchy if a new player does it in two months.

The two year grind for me was great fun, don't deprive the new player of that experience. But yeah, new players are good to have around, too!

I agree with this if that thing you had to grind for isn't required in order for that new player to play the game at the level that most players are playing it when they start.

That is the thing about catch up mechanics, they are generally only really applied to things that are needed to get players to that point - they are not applied to everything.

George_Black

At some point people will have to accept the fact that Stevens best mmo times, upon which he builds AoC is korean style risk v reward and time invested gratification against casual gameplay, take their heads out of the sand and try a new experience, instead of pushing for more eso, ff14 systems and features.

Uncommon Sense

It will be interesting to witness how Intrepid will handle the power creep without violating their "Cosmetic only" Shop mantra. If the Themebox/sandpark swings more thempark and the expansion shuffle content pump and dump occurs then catch up mechanics are the least of Ashes problems by that stage.

George_Black

Catch up mechanics, being ingame systems, isnt p2convenience (p2w).
They just dump down content with every expansion, which makes the game less amazing for new players, more of an endgame push, which will lead to new players still be bad comparing to seasoned players, but the ingame gear and items will lose value.
Crafting is ez to get good at as opposed to combat. Crafters will lose importance due to more players quickly reaching higher lvs.

Again.. for new players we need new servers every couple years or so. That's the only way to maintain the integrity of mmos.

Uncommon Sense

I agree a fresh server option per expansion will address many if not all the issues.

George_Black

Uncommon Sense wrote: »

I agree a fresh server option per expansion will address many if not all the issues.

Perhaps a few welcoming servers every couple years in the regions with higher playerbase with the option to migrate to the old servers once you hit a certain lv, for the people that want better ping.

It's not realistic to expect new servers frequently and for every location on the planet.

Uncommon Sense

population density will dictate the viability of new servers. But offering a new per region sever with an expansion shifts the onus catch up issue raised on the player not the developers.

The issue with server mergers is the independent node system means no 2 servers are the same.
However 2 dead low pop servers would likely benefit from a merge when the node systems are not being sufficed.

Child Item