KingDDD wrote: » NiKr wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Where's your screenshot come from and is it the total number of servers added, region based, or what? It's just "ctrl+f" on that page. KingDDD wrote: » The faction imbalances happened over time and really kicked off when server transfers became vogue sometime in 2007 or 2008. Only blizzard could tell exact population and player activity per server at specific time periods. In other words it's been the case for over 15 years. So, in theory, 3 gens of gamers are used to seeing non-pvp "pvp" servers. We can all praise and shout off the rooftops about how our beloved mmos were so damn great 15 years ago, but that won't change the current realities of gaming. Anyone who wants pvp went to mobas and brs and everyone who wanted to play mmos are playing ff14 and wow, which are both as pve as it gets. Yes, wow might've had great balanced servers back at its start, but back then even Lineage 2 had over a millions subs and was a very nice game. And the genre overall had way more pvp mmos. Times have changed. Yes so you are looking at the total number of servers added, not the dates for when they were added. I used 2005 as the year to measure from as thats the period of wows largest growth. The fact blizzard choose to implement more pvp servers that year illustrates the popularity of pvp servers over pve. The 15 year comment is irrelevant as the major faction imbalances were mostly from 2008 to 2012, long after world activities and any pvp beyond 3vs3 arena was dead. All those players that went to mobas BRs arena shooters etc want to play an mmo. There's a reason Intrepid is doing interviews with shroud and summit, and it isn't because they're pretty. Pvp games are more popular then ever. There hasn't been any type of major pvp mmo in well over a decade +. The feature count, graphics, cycle of astonishment will make ashes insanely popular at launch. How robust those features are and how well the game runs will determine how well they retain those players.
NiKr wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Where's your screenshot come from and is it the total number of servers added, region based, or what? It's just "ctrl+f" on that page. KingDDD wrote: » The faction imbalances happened over time and really kicked off when server transfers became vogue sometime in 2007 or 2008. Only blizzard could tell exact population and player activity per server at specific time periods. In other words it's been the case for over 15 years. So, in theory, 3 gens of gamers are used to seeing non-pvp "pvp" servers. We can all praise and shout off the rooftops about how our beloved mmos were so damn great 15 years ago, but that won't change the current realities of gaming. Anyone who wants pvp went to mobas and brs and everyone who wanted to play mmos are playing ff14 and wow, which are both as pve as it gets. Yes, wow might've had great balanced servers back at its start, but back then even Lineage 2 had over a millions subs and was a very nice game. And the genre overall had way more pvp mmos. Times have changed.
KingDDD wrote: » Where's your screenshot come from and is it the total number of servers added, region based, or what?
KingDDD wrote: » The faction imbalances happened over time and really kicked off when server transfers became vogue sometime in 2007 or 2008. Only blizzard could tell exact population and player activity per server at specific time periods.
Dygz wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Oldschool is UO, Asherons Call, Shadowbane, and Dark Age of Camelot. Out of those games you listed I've only played AA which had the greatest contributions to naval content for the genre as far as I'm concerned. Are they niche? No. I'm the particular one, not the game. Ashes appeals to me as an oldschooler, it'll appeal more to me if they do the combat justice. UO doesn't really tell us much because it's peak was before EQ released as well as before the other MMORPGs that released after EQ. UO was basically the first MMORPG, so kind of the only option at it's peak. Of course, I refused to play UO. ShadowBane was sooo niche, it might as well have been vaporware. That is a failed MMORPG. How many years did AC and DAoC last before they were sunset? I have a feeling Steven hopes that Ashes will survive longer than those games, but... I don't know that they had numbers significantly higher than EvE or ArcheAge. Maybe you know? I think people stopped playing those games for a reason.
Solvryn wrote: » Oldschool is UO, Asherons Call, Shadowbane, and Dark Age of Camelot. Out of those games you listed I've only played AA which had the greatest contributions to naval content for the genre as far as I'm concerned. Are they niche? No. I'm the particular one, not the game. Ashes appeals to me as an oldschooler, it'll appeal more to me if they do the combat justice.
