PVE Loving Game Design Experts are Sprouting in Abundance

Anyone notice a shift in the attitude?

Since the map size and open pvp rules change, there have been a plethora of PVE loving (newly discovered) game development experts that now believe there are issues at Intrepid with their staff and vision? Lack of experience, no Lead Game Designer, developers that wont stand up to Steven, etc. It seems pretty crazy to me.

Its like they think there must be problems because the studio has a slightly different vision than they do.

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Depraved

Azherae wrote: »

Smork wrote: »

Don't get your hopes up Abarat. Dygz says this game isn't for him about 10 times a day and he's still here. He has more copium supply than Narcs at this point.

Is this genuinely this weird/difficult to grasp?

That someone might decide to stay and help test or give feedback for a game they don't want to play?

Or is this moreso the concept that you don't think the game needs their feedback/presence?

Today's stream explicitly spelled out for me, for example, that I won't actually play this game past the initial sub that the Alpha One Tier covers. I had a line, Steven answered a question on stream that said outright "no we're crossing your line", and I mentally went 'oh ok that sucks, well, I should still do the testing'.

But one could genuinely argue that 'people who don't want to play the game shouldn't be giving feedback that might change it'. Is that what this is?

what was that line?

Azherae

Depraved wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Smork wrote: »

Don't get your hopes up Abarat. Dygz says this game isn't for him about 10 times a day and he's still here. He has more copium supply than Narcs at this point.

Is this genuinely this weird/difficult to grasp?

That someone might decide to stay and help test or give feedback for a game they don't want to play?

Or is this moreso the concept that you don't think the game needs their feedback/presence?

Today's stream explicitly spelled out for me, for example, that I won't actually play this game past the initial sub that the Alpha One Tier covers. I had a line, Steven answered a question on stream that said outright "no we're crossing your line", and I mentally went 'oh ok that sucks, well, I should still do the testing'.

But one could genuinely argue that 'people who don't want to play the game shouldn't be giving feedback that might change it'. Is that what this is?

what was that line?

"Open Seas are more rewarding."

Okeydoke

Abarat wrote: »

9% dygz fan

ROOKIE NUMBERS

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

"Open Seas are more rewarding."

W/o concrete info to me that still sounds like a weak justification and hype-building. But no matter what it is, it definitely does point in a direction that could be interpreted in not the best of ways.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

"Open Seas are more rewarding."

W/o concrete info to me that still sounds like a weak justification and hype-building. But no matter what it is, it definitely does point in a direction that could be interpreted in not the best of ways.

Well, that would be another good reason to stick around and test, but just from my own entirely speculative design 'sense', the REST of what Steven said on stream backs it up.

@BaSkA13 has been the most right of us all along, imo.

Corruption is going to be very harsh, by DESIGN, and Open Seas are 'to make up for it', but also 'more rewarding'.

Not the style of game I play, and I can't even have a different reaction than Dygz does so I once again wonder about it.

"And that's OK."

I like lots of OTHER things, lots of OTHER concepts that are part of Ashes. In my (arrogant?) mind, I could test those and still give good feedback on those. I don't expect 'Oh I don't play games with this risk/reward structure' to taint my feedback on 'Frame cancels for Healing spells while walking backward swinging a Mace'.

So why wouldn't I test?

I'd get tired of hearing 'why are you even here?' too. I might even respond to try to clarify a thing if someone seemed to misunderstand but not purposely misunderstand.

But if their real feeling is either:
"You don't mean that, you just want attention." or
"GTFO then, the game doesn't need anything from you."

Then yeah, no point in engaging with that.

Okeydoke

Azherae wrote: »

"Open Seas are more rewarding."

It's unfortunate if the game ultimately isn't for you Az. It's unfortunate when that's the case for anyone. It's gonna happen though, happens every day. Same way it happens to me with almost every mmo that exists. Many of them are just no go zones for me. Like they're not even close to satisfying my basic needs of what I find to be a fun game.

