mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Marcet wrote: » If you like to play alone, like a lot of us want, you can't expect to reach goals as high as a coordinated group of people. You just can't be that entitled. If this was the case, nobody would need to work together and the game would be a boring solo-simulator, people would begin to isolate themselves more and more until the game is dead. Some things are cool because you won't have it. The value is so high. The game is more deep. In some respects you are right here, but in a way where you are totally missing the mark. Look at a game like WoW, EQ or EQ2. People come to the game by themselves - especially when these games first came out. They would play the game by themselves, discover groups and then get in to that, perhaps get a guild, and then maybe move on to raiding. The key thing is, the reason they did all of this is because the base level of the game kept them playing said game by themselves. To translate this to Ashes - imagine if there was a smaller, half acre freehold that a solo player was reasonably able to expect to get hold of. It can still be some work, but it is perfectly reasonable for them to assume that if they put a set amount of effort in, they will get one. So, thye have a freehold, and they enjoy the gameplay that comes with it. Perhaps they want more of that same gameplay, but their small freehold is fully used. The only way they can get more of that gameplay is to get together with other people and work towards it. This is absolutely key for every aspect of an MMO. You NEED to have all content types available to essentially all players - but you are able to limit how much of that they have access to without working together with others. Then, if people decide they want more of that content, they know what they have to do to get it. It is absolutely, 100% true that a solo player should not be able to achieve the same things as a guild. Absolutely true. However, there also should be no content types that a guild has access to that a solo player doesn't also have access to. It is the level of that content that needs to change, not access to that content. Freeholds are a content type. Thus, the issue is that there is only one level of freehold. No matter what Intrepid do, as long as only one level of freehold exists, it will not work - either they make it limited as it seems to be now and solo or casual players miss out on a content type, or they make it more accessable to all in which case guilds and the more organized don't have a means to take it to the next level (though an argument could be made for upgrading buildings). I disagree with the idea that all content types should be easily available to solo players. There should always be content for them to do but I think it's fine if some things are a little trickier for them to achieve solo. The game should be trying to push them to work with others. Working with others takes effort so it should be baited with something that's tasty. Solo players can come to the game, explore, level up their character, join social organizations/religions, and help develop nodes. There should be plenty for them to do that doesn't require access to a freehold.
Noaani wrote: » Marcet wrote: » If you like to play alone, like a lot of us want, you can't expect to reach goals as high as a coordinated group of people. You just can't be that entitled. If this was the case, nobody would need to work together and the game would be a boring solo-simulator, people would begin to isolate themselves more and more until the game is dead. Some things are cool because you won't have it. The value is so high. The game is more deep. In some respects you are right here, but in a way where you are totally missing the mark. Look at a game like WoW, EQ or EQ2. People come to the game by themselves - especially when these games first came out. They would play the game by themselves, discover groups and then get in to that, perhaps get a guild, and then maybe move on to raiding. The key thing is, the reason they did all of this is because the base level of the game kept them playing said game by themselves. To translate this to Ashes - imagine if there was a smaller, half acre freehold that a solo player was reasonably able to expect to get hold of. It can still be some work, but it is perfectly reasonable for them to assume that if they put a set amount of effort in, they will get one. So, thye have a freehold, and they enjoy the gameplay that comes with it. Perhaps they want more of that same gameplay, but their small freehold is fully used. The only way they can get more of that gameplay is to get together with other people and work towards it. This is absolutely key for every aspect of an MMO. You NEED to have all content types available to essentially all players - but you are able to limit how much of that they have access to without working together with others. Then, if people decide they want more of that content, they know what they have to do to get it. It is absolutely, 100% true that a solo player should not be able to achieve the same things as a guild. Absolutely true. However, there also should be no content types that a guild has access to that a solo player doesn't also have access to. It is the level of that content that needs to change, not access to that content. Freeholds are a content type. Thus, the issue is that there is only one level of freehold. No matter what Intrepid do, as long as only one level of freehold exists, it will not work - either they make it limited as it seems to be now and solo or casual players miss out on a content type, or they make it more accessable to all in which case guilds and the more organized don't have a means to take it to the next level (though an argument could be made for upgrading buildings).
Marcet wrote: » If you like to play alone, like a lot of us want, you can't expect to reach goals as high as a coordinated group of people. You just can't be that entitled. If this was the case, nobody would need to work together and the game would be a boring solo-simulator, people would begin to isolate themselves more and more until the game is dead. Some things are cool because you won't have it. The value is so high. The game is more deep.