Solvryn wrote: » Fiddlez wrote: » So here's my take... WoW Hardcore, Extraction Shooters, Survival, Classic WoW. We are definitely seeing a trend in what gamers want. Theme Park/Railroad content games are going the way of Guitar Hero. Blizzard saw so much success with Classic and Hardcore they made them official. Survival games,some if not most have come with hardcore rule sets,( dropping all gear, open PVP) Ark being one of the biggest had both of these. Now even Blizzard is jumping in although I suspect it will be a watered down for everyone experience. Extraction shooters stemming from Tarkov's success(very hardcore style game) have started popping up everywhere. If I know one thing it's when companies and investors start putting their money in to it you know the numbers are there in some fashion and they like what they see. All I hear from everyone, Including Asmongold and other streamers is this is a niche game and it's not for everyone. Don While I don't disagree I think the degree of which they are implying is over stated, to the point that they think it might not be a very big game at all. While it certainly won't be COD, I also think it's potential could be much higher then New World saw at its peak. Which would be considered a massive success. I Understand that people don't want to get their hopes up and there's a lot of cynical people and deservedly so but if I am going to be real about it, the more I see the better it gets. It's like going from a narcissistic relationship to a healthy one, sometimes it just seems too good to be true but that's more about your past relationship then your current one. Just like that I think it's only fair we treat AoC and the devs with their fair shake. They have done nothing but be completely upfront and honest and currently in my eyes have the most integrity I have seen in a while and I have been around for a while.(I played UO and EQ1 a lot) There is a lot to look forward to and don't let your past disappoints ruin your experience. Judge it on its own merits. Don't buy into the cynical majority and copy past the copium quotes. I might be disappointed, that's definitely a possibility but I am also ok with that. At least as far as I can tell they are putting their best foot forward and for now that's enough. Niche can be added to that list of cool kid words people use to devalue others arguments. So I agree with your sentiment, Ashes isn't really niche. It's a call back to the oldschool in many ways. So the real test is how many people want to actually go back to the oldschool, go back home so to speak and how many people are just stuck in some nostalgia act. Personally, take me back to the oldschool. Games looked bad, but they where a hell of a lot more fun.
Fiddlez wrote: » So here's my take... WoW Hardcore, Extraction Shooters, Survival, Classic WoW. We are definitely seeing a trend in what gamers want. Theme Park/Railroad content games are going the way of Guitar Hero. Blizzard saw so much success with Classic and Hardcore they made them official. Survival games,some if not most have come with hardcore rule sets,( dropping all gear, open PVP) Ark being one of the biggest had both of these. Now even Blizzard is jumping in although I suspect it will be a watered down for everyone experience. Extraction shooters stemming from Tarkov's success(very hardcore style game) have started popping up everywhere. If I know one thing it's when companies and investors start putting their money in to it you know the numbers are there in some fashion and they like what they see. All I hear from everyone, Including Asmongold and other streamers is this is a niche game and it's not for everyone. Don While I don't disagree I think the degree of which they are implying is over stated, to the point that they think it might not be a very big game at all. While it certainly won't be COD, I also think it's potential could be much higher then New World saw at its peak. Which would be considered a massive success. I Understand that people don't want to get their hopes up and there's a lot of cynical people and deservedly so but if I am going to be real about it, the more I see the better it gets. It's like going from a narcissistic relationship to a healthy one, sometimes it just seems too good to be true but that's more about your past relationship then your current one. Just like that I think it's only fair we treat AoC and the devs with their fair shake. They have done nothing but be completely upfront and honest and currently in my eyes have the most integrity I have seen in a while and I have been around for a while.(I played UO and EQ1 a lot) There is a lot to look forward to and don't let your past disappoints ruin your experience. Judge it on its own merits. Don't buy into the cynical majority and copy past the copium quotes. I might be disappointed, that's definitely a possibility but I am also ok with that. At least as far as I can tell they are putting their best foot forward and for now that's enough.
Fantmx wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » NiKr wrote: » KingDDD wrote: » Where's your screenshot come from and is it the total number of servers added, region based, or what? It's just "ctrl+f" on that page. KingDDD wrote: » The faction imbalances happened over time and really kicked off when server transfers became vogue sometime in 2007 or 2008. Only blizzard could tell exact population and player activity per server at specific time periods. In other words it's been the case for over 15 years. So, in theory, 3 gens of gamers are used to seeing non-pvp "pvp" servers. We can all praise and shout off the rooftops about how our beloved mmos were so damn great 15 years ago, but that won't change the current realities of gaming. Anyone who wants pvp went to mobas and brs and everyone who wanted to play mmos are playing ff14 and wow, which are both as pve as it gets. Yes, wow might've had great balanced servers back at its start, but back then even Lineage 2 had over a millions subs and was a very nice game. And the genre overall had way more pvp mmos. Times have changed. Yes so you are looking at the total number of servers added, not the dates for when they were added. I used 2005 as the year to measure from as thats the period of wows largest growth. The fact blizzard choose to implement more pvp servers that year illustrates the popularity of pvp servers over pve. The 15 year comment is irrelevant as the major faction imbalances were mostly from 2008 to 2012, long after world activities and any pvp beyond 3vs3 arena was dead. All those players that went to mobas BRs arena shooters etc want to play an mmo. There's a reason Intrepid is doing interviews with shroud and summit, and it isn't because they're pretty. Pvp games are more popular then ever. There hasn't been any type of major pvp mmo in well over a decade +. The feature count, graphics, cycle of astonishment will make ashes insanely popular at launch. How robust those features are and how well the game runs will determine how well they retain those players. The problem with trying to rely solely on the shooter, moba, BR crowds is attention span and longevity. Ashes is going to require a long attention span.