Not that my perspective really matters to you, but I'll give you a little of it. Aside from any and all other reasons that could be given for the open sea change, Steven kind of HAD to make the change for one main reason (imo) - Archeage 2. That game is going to come out with the same feature that Archeage 1 had, the lawless open sea. There's no way Steven is going to let his version of naval combat be a corruption system gimped version of Archeage 2's. I don't know if that's what prompted his decision. But it was almost inevitable that decision was going to be made.

As far as the better rewards, it essentially has to be that way. People are risking their ships. I'd say naval content takes a higher level of organization and expertise than land content, just in a general sense. All while they're at an elevated risk of being killed. So the rewards have to fit with these risks and challenges, to fit in the model of Steven's risk vs reward game. Just my opinions.

But I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point. He said more rewarding. He didn't say how much more rewarding. Could just be slight or moderate.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

I'd get tired of hearing 'why are you even here?' too. I might even respond to try to clarify a thing if someone seemed to misunderstand but not purposely misunderstand.

But if their real feeling is either:
"You don't mean that, you just want attention." or
"GTFO then, the game doesn't need anything from you."

Then yeah, no point in engaging with that.

I feel like people just use Dygz as a pariah, purely because he's an avid forum poster and has a unique personality that stands out. It's way easier to just point at Dygz and yell all the anti-pve-carebear stuff than to try and understand his pov and then use that understanding to better explain the game's design to any potential newcomers that have a differing outlook on the game's design.

And I'd imagine that in time you'd get similar treatment, because you also stand out and have already garnered a few senseless "haters" here and there.

It's all really quite dumb. Though that's pretty much me being both a kettle and the pot, cause I'm definitely not much better than the rest when it comes to welcoming newcomers to the forums.

Azherae

Okeydoke wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

"Open Seas are more rewarding."

It's unfortunate if the game ultimately isn't for you Az. It's unfortunate when that's the case for anyone. It's gonna happen though, happens every day. Same way it happens to me with almost every mmo that exists. Many of them are just no go zones for me. Like they're not even close to satisfying my basic needs of what I find to be a fun game.

Not that my perspective really matters to you, but I'll give you a little of it. Aside from any and all other reasons that could be given for the open sea change, Steven kind of HAD to make the change for one main reason (imo) - Archeage 2. That game is going to come out with the same feature that Archeage 1 had, the lawless open sea. There's no way Steven is going to let his version of naval combat be a corruption system gimped version of Archeage 2's. I don't know if that's what prompted his decision. But it was almost inevitable that decision was going to be made.

As far as the better rewards, it essentially has to be that way. People are risking their ships. I'd say naval content takes a higher level of organization and expertise than land content, just in a general sense. All while they're at an elevated risk of being killed. So the rewards have to fit with these risks and challenges, to fit in the model of Steven's risk vs reward game. Just my opinions.

But I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point. He said more rewarding. He didn't say how much more rewarding. Could just be slight or moderate.

Yeah, I know it has to be that way, which is why I wasn't really banking on anything else based on the explanations that ArcheAge players gave.

And just like Dygz, I would never think to myself 'Oh ArcheAge 2 is out, I wanna play'.

The only thing 'bothering' me (it really isn't), is that this was a change (forum seems to still be up in arms about whether it is or not, as of a few days ago) and I wanted to play 'The Ashes that was presented before this change'.

I wouldn't have pledged in if I thought this was gonna be ArcheAge 1.5, Nodes or not. So, to my original point... I'm here. I have 5-6 people with me that are very coordinated. We can manage a LOT of testing that less coordinated groups can't do. We're not going to go ask for refunds 'Oh because you wanted to make a Pirate MMO'.

Is that input/testing so 'worthless' that the reaction has to be 'why are you still here lol'?

Because I mean, it really might be, depending on how one views the goals of feedback for a game in development.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Is that input/testing so 'worthless' that the reaction has to be 'why are you still here lol'?

Because I mean, it really might be, depending on how one views the goals of feedback for a game in development.

The only ones who can tell you how important your feedback is are Intrepid. Everyone else can kindly go fuck themselves, cause I'm sure that we, at best, have a few pro testers here (if any at all) and outside of them ain't nobody got the rights to put down someone's feedback's worth.