Xeeg wrote: » I think the node/citizenship system might already accomplish this, where it might be easier to trade/play with people that are in the same node as you, regardless of guilds. Maybe being in a guild is mandatory for like 1/5th of end game content, but the other 4/5 you can get just by playing with people you meet in the game.
iccer wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Marcet wrote: » If you like to play alone, like a lot of us want, you can't expect to reach goals as high as a coordinated group of people. You just can't be that entitled. If this was the case, nobody would need to work together and the game would be a boring solo-simulator, people would begin to isolate themselves more and more until the game is dead. Some things are cool because you won't have it. The value is so high. The game is more deep. In some respects you are right here, but in a way where you are totally missing the mark. Look at a game like WoW, EQ or EQ2. People come to the game by themselves - especially when these games first came out. They would play the game by themselves, discover groups and then get in to that, perhaps get a guild, and then maybe move on to raiding. The key thing is, the reason they did all of this is because the base level of the game kept them playing said game by themselves. To translate this to Ashes - imagine if there was a smaller, half acre freehold that a solo player was reasonably able to expect to get hold of. It can still be some work, but it is perfectly reasonable for them to assume that if they put a set amount of effort in, they will get one. So, thye have a freehold, and they enjoy the gameplay that comes with it. Perhaps they want more of that same gameplay, but their small freehold is fully used. The only way they can get more of that gameplay is to get together with other people and work towards it. This is absolutely key for every aspect of an MMO. You NEED to have all content types available to essentially all players - but you are able to limit how much of that they have access to without working together with others. Then, if people decide they want more of that content, they know what they have to do to get it. It is absolutely, 100% true that a solo player should not be able to achieve the same things as a guild. Absolutely true. However, there also should be no content types that a guild has access to that a solo player doesn't also have access to. It is the level of that content that needs to change, not access to that content. Freeholds are a content type. Thus, the issue is that there is only one level of freehold. No matter what Intrepid do, as long as only one level of freehold exists, it will not work - either they make it limited as it seems to be now and solo or casual players miss out on a content type, or they make it more accessable to all in which case guilds and the more organized don't have a means to take it to the next level (though an argument could be made for upgrading buildings). I disagree with the idea that all content types should be easily available to solo players. There should always be content for them to do but I think it's fine if some things are a little trickier for them to achieve solo. The game should be trying to push them to work with others. Working with others takes effort so it should be baited with something that's tasty. Solo players can come to the game, explore, level up their character, join social organizations/religions, and help develop nodes. There should be plenty for them to do that doesn't require access to a freehold. I might've missed it, but where did they say it should be "easily" available? All types of content should be available to all players, with varying degrees of difficulty to reach it. That doesn't mean ALL content should be easily available to everyone. You have raids, some are easier, and some are only for elite players. So raid access should be available for everyone, but not every raid will be available to every single player. It's similar with Freeholds. If they put enough effort, all players should own a piece of land in the open-world, where they can plant stuff, farm animals, etc. Then for the elite players (or guilds in this case), you have Freeholds as the currently are, which are large plots of land, where you can do all of that + more, with businesses, highest tier processing, etc.