Ravicus wrote: » What I see is that Ashes does not cater to the casual Min/Maxer. You cannot run two clients off the same computer or you risk ban. It also deters account sales and the accounts will be terminated if found out. This will be why some people are going to complain on the forums without "saying" this. It will be really hard for a solo Min/Max to game the system.
Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » What I see is that Ashes does not cater to the casual Min/Maxer. You cannot run two clients off the same computer or you risk ban. It also deters account sales and the accounts will be terminated if found out. This will be why some people are going to complain on the forums without "saying" this. It will be really hard for a solo Min/Max to game the system. So your point, is that 'some people who complain on the forums are actually casuals who want to get advantage by dual boxing, but they will come on the forums and complain about something else instead in order to... make Intrepid change their policy on that? Not directly no. But you do know that many people want to multi box right? I have seen it in many games in the past. Maybe it would include more than casuals that want to do this, but It is more prominent for solo players to do this as they do not need a guild. Yes, multiboxing is a strong strategy in games with certain flaws such as 'time gated resource gains', 'low limit economies' and 'easy healing or buffing for PvE'. I don't necessarily think that people prefer games with those flaws, though, so I think it's possible to make a game where most people don't want to multi-box, but still want to play, even 'casuals' and solo players. It is my experience that solo players multi-box when they realize that the game has decided to 'reward' large groups with 'time gated resource gains' or a low limit economy, because then the game is designed to reward 'numbers for the sake of numbers', and therefore '2 heads is better than one'.
Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » What I see is that Ashes does not cater to the casual Min/Maxer. You cannot run two clients off the same computer or you risk ban. It also deters account sales and the accounts will be terminated if found out. This will be why some people are going to complain on the forums without "saying" this. It will be really hard for a solo Min/Max to game the system. So your point, is that 'some people who complain on the forums are actually casuals who want to get advantage by dual boxing, but they will come on the forums and complain about something else instead in order to... make Intrepid change their policy on that? Not directly no. But you do know that many people want to multi box right? I have seen it in many games in the past. Maybe it would include more than casuals that want to do this, but It is more prominent for solo players to do this as they do not need a guild.
Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » What I see is that Ashes does not cater to the casual Min/Maxer. You cannot run two clients off the same computer or you risk ban. It also deters account sales and the accounts will be terminated if found out. This will be why some people are going to complain on the forums without "saying" this. It will be really hard for a solo Min/Max to game the system. So your point, is that 'some people who complain on the forums are actually casuals who want to get advantage by dual boxing, but they will come on the forums and complain about something else instead in order to... make Intrepid change their policy on that?
Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » What I see is that Ashes does not cater to the casual Min/Maxer. You cannot run two clients off the same computer or you risk ban. It also deters account sales and the accounts will be terminated if found out. This will be why some people are going to complain on the forums without "saying" this. It will be really hard for a solo Min/Max to game the system. So your point, is that 'some people who complain on the forums are actually casuals who want to get advantage by dual boxing, but they will come on the forums and complain about something else instead in order to... make Intrepid change their policy on that? Not directly no. But you do know that many people want to multi box right? I have seen it in many games in the past. Maybe it would include more than casuals that want to do this, but It is more prominent for solo players to do this as they do not need a guild. Yes, multiboxing is a strong strategy in games with certain flaws such as 'time gated resource gains', 'low limit economies' and 'easy healing or buffing for PvE'. I don't necessarily think that people prefer games with those flaws, though, so I think it's possible to make a game where most people don't want to multi-box, but still want to play, even 'casuals' and solo players. It is my experience that solo players multi-box when they realize that the game has decided to 'reward' large groups with 'time gated resource gains' or a low limit economy, because then the game is designed to reward 'numbers for the sake of numbers', and therefore '2 heads is better than one'. When they "feel" the game is designated to reward large groups. Then they try to circumvent game design. They game is built in a certain way, and they feel like they need the advantage to go outside game perimeters to gain advantage instead of playing the game as designed. Why do they need to play a game not designed for what they do not want?
Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche.
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » im just pointing out that there are more "pvp" players that people might think, since most people usually say there are more pve players since there are more pve servers. Um. No.... Not because there are more PvE servers. PvE Only servers have the highest populations. Then PvP-Optional servers. Then PvP servers. So that link wasn't particularly meaningful. Depraved wrote: » you are one of those few who prefer solo or solo cooperative gameplay and thats ok. All of it is "OK". This isn't really a discussion about what is OK and what isn't OK. It's also not really an issue of solo play. It's an issue of casual play. And... casual MMORPG players are not few. Most MMORPG players are some form of casual: Casual Time/Casual Challenge Casual Time/Hardcore Challenge Hardcore Challenge/Casual Time and then... Hardcore Challenge/Hardcore Time. Lots of MMORPG fans who used to be Hardcore Time/Hardcore Challenge are too old to support that they way they could 20 years ago. They now only have Casual Time. And that also impacts what they are available to do for Hardcore Challenge.
Depraved wrote: » im just pointing out that there are more "pvp" players that people might think, since most people usually say there are more pve players since there are more pve servers.
Depraved wrote: » you are one of those few who prefer solo or solo cooperative gameplay and thats ok.
Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » im just pointing out that there are more "pvp" players that people might think, since most people usually say there are more pve players since there are more pve servers. Um. No.... Not because there are more PvE servers. PvE Only servers have the highest populations. Then PvP-Optional servers. Then PvP servers. So that link wasn't particularly meaningful. Depraved wrote: » you are one of those few who prefer solo or solo cooperative gameplay and thats ok. All of it is "OK". This isn't really a discussion about what is OK and what isn't OK. It's also not really an issue of solo play. It's an issue of casual play. And... casual MMORPG players are not few. Most MMORPG players are some form of casual: Casual Time/Casual Challenge Casual Time/Hardcore Challenge Hardcore Challenge/Casual Time and then... Hardcore Challenge/Hardcore Time. Lots of MMORPG fans who used to be Hardcore Time/Hardcore Challenge are too old to support that they way they could 20 years ago. They now only have Casual Time. And that also impacts what they are available to do for Hardcore Challenge. we established that pve only servers have pvp players. they play there because they dont want open world pvp, they probs dont wanna be steam rolled. but they still play arenas and bg...
Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » What I see is that Ashes does not cater to the casual Min/Maxer. You cannot run two clients off the same computer or you risk ban. It also deters account sales and the accounts will be terminated if found out. This will be why some people are going to complain on the forums without "saying" this. It will be really hard for a solo Min/Max to game the system. So your point, is that 'some people who complain on the forums are actually casuals who want to get advantage by dual boxing, but they will come on the forums and complain about something else instead in order to... make Intrepid change their policy on that? Not directly no. But you do know that many people want to multi box right? I have seen it in many games in the past. Maybe it would include more than casuals that want to do this, but It is more prominent for solo players to do this as they do not need a guild. Yes, multiboxing is a strong strategy in games with certain flaws such as 'time gated resource gains', 'low limit economies' and 'easy healing or buffing for PvE'. I don't necessarily think that people prefer games with those flaws, though, so I think it's possible to make a game where most people don't want to multi-box, but still want to play, even 'casuals' and solo players. It is my experience that solo players multi-box when they realize that the game has decided to 'reward' large groups with 'time gated resource gains' or a low limit economy, because then the game is designed to reward 'numbers for the sake of numbers', and therefore '2 heads is better than one'. When they "feel" the game is designated to reward large groups. Then they try to circumvent game design. They game is built in a certain way, and they feel like they need the advantage to go outside game perimeters to gain advantage instead of playing the game as designed. Why do they need to play a game not designed for what they do not want? Well, the thing is, a lot of people don't play them. One of the hardest parts of discussing Ashes is that the discussion ends up having to be about inclusivity. To put it another way. If I build a game that I expect 10% of all people to like, and 90% to hate, what happens is that 10% of that 90% join anyway. That gives me almost equal amounts of people who love and hate the game, actually playing it and talking about it, right? But 80% of people still didn't bother. It's just that it's really hard to tell the difference between that and the other (extreme) of 'not even 2% of the 90% even bothered to join, but my design decisions are upsetting half of my expected 10%'. What I would need is a really really good definition of the 10%. The entire discussion here is based on what is niche. I think that games designed to reward large groups for being large are actually niche because they slowly destroy their own player base. Same as games that are designed to reward really good players by making them even better faster.
CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.'
Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » What I see is that Ashes does not cater to the casual Min/Maxer. You cannot run two clients off the same computer or you risk ban. It also deters account sales and the accounts will be terminated if found out. This will be why some people are going to complain on the forums without "saying" this. It will be really hard for a solo Min/Max to game the system. So your point, is that 'some people who complain on the forums are actually casuals who want to get advantage by dual boxing, but they will come on the forums and complain about something else instead in order to... make Intrepid change their policy on that? Not directly no. But you do know that many people want to multi box right? I have seen it in many games in the past. Maybe it would include more than casuals that want to do this, but It is more prominent for solo players to do this as they do not need a guild. Yes, multiboxing is a strong strategy in games with certain flaws such as 'time gated resource gains', 'low limit economies' and 'easy healing or buffing for PvE'. I don't necessarily think that people prefer games with those flaws, though, so I think it's possible to make a game where most people don't want to multi-box, but still want to play, even 'casuals' and solo players. It is my experience that solo players multi-box when they realize that the game has decided to 'reward' large groups with 'time gated resource gains' or a low limit economy, because then the game is designed to reward 'numbers for the sake of numbers', and therefore '2 heads is better than one'. When they "feel" the game is designated to reward large groups. Then they try to circumvent game design. They game is built in a certain way, and they feel like they need the advantage to go outside game perimeters to gain advantage instead of playing the game as designed. Why do they need to play a game not designed for what they do not want? Well, the thing is, a lot of people don't play them. One of the hardest parts of discussing Ashes is that the discussion ends up having to be about inclusivity. To put it another way. If I build a game that I expect 10% of all people to like, and 90% to hate, what happens is that 10% of that 90% join anyway. That gives me almost equal amounts of people who love and hate the game, actually playing it and talking about it, right? But 80% of people still didn't bother. It's just that it's really hard to tell the difference between that and the other (extreme) of 'not even 2% of the 90% even bothered to join, but my design decisions are upsetting half of my expected 10%'. What I would need is a really really good definition of the 10%. The entire discussion here is based on what is niche. I think that games designed to reward large groups for being large are actually niche because they slowly destroy their own player base. Same as games that are designed to reward really good players by making them even better faster. I do understand your point. So far, ashes is a new concept with nodes that rise and fall, freeholds will rise and fall. The game will have corruption and ani pvp deterrents that will allow many people that like pve to enjoy the world, but they will have to be wary still. If people join a guild they will have safety in numbers and the freehold nodes to work on their professions. I do not think people will hate the game if they know what they are getting into in the first place. If they assume and jump in thinking it will be like a wow handholding game then it will be their mistake for not knowing how the game is designed. The hate will be on them, not on the game.
Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out.
Fantmx wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » If the gamplay is fun, and open world pvp is fun and does not devolve into a gank fest, like most do, then it may not be niche. WoW was king because it played better (by far) than any of its competitors. The pvp servers were a lot of fun at first, but the people learned to organize better and the faction system turned them one sided. I am of the opinion WoW only beat out EQ2 due to soloability. In my humble opinion EQ2 was in every way the superior game a launch. 🙂
Diamaht wrote: » If the gamplay is fun, and open world pvp is fun and does not devolve into a gank fest, like most do, then it may not be niche. WoW was king because it played better (by far) than any of its competitors. The pvp servers were a lot of fun at first, but the people learned to organize better and the faction system turned them one sided.
Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out. To further your analogy, and what you wrote states. A customer walks into the coffee shop. He reads what they have and before they buy anything, they see they do not have what they want, and does not purchase anything. They then leave as an informed coffee buyer to not go back to that shop.
Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out. To further your analogy, and what you wrote states. A customer walks into the coffee shop. He reads what they have and before they buy anything, they see they do not have what they want, and does not purchase anything. They then leave as an informed coffee buyer to not go back to that shop. Yes, I agree entirely. The problem with Ashes is that at the moment, it's not quite that simple, it's a little closer to the following timeline. "Guys I am gonna open a Pourover with Spice blends, really good spice blends (gives some examples)." The public goes wild! All the old Pourovers have closed down or fallen into disrepair or use old tech and don't accept Google Pay (or something). A new one would be great! "Ok guys I'm going to offer a lot of blends from the old days, but note that my staff won't combine all the spice combinations, I have to keep it realistic and on theme, so this shop may not be for you." Public (right or wrong) still clamors for it, all expecting their favorite 'most obvious' spice blends to be available. "Ok guys I'll let you know which spice blends once we open our mall kiosk, we'll be testing which ones are best for the theme and flavors, here's a list of what we definitely won't be allowing." Public still eager, except everyone who left because of the things on the disallowed list. Now from here it's just 'removing people' as one adds to the disallowed list. The whole reason I'm here is because Intrepid might need to know if they are removing customers they actually want by 'not offering certain blends' that they could theoretically offer. That's why I always ask people for clarification on the exact reason they are opposing something, and what they like instead, and whatever else. I am not sure Intrepid can afford to just go 'eh, I'll offer what I feel like and anyone who doesn't like it can just not come', but idk how much money Steven actually has. I only know that he's said 'Taking feedback'. It's up to them to decide if it's worth changing X because it makes Y group leave. Our part is to define 'why X is a problem' and 'Which group we're part of' when leaving or considering leaving. Intrepid will handle analyzing 'did they want or expect this person to play at all?'
Depraved wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Fantmx wrote: » Respectfully I think you are missing the point of why they are saying niche. It doesn't have anything to do with old schools days. I played EQ from beta. It was as old school as it gets. But I could always opt out of pvp and always had something to do as a PvE player for hours and hours a day. I think part of why the word niche is being used is because we are hearing more and more the line "this game may not be for you" which started to ramp in use at the time open seas pvp was released. And so the more we use that line the less people we will find interested. So, niche. Agreed. Which is why I don't think the OP's premise is accurate. My use of 'niche' is coming from a product marketing perspective. If you're targeting a micro-segment of a consumer audience you're going to be in a niche position. Selling artisanal pour over coffee with fusion spices for $15 a cup is a niche market. In this case gamers > mmo players > not strict pvp audience / not strict pve audience, combined with a tagline of 'this may not be for you.' This @Ravicus The question isn't 'why did you walk into my Artisanal Pourover Coffee Establishment in the first place?' It's 'why are you expecting this spice blend that I have chosen not to offer?' And the answer is usually 'well I thought it was an obvious blend to offer'. The person doesn't know the precise spice blends available before they walk in. And so they walk back out. To further your analogy, and what you wrote states. A customer walks into the coffee shop. He reads what they have and before they buy anything, they see they do not have what they want, and does not purchase anything. They then leave as an informed coffee buyer to not go back to that shop. Yes, I agree entirely. The problem with Ashes is that at the moment, it's not quite that simple, it's a little closer to the following timeline. "Guys I am gonna open a Pourover with Spice blends, really good spice blends (gives some examples)." The public goes wild! All the old Pourovers have closed down or fallen into disrepair or use old tech and don't accept Google Pay (or something). A new one would be great! "Ok guys I'm going to offer a lot of blends from the old days, but note that my staff won't combine all the spice combinations, I have to keep it realistic and on theme, so this shop may not be for you." Public (right or wrong) still clamors for it, all expecting their favorite 'most obvious' spice blends to be available. "Ok guys I'll let you know which spice blends once we open our mall kiosk, we'll be testing which ones are best for the theme and flavors, here's a list of what we definitely won't be allowing." Public still eager, except everyone who left because of the things on the disallowed list. Now from here it's just 'removing people' as one adds to the disallowed list. The whole reason I'm here is because Intrepid might need to know if they are removing customers they actually want by 'not offering certain blends' that they could theoretically offer. That's why I always ask people for clarification on the exact reason they are opposing something, and what they like instead, and whatever else. I am not sure Intrepid can afford to just go 'eh, I'll offer what I feel like and anyone who doesn't like it can just not come', but idk how much money Steven actually has. I only know that he's said 'Taking feedback'. It's up to them to decide if it's worth changing X because it makes Y group leave. Our part is to define 'why X is a problem' and 'Which group we're part of' when leaving or considering leaving. Intrepid will handle analyzing 'did they want or expect this person to play at all?' when you buy something, do you want 100 options or just 3? also, by removing things, people who aren't the target audience might leave (before the game is out), but guess what? new people who are the target audience might join. you cant offer everything to everybody and you cant give them too many options.