Especially when that feedback comes from people with different backgrounds and gameplay interests. While the target audience might've shifted with that open seas change, there's still several features that can be (and I'd even say should be) tested by those who no longer fit the TA.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Is that input/testing so 'worthless' that the reaction has to be 'why are you still here lol'?

Because I mean, it really might be, depending on how one views the goals of feedback for a game in development.

The only ones who can tell you how important your feedback is are Intrepid. Everyone else can kindly go fuck themselves, cause I'm sure that we, at best, have a few pro testers here (if any at all) and outside of them ain't nobody got the rights to put down someone's feedback's worth.

Especially when that feedback comes from people with different backgrounds and gameplay interests. While the target audience might've shifted with that open seas change, there's still several features that can be (and I'd even say should be) tested by those who no longer fit the TA.

Well yeah but in that sense I'm not really asking about THAT, sorry for the ... derail?

I kinda want to know, IF the people who have this reaction even CAN be reasoned with, what form should that take? What is it on their minds that makes them so weirded out by 'I don't really want to play this game but I'll help test features' to the point where they need to go around telling OTHER people 'that person doesn't mean that'?

I'm aware that there's minimal chance that my assumptive model of why they do this is right, but I kinda need a new one.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

I kinda want to know, IF the people who have this reaction even CAN be reasoned with, what form should that take? What is it on their minds that makes them so weirded out by 'I don't really want to play this game but I'll help test features' to the point where they need to go around telling OTHER people 'that person doesn't mean that'?

I'm aware that there's minimal chance that my assumptive model of why they do this is right, but I kinda need a new one.

As much as I want to keep believing in people, it's really hard to do. And so far I've seen no indications that those who say those things can change. I've tried helping bring the opposites povs to a closer point (to varying success), but I quite often feel like I'm overstepping with my assumptions of what one side might've meant.

But no amount of help would really change the underlying problem of "people just don't have the empathy nor the understanding to see someone else's pov".

I think it just comes down to the "internet posters rule" (not official name), where all the regulars are insane in their own little way (sometimes not even little).

Like, Dygz could easily ignore everyone who keeps pinging him with dumb comments - but he doesn't. And in a way it creates the classic troll loop. Now it's obviously not Dygz' fault for having differing views on games, nor is it his fault that other people have a problem with his views.

But I do believe that troll starvation works in the long run. At least it's been working just fine for me so far.

P.S. ayo top10 spammer

Smork1

"That someone might decide to stay and help test or give feedback for a game they don't want to play?"

Yes becuase repeating the same personal view point over and over again is testing/helping.... /s

All he does is make assumptions on how bad the Core AoC systems will be before the testing for those systems are even out and repeat that its not the game for him and he won't be playing.

He's just trolling at this point.

BaSkA_9x2

Regarding the ocean without corruption, it definitely must be a place with rewarding resources and content! Ships (probably) won't be cheap and swimming, mounted or not, to the middle of the sea will likely be annoying.

However, I still fail to see how that reason (or any other) justifies the removal of corruption from a gameplay standpoint, from a risk vs. reward standpoint and from a original design/lore standpoint.

Gameplay: it was probably going to be uncommon to see groups of casual players with average gear score spending resources to build a ship to try to do ocean content with corruption. If not many people were going to do it, now less people will. FFA means more power to numbers (e.g. ARK, Rust, Conan, Last Oasis), so I have just a feeling that zergs will dominate (even more than they already would) the relevant ocean content. Lastly, the removal of corruption might alienate players from playing the game due to the lack of their "safeguard" and it might not bring in as many players as it "lost" because of it.

Risk vs. reward: the ocean was always gonna be the best place to PK as it's easier to run away, harder to be tracked and killed and almost free of BHs (unless BHs make a One Piece Navy guild - that could be fun). If corruption equals risk, like Steven used to say, although now there's more risk of finding PvP there, it's also less risky because you can't turn red.

Original design/lore: corruption everywhere, anti-griefing, no player segregation, "Ashes will never have an FFA PvP zone" (Steven's words from some 2018ish Theory Forge interviews) and maybe other things I'm missing.