mcstackerson wrote: » iccer wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Marcet wrote: » If you like to play alone, like a lot of us want, you can't expect to reach goals as high as a coordinated group of people. You just can't be that entitled. If this was the case, nobody would need to work together and the game would be a boring solo-simulator, people would begin to isolate themselves more and more until the game is dead. Some things are cool because you won't have it. The value is so high. The game is more deep. In some respects you are right here, but in a way where you are totally missing the mark. Look at a game like WoW, EQ or EQ2. People come to the game by themselves - especially when these games first came out. They would play the game by themselves, discover groups and then get in to that, perhaps get a guild, and then maybe move on to raiding. The key thing is, the reason they did all of this is because the base level of the game kept them playing said game by themselves. To translate this to Ashes - imagine if there was a smaller, half acre freehold that a solo player was reasonably able to expect to get hold of. It can still be some work, but it is perfectly reasonable for them to assume that if they put a set amount of effort in, they will get one. So, thye have a freehold, and they enjoy the gameplay that comes with it. Perhaps they want more of that same gameplay, but their small freehold is fully used. The only way they can get more of that gameplay is to get together with other people and work towards it. This is absolutely key for every aspect of an MMO. You NEED to have all content types available to essentially all players - but you are able to limit how much of that they have access to without working together with others. Then, if people decide they want more of that content, they know what they have to do to get it. It is absolutely, 100% true that a solo player should not be able to achieve the same things as a guild. Absolutely true. However, there also should be no content types that a guild has access to that a solo player doesn't also have access to. It is the level of that content that needs to change, not access to that content. Freeholds are a content type. Thus, the issue is that there is only one level of freehold. No matter what Intrepid do, as long as only one level of freehold exists, it will not work - either they make it limited as it seems to be now and solo or casual players miss out on a content type, or they make it more accessable to all in which case guilds and the more organized don't have a means to take it to the next level (though an argument could be made for upgrading buildings). I disagree with the idea that all content types should be easily available to solo players. There should always be content for them to do but I think it's fine if some things are a little trickier for them to achieve solo. The game should be trying to push them to work with others. Working with others takes effort so it should be baited with something that's tasty. Solo players can come to the game, explore, level up their character, join social organizations/religions, and help develop nodes. There should be plenty for them to do that doesn't require access to a freehold. I might've missed it, but where did they say it should be "easily" available? All types of content should be available to all players, with varying degrees of difficulty to reach it. That doesn't mean ALL content should be easily available to everyone. You have raids, some are easier, and some are only for elite players. So raid access should be available for everyone, but not every raid will be available to every single player. It's similar with Freeholds. If they put enough effort, all players should own a piece of land in the open-world, where they can plant stuff, farm animals, etc. Then for the elite players (or guilds in this case), you have Freeholds as the currently are, which are large plots of land, where you can do all of that + more, with businesses, highest tier processing, etc. A solo player could save up and buy a freehold as they currently are. Even if I decide to agree that it's impossible, I don't think all content types should be available to all players. As I said, I think there should be content for all players but that doesn't mean they need access to all content types.
If I pay for the game, I expect to have access to every type of content the game has to offer, again with various degree of time and effort investment.
Mag7spy wrote: » @iccer If I pay for the game, I expect to have access to every type of content the game has to offer, again with various degree of time and effort investment. By your logic because you can do everything without having a freehold that isn't crafting the most high end stuff they already service you like that. Anything you need or want to obtain or types of content can be done without a freehold, but to get the best it requires a different degree of time and effort. So you should have no issue if it is simply about having access to everything, and not about having access to the best thing.
Dygz wrote: » I don't understand why so many people equate solo with anti-social. Most players who solo MMORPGs have friends who are playing - and are likely in a guild. They just prefer adventuring while not in a formal group/party. You can expect solo players to have access to their friends' Freeholds. And you can expect solo players to own Freeholds that they share with friends. I'm not aware of a restriction that limits owning Freeholds to people in a guild.
iccer wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » @iccer If I pay for the game, I expect to have access to every type of content the game has to offer, again with various degree of time and effort investment. By your logic because you can do everything without having a freehold that isn't crafting the most high end stuff they already service you like that. Anything you need or want to obtain or types of content can be done without a freehold, but to get the best it requires a different degree of time and effort. So you should have no issue if it is simply about having access to everything, and not about having access to the best thing. But is that the case? Am I gonna be able to own a stable and do animal husbandry on my own plot of land, somewhere out in the world? Am I gonna be able to plant and harvest stuff to then use for crafting or to sell for profit, on my own plot of land, somewhere out in the world? You're thinking about solely what services the Freehold offers, but what about the type of gameplay it offers? What about just going out in the world, exploring, killing stuff, maybe gathering, then coming to your house/farm, depositing stuff, planting stuff on your farm, managing animals (harvesting resources from them), breeding stuff if you want to? I very much doubt that will be available without a Freehold. Nowhere has Steven explicitly said you could do farming, animal husbandry, etc. without a Freehold. It's all just vague confusing words, and please don't bring that discord screenshot again, because it says nothing. Dygz wrote: » I don't understand why so many people equate solo with anti-social. Most players who solo MMORPGs have friends who are playing - and are likely in a guild. They just prefer adventuring while not in a formal group/party. You can expect solo players to have access to their friends' Freeholds. And you can expect solo players to own Freeholds that they share with friends. I'm not aware of a restriction that limits owning Freeholds to people in a guild. Oh I absolutely agree with the first part. You can expect a tiny, tiny % of "solo" players to own a Freehold, sure. But again, large majority of the playerbase won't own one. One, because there are only a certain number of Freeholds available, meaning it's inevitable players will be left out. It's in low thousands, when they expect the servers to go up to 50k players with 10k concurrent players. That's 87.5% players playing the game at any given moment that don't have a Freehold. And it's 2% out of whole server population that will own one. It absolutely shouldn't be equated to getting legendary gear or top tier mount (in terms of percentage of people owning them), because they're simply not the same.
