NiKr wrote: » I'm fucking loling. Lmaoing. Hell, I'm pretty much KEKWing right now. Amazon is trying to remove owpvp, implement pve dungeons and want to remove autoplay in a game that's, at its core, is built around hardcore grind (though that is apparently changing too, considering the last update). In other words, TL will be an absolutely different game and will not be a direct Ashes competitor in the western gaming scene.https://throneandliberty.online/amazon-games-talks-about-major-changes-of-throne-and-liberty-pvp-autoplay-and-p2w/
Dygz wrote: » Amazon is the publisher for the US; not the developer. Apparently, Amazon has determined that they're MMORPG audience prefers less PvP than T&L originally planned to offer. Which is fairly typical of the MMORPG audience in the US.
Raven016 wrote: » ... Myosotys wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Amazon is the publisher for the US; not the developer. Apparently, Amazon has determined that they're MMORPG audience prefers less PvP than T&L originally planned to offer. Which is fairly typical of the MMORPG audience in the US. The failure of New World is (partly) linked to the fact that Amazon turned the game from a PvP game into a PvE game with some PvP mechanics. Then they realized they'd betrayed the community, so they reinstated PvP. But PvE players didn't like it. In the end, nobody was happy and the game died. So I'm not too confident in Amazon's ability to meet the needs of its audience. Of course there were other factors (bugs, cheats, gold sellers, etc.). But the game was already dead in the water. There are still 15 k concurent players. Do you think PvE players will like AoC and keep playing it 2 years after release?
Myosotys wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Amazon is the publisher for the US; not the developer. Apparently, Amazon has determined that they're MMORPG audience prefers less PvP than T&L originally planned to offer. Which is fairly typical of the MMORPG audience in the US. The failure of New World is (partly) linked to the fact that Amazon turned the game from a PvP game into a PvE game with some PvP mechanics. Then they realized they'd betrayed the community, so they reinstated PvP. But PvE players didn't like it. In the end, nobody was happy and the game died. So I'm not too confident in Amazon's ability to meet the needs of its audience. Of course there were other factors (bugs, cheats, gold sellers, etc.). But the game was already dead in the water.
Azherae wrote: » Kilion wrote: » Myosotys wrote: » https://www.mmorpg.com/news/new-details-on-how-amazon-is-changing-throne-and-liberty-for-western-audiences-2000128772 Is Amazon really turning again a PvP game into a PvE game ? It wasn't enought for them after New World failure. Lose translating some of the details (personal comments in brackets): Zones will be PvE by default, but every 2 to 3 days the outpost of a zone will be under siege, turning the area temporarily into a PvP zone. These events will be announced beforehand. There will be world bosses and other open world events with default PvP, but in all cases these areas will be marked as "PvP zones" on map and in game. Despite that there will be full PvE world events. It follows a quote that indicates that it will be possible to avoid 100% of the PvP in the game. The initially planned feature of unrestricted PvP at night (I think this was also hailed as a great idea by some in this forum) will now be abolished, however there will be dungeons that will only be accessible at night and in these dungeons people will automatically be flagged for PvP. (Along with what has been said before that would probably mean one can avoid all PvP in T&L but will miss out on some of the content.) Amazon is currently "testing" PvE only dungeons but they have yet to confirm those as a feature. The castle siege - as of now there is only one - will take place every 2 weeks. Despite that Amazon thinks this will be a PvP Game. (I guess it will be if there is not enough or no interesting content outside of PvP to play - but if PvP is fully avoidable, why make a "PvP game" to begin with?) Guilds can take control of the castle, which will enable the owner guild to raise taxes from the outposts. The taxes will basically be put into a caravan and can be attacked by other players. Furthermore, during the tech tests the autoplay feature will initially be deactivated but they will see how well received that actually is (if they don't adjust their proficiency progression that basically made autoplay necessary before, then of course players will want the autoplay "back", same goes for any other game aspect e.g. drop rates for materials) - Presumably all P2W items will be removed from the "western" shops. - Crossplay is said to be possible. - items not only have a rarity class but also an optional upgrade; uncommon up to +6, rare (and possibly above) up to +12 (this sounds to me like these gatcha gambling mechanics that make autofarming necessary to get the best in slot item) - release is planned to be in 2024 To be honest it sounds to me that the game will be quite hollow, as people can avoid its core mechanics. But I'd be lying if I said that I seriously followed this project, I've heard too many things that made it sound meh while not hearing anything interesting about the story for example. But ultimately as soon as I hear "korean game" and "grind" I'm basically out the door anyways. Now this response is interesting, so if you don't mind... When I analyzed this data, I found it to be 'not much different from what they were originally offering'. Three 'real' changes occurred. 1. Probably more 'Field' type zones which have no PvP in default conditions. 2. No unrestricted PvP at night, this was moved to Dungeons which only open at night, making it clearer 3. Supposedly no P2W Your note was the game will be quite hollow because people can avoid its core mechanics. But this isn't Ashes, so there's less open world gathering for example, and no 'Node exp' that we know of, so the driving meaningful factors of open world unrestricted PvP aren't even there (I've read both the public datamine and the other one, so just trust me on the gathering part). So I wish to understand which core mechanics they're avoiding? I see the reason that Ashes needs open world PvP + Corruption from the design perspective (not the preference one) to be that the world's dynamism and node progression are tied to it. A game without Nodes or strong dynamism could easily have a PvP model that TL has and most people will be happy, so, any thoughts on it as a whole? This is what I expect to see from most MMOs going forward, because I don't expect most to have any 'Nodes'. And similarly I expect all the other 'Node' style ones that have either gathering or 'Node Progression' to have the 'Corruption' style owPvP. Also @Dygz what say you? I think this works better for you, right? Or are the Night Dungeons a concern? I can't be sure because you could theoretically, since they're very targeted locations, get a group together to 'explore' them (I see this as different from the Open Sea, so I ask).