Some other quick points: no, Ashes' ocean can't be compared to RS' Wildy; no, they didn't do it because of "technical reasons", that's bs; yes, they did it to (also) cater to the PvP audience because they realized the corruption system probably kills most of the owPvP; I expect some compromise to the PvE audience to balance the scale; I hope I'm wrong, but I won't be surprised if they announce that now besides corruption, Ashes will also have nullsec (we have that), lowsec and highsec zone rules for owPvP.

The removal of corruption from the ocean might be a great addition to the game, I just wish we reached that conclusion during testing phases, feedback, polls, etc. It also might be a shitty addition to the game, but I'm not sure if testing phases will be able to show it. Who knows, maybe they'll toggle corruption back on in the ocean for a month during Alpha 2 to see if it's better or worse, in whatever way they measure good and bad.

Cheers

Dygz

Smork wrote: »

All he does is make assumptions on how bad the Core AoC systems will be before the testing for those systems are even out and repeat that its not the game for him and he won't be playing.

He's just trolling at this point.

Um. When did I say the Core Ashes systems will be bad?
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

Smork1

Dygz wrote: »

Smork wrote: »

All he does is make assumptions on how bad the Core AoC systems will be before the testing for those systems are even out and repeat that its not the game for him and he won't be playing.

He's just trolling at this point.

Um. When did I say the Core Ashes systems will be bad?
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.

I was meaning bad for you. In your opinion the systems are bad for you as in you won't play it due to these systems. Or is bad the wrong word.

Dygz

Bad is probably the wrong word.
Ashes is too hardcore PvP-centric for me. And I would say Steven's gameplay philosophy is too hardcore PvP-centric for me.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

You are 73% Explorer
67% Achiever
40% Killer
20% Socialiser

87% Killer

♣ Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may be "nice", ie. busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an approach because the rewards (a warm, cosy inner glow, apparently) aren't very substantial. Much more commonly, people attack other players with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style of play). The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused it. Normal points-scoring is usually required so as to become powerful enough to begin causing havoc in earnest, and exploration of a kind is necessary to discover new and ingenious ways to kill people. Even socialising is sometimes worthwhile beyond taunting a recent victim, for example in finding out someone's playing habits, or discussing tactics with fellow killers. They're all just means to an end, though; only in the knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about it, is there any true adrenalin-shooting, juicy fun.

53% Achiever
40% Socialiser
20% Explorer

ClintHardwood

Azherae wrote: »

Smork wrote: »

Don't get your hopes up Abarat. Dygz says this game isn't for him about 10 times a day and he's still here. He has more copium supply than Narcs at this point.

Is this genuinely this weird/difficult to grasp?

That someone might decide to stay and help test or give feedback for a game they don't want to play?

Or is this moreso the concept that you don't think the game needs their feedback/presence?

Today's stream explicitly spelled out for me, for example, that I won't actually play this game past the initial sub that the Alpha One Tier covers. I had a line, Steven answered a question on stream that said outright "no we're crossing your line", and I mentally went 'oh ok that sucks, well, I should still do the testing'.

But one could genuinely argue that 'people who don't want to play the game shouldn't be giving feedback that might change it'. Is that what this is?

But why would you want to test and provide feedback for a game that you are fundamentally opposed to? One typically has better things to do in their life, and there are endless PvE grindfest treadmill MMOs out there to enjoy.

Dygz

Better than what?
I've tested tons of games that I didn't play.
Especially games that my friends are working on.
You seem to think testing games can't be interesting or informative.
??

ClintHardwood

Dygz wrote: »

Better than what?
I've tested tons of games that I didn't play.
Especially games that my friends are working on.
You seem to think testing games can't be interesting or informative.
??

Why waste fleeting moments of your life doing free (or rather pay to do) QA for a game you'll never play? Is it a simple matter of curiosity? The kindness of your noble heart? And more vitally, how can you provide proper feedback to a game you're fundamentally opposed to? It's like me trying to tell FPS developers how to create the perfect FPS despite harboring a burning dislike for the genre. Who am I to tell them how to make something I don't enjoy 'fun'?

Child Item