Mag7spy wrote: » iccer wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » @iccer If I pay for the game, I expect to have access to every type of content the game has to offer, again with various degree of time and effort investment. By your logic because you can do everything without having a freehold that isn't crafting the most high end stuff they already service you like that. Anything you need or want to obtain or types of content can be done without a freehold, but to get the best it requires a different degree of time and effort. So you should have no issue if it is simply about having access to everything, and not about having access to the best thing. But is that the case? Am I gonna be able to own a stable and do animal husbandry on my own plot of land, somewhere out in the world? Am I gonna be able to plant and harvest stuff to then use for crafting or to sell for profit, on my own plot of land, somewhere out in the world? You're thinking about solely what services the Freehold offers, but what about the type of gameplay it offers? What about just going out in the world, exploring, killing stuff, maybe gathering, then coming to your house/farm, depositing stuff, planting stuff on your farm, managing animals (harvesting resources from them), breeding stuff if you want to? I very much doubt that will be available without a Freehold. Nowhere has Steven explicitly said you could do farming, animal husbandry, etc. without a Freehold. It's all just vague confusing words, and please don't bring that discord screenshot again, because it says nothing. Dygz wrote: » I don't understand why so many people equate solo with anti-social. Most players who solo MMORPGs have friends who are playing - and are likely in a guild. They just prefer adventuring while not in a formal group/party. You can expect solo players to have access to their friends' Freeholds. And you can expect solo players to own Freeholds that they share with friends. I'm not aware of a restriction that limits owning Freeholds to people in a guild. Oh I absolutely agree with the first part. You can expect a tiny, tiny % of "solo" players to own a Freehold, sure. But again, large majority of the playerbase won't own one. One, because there are only a certain number of Freeholds available, meaning it's inevitable players will be left out. It's in low thousands, when they expect the servers to go up to 50k players with 10k concurrent players. That's 87.5% players playing the game at any given moment that don't have a Freehold. And it's 2% out of whole server population that will own one. It absolutely shouldn't be equated to getting legendary gear or top tier mount (in terms of percentage of people owning them), because they're simply not the same. You aren't going to own land that is tied to freeholds, housing wise you will have an apartment or non instanced house. You should be able to do farming as well as animal husbandry, though of course not to the same level as a freehold. If you can't do farming or animal husbandry than people are free to complain since that would be feel like you are cut off from content. You can kill stuff and come back to your home, that is going to be a major gameplay cycle to put the stuff you found or gathered safely away. But owning land is for players that are competitive enough to work towards that, as well as able to defend it. I agree he hasn't said it, but there are a lot of things not said, and we will learn more as we get closer to alpha 2. Regardless they are looking for feedback so complains are still valid, and concerns of being locked out of content if you are unable to do it anywhere else in lower tiers.
Mag7spy wrote: » To add bdo allowed you to have a tiny plot you could place to grow and breed plants and animals. It is something AoC could do as well. And for animal husbandry that could be a node thing where you got o the stable and do the interface there and see what you have.