Kilion wrote: » Myosotys wrote: » https://www.mmorpg.com/news/new-details-on-how-amazon-is-changing-throne-and-liberty-for-western-audiences-2000128772 Is Amazon really turning again a PvP game into a PvE game ? It wasn't enought for them after New World failure. Lose translating some of the details (personal comments in brackets): Zones will be PvE by default, but every 2 to 3 days the outpost of a zone will be under siege, turning the area temporarily into a PvP zone. These events will be announced beforehand. There will be world bosses and other open world events with default PvP, but in all cases these areas will be marked as "PvP zones" on map and in game. Despite that there will be full PvE world events. It follows a quote that indicates that it will be possible to avoid 100% of the PvP in the game. The initially planned feature of unrestricted PvP at night (I think this was also hailed as a great idea by some in this forum) will now be abolished, however there will be dungeons that will only be accessible at night and in these dungeons people will automatically be flagged for PvP. (Along with what has been said before that would probably mean one can avoid all PvP in T&L but will miss out on some of the content.) Amazon is currently "testing" PvE only dungeons but they have yet to confirm those as a feature. The castle siege - as of now there is only one - will take place every 2 weeks. Despite that Amazon thinks this will be a PvP Game. (I guess it will be if there is not enough or no interesting content outside of PvP to play - but if PvP is fully avoidable, why make a "PvP game" to begin with?) Guilds can take control of the castle, which will enable the owner guild to raise taxes from the outposts. The taxes will basically be put into a caravan and can be attacked by other players. Furthermore, during the tech tests the autoplay feature will initially be deactivated but they will see how well received that actually is (if they don't adjust their proficiency progression that basically made autoplay necessary before, then of course players will want the autoplay "back", same goes for any other game aspect e.g. drop rates for materials) - Presumably all P2W items will be removed from the "western" shops. - Crossplay is said to be possible. - items not only have a rarity class but also an optional upgrade; uncommon up to +6, rare (and possibly above) up to +12 (this sounds to me like these gatcha gambling mechanics that make autofarming necessary to get the best in slot item) - release is planned to be in 2024 To be honest it sounds to me that the game will be quite hollow, as people can avoid its core mechanics. But I'd be lying if I said that I seriously followed this project, I've heard too many things that made it sound meh while not hearing anything interesting about the story for example. But ultimately as soon as I hear "korean game" and "grind" I'm basically out the door anyways.
Myosotys wrote: » https://www.mmorpg.com/news/new-details-on-how-amazon-is-changing-throne-and-liberty-for-western-audiences-2000128772 Is Amazon really turning again a PvP game into a PvE game ? It wasn't enought for them after New World failure.
Fiddlez wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » ... Myosotys wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Amazon is the publisher for the US; not the developer. Apparently, Amazon has determined that they're MMORPG audience prefers less PvP than T&L originally planned to offer. Which is fairly typical of the MMORPG audience in the US. The failure of New World is (partly) linked to the fact that Amazon turned the game from a PvP game into a PvE game with some PvP mechanics. Then they realized they'd betrayed the community, so they reinstated PvP. But PvE players didn't like it. In the end, nobody was happy and the game died. So I'm not too confident in Amazon's ability to meet the needs of its audience. Of course there were other factors (bugs, cheats, gold sellers, etc.). But the game was already dead in the water. There are still 15 k concurent players. Do you think PvE players will like AoC and keep playing it 2 years after release? AoC is doing a much better job of threading the needle between PVE and PVP. T&L, at least in Korea will be the successor to L2. Steven has said it before they don't really want unconsenual PVP, its why there are soooo many penalties for doing it. Saying AoC is similar to L2 or T&L is equivalent to saying its close to World of Warcraft because they both have raids and dungeons.
Fiddlez wrote: » Even tried all those dumb half assed survival games like Ark and Conan. People got all pissed at me for killing them all the time but those games were pretty empty unless you just wanted to build.
Fiddlez wrote: » AoC is doing a much better job of threading the needle between PVE and PVP.
Noaani wrote: » Yet the game also penalizes open world PvP too much for people that DO want that amount of PvP. Honestly, this games base design is kind of stupid when you think about it.
NiKr wrote: » The rules are meant for the middle part of the pvx spectrum. Pvers will be attacked by other players and pvpers won't be able to kill everyone they want for free.
Noaani wrote: » In other words, not overly well suited to either group. PvE players still have the thing they don't want. PvP players still have the thing they don't want.
Noaani wrote: » As to node and guild wars, I wouldn't expect to see them happen more than once a month for any given guild or node. Smaller guilds probably wouldn't want to get in to guild wars at all. I mean, guild wars in Archeage were infrequent enough, and that was without there being any real risk involved - and with them only lasting 90 minutes (iirc - it wasn't long).
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » In other words, not overly well suited to either group. PvE players still have the thing they don't want. PvP players still have the thing they don't want. How many people are at such extreme ends of that spectrum that they wouldn't play the game if they saw this kind of system though? I feel like it's not as many people as there are closer to the middle.
Noaani wrote: » In my experience (20+ years in about 2 dozen MMO's in total, including the games you know I've talked at length on), most players don't play an MMO to get an adrenaline hit - most people play to chill out after work or study. There are obviously groups of people that are the exception to this, and if you spend most of your time in PvP focused games you would likely see more of these exceptions than anything