iccer wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » iccer wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Marcet wrote: » If you like to play alone, like a lot of us want, you can't expect to reach goals as high as a coordinated group of people. You just can't be that entitled. If this was the case, nobody would need to work together and the game would be a boring solo-simulator, people would begin to isolate themselves more and more until the game is dead. Some things are cool because you won't have it. The value is so high. The game is more deep. In some respects you are right here, but in a way where you are totally missing the mark. Look at a game like WoW, EQ or EQ2. People come to the game by themselves - especially when these games first came out. They would play the game by themselves, discover groups and then get in to that, perhaps get a guild, and then maybe move on to raiding. The key thing is, the reason they did all of this is because the base level of the game kept them playing said game by themselves. To translate this to Ashes - imagine if there was a smaller, half acre freehold that a solo player was reasonably able to expect to get hold of. It can still be some work, but it is perfectly reasonable for them to assume that if they put a set amount of effort in, they will get one. So, thye have a freehold, and they enjoy the gameplay that comes with it. Perhaps they want more of that same gameplay, but their small freehold is fully used. The only way they can get more of that gameplay is to get together with other people and work towards it. This is absolutely key for every aspect of an MMO. You NEED to have all content types available to essentially all players - but you are able to limit how much of that they have access to without working together with others. Then, if people decide they want more of that content, they know what they have to do to get it. It is absolutely, 100% true that a solo player should not be able to achieve the same things as a guild. Absolutely true. However, there also should be no content types that a guild has access to that a solo player doesn't also have access to. It is the level of that content that needs to change, not access to that content. Freeholds are a content type. Thus, the issue is that there is only one level of freehold. No matter what Intrepid do, as long as only one level of freehold exists, it will not work - either they make it limited as it seems to be now and solo or casual players miss out on a content type, or they make it more accessable to all in which case guilds and the more organized don't have a means to take it to the next level (though an argument could be made for upgrading buildings). I disagree with the idea that all content types should be easily available to solo players. There should always be content for them to do but I think it's fine if some things are a little trickier for them to achieve solo. The game should be trying to push them to work with others. Working with others takes effort so it should be baited with something that's tasty. Solo players can come to the game, explore, level up their character, join social organizations/religions, and help develop nodes. There should be plenty for them to do that doesn't require access to a freehold. I might've missed it, but where did they say it should be "easily" available? All types of content should be available to all players, with varying degrees of difficulty to reach it. That doesn't mean ALL content should be easily available to everyone. You have raids, some are easier, and some are only for elite players. So raid access should be available for everyone, but not every raid will be available to every single player. It's similar with Freeholds. If they put enough effort, all players should own a piece of land in the open-world, where they can plant stuff, farm animals, etc. Then for the elite players (or guilds in this case), you have Freeholds as the currently are, which are large plots of land, where you can do all of that + more, with businesses, highest tier processing, etc. A solo player could save up and buy a freehold as they currently are. Even if I decide to agree that it's impossible, I don't think all content types should be available to all players. As I said, I think there should be content for all players but that doesn't mean they need access to all content types. Well, that's ultimately what we disagree about then. If I pay for the game, I expect to have access to every type of content the game has to offer, again with various degree of time and effort investment. In Ashes, that doesn't look like it will be the case, when talking about Freeholds. Because you rely on whether others own a Freehold or not, there's limited space, and simply put, more than 50% of the playerbase won't be able to own a Freehold at any given moment. I don't expect to own the best armor around, but I will still own some good armor. I don't expect to own the best flying mount, but I do expect to own some sort of a mount. You get the deal. With Freeholds, you either own them, or you don't. There isn't a more "shitty" version of Freeholds. In-node housing could be that, but as it stands, it could be even harder to get. And I feel like all the concerns we have about Freeholds, will apply to in-node housing as well, again leaving regular players out of them. The only other housing type is instanced housing, but it just doesn't compare to Freeholds. The only common thing they have is that they're both types of housing.
Depraved wrote: » iccer wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » iccer wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Marcet wrote: » If you like to play alone, like a lot of us want, you can't expect to reach goals as high as a coordinated group of people. You just can't be that entitled. If this was the case, nobody would need to work together and the game would be a boring solo-simulator, people would begin to isolate themselves more and more until the game is dead. Some things are cool because you won't have it. The value is so high. The game is more deep. In some respects you are right here, but in a way where you are totally missing the mark. Look at a game like WoW, EQ or EQ2. People come to the game by themselves - especially when these games first came out. They would play the game by themselves, discover groups and then get in to that, perhaps get a guild, and then maybe move on to raiding. The key thing is, the reason they did all of this is because the base level of the game kept them playing said game by themselves. To translate this to Ashes - imagine if there was a smaller, half acre freehold that a solo player was reasonably able to expect to get hold of. It can still be some work, but it is perfectly reasonable for them to assume that if they put a set amount of effort in, they will get one. So, thye have a freehold, and they enjoy the gameplay that comes with it. Perhaps they want more of that same gameplay, but their small freehold is fully used. The only way they can get more of that gameplay is to get together with other people and work towards it. This is absolutely key for every aspect of an MMO. You NEED to have all content types available to essentially all players - but you are able to limit how much of that they have access to without working together with others. Then, if people decide they want more of that content, they know what they have to do to get it. It is absolutely, 100% true that a solo player should not be able to achieve the same things as a guild. Absolutely true. However, there also should be no content types that a guild has access to that a solo player doesn't also have access to. It is the level of that content that needs to change, not access to that content. Freeholds are a content type. Thus, the issue is that there is only one level of freehold. No matter what Intrepid do, as long as only one level of freehold exists, it will not work - either they make it limited as it seems to be now and solo or casual players miss out on a content type, or they make it more accessable to all in which case guilds and the more organized don't have a means to take it to the next level (though an argument could be made for upgrading buildings). I disagree with the idea that all content types should be easily available to solo players. There should always be content for them to do but I think it's fine if some things are a little trickier for them to achieve solo. The game should be trying to push them to work with others. Working with others takes effort so it should be baited with something that's tasty. Solo players can come to the game, explore, level up their character, join social organizations/religions, and help develop nodes. There should be plenty for them to do that doesn't require access to a freehold. I might've missed it, but where did they say it should be "easily" available? All types of content should be available to all players, with varying degrees of difficulty to reach it. That doesn't mean ALL content should be easily available to everyone. You have raids, some are easier, and some are only for elite players. So raid access should be available for everyone, but not every raid will be available to every single player. It's similar with Freeholds. If they put enough effort, all players should own a piece of land in the open-world, where they can plant stuff, farm animals, etc. Then for the elite players (or guilds in this case), you have Freeholds as the currently are, which are large plots of land, where you can do all of that + more, with businesses, highest tier processing, etc. A solo player could save up and buy a freehold as they currently are. Even if I decide to agree that it's impossible, I don't think all content types should be available to all players. As I said, I think there should be content for all players but that doesn't mean they need access to all content types. Well, that's ultimately what we disagree about then. If I pay for the game, I expect to have access to every type of content the game has to offer, again with various degree of time and effort investment. In Ashes, that doesn't look like it will be the case, when talking about Freeholds. Because you rely on whether others own a Freehold or not, there's limited space, and simply put, more than 50% of the playerbase won't be able to own a Freehold at any given moment. I don't expect to own the best armor around, but I will still own some good armor. I don't expect to own the best flying mount, but I do expect to own some sort of a mount. You get the deal. With Freeholds, you either own them, or you don't. There isn't a more "shitty" version of Freeholds. In-node housing could be that, but as it stands, it could be even harder to get. And I feel like all the concerns we have about Freeholds, will apply to in-node housing as well, again leaving regular players out of them. The only other housing type is instanced housing, but it just doesn't compare to Freeholds. The only common thing they have is that they're both types of housing. thats why steven has made very clear that not everybody will have everything. now let me ask you this. if you are paying for wow or ff, do you have access to everything all the time? are you able to do a dungeon or kill a boss all by yourself? no right? you need other players. you depend on other players. the difference is those games are cooperative and ashes is cooperative-competitive, but the basis of not having access to everything any time you want doesnt stand. you still need other players. even in ashes, there are other things that people wont be able to get. flying mounts, castles, rare gatherable resources. why arent you complaining about that? you are only complaining about fh maybe because thats the part of the game that interests you?
mcstackerson wrote: » The game should be trying to push them to work with others.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The game should be trying to push them to work with others. I agree, that is essentially what the post was about. However, you dont push people to work together by saying "you cant do this activity at all until you work well with others". You need to give people a smaller taste of the activity and then let them know that getting more of it requires working with others. If I am playing the game, leveling up, exploring etc, how will I know I enjoy the content that comes with a freehold? Until I get one, I wont. As such, why would freeholds be a reason for me to go out seeking to work with others? The short answer is, it wont.
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The game should be trying to push them to work with others. I agree, that is essentially what the post was about. However, you dont push people to work together by saying "you cant do this activity at all until you work well with others". You need to give people a smaller taste of the activity and then let them know that getting more of it requires working with others. If I am playing the game, leveling up, exploring etc, how will I know I enjoy the content that comes with a freehold? Until I get one, I wont. As such, why would freeholds be a reason for me to go out seeking to work with others? The short answer is, it wont. People haven't even played the game and seem to be freaking out about the fact they might not be able to get a freehold so it doesn't seem like they need to do any activities related to freeholds to want one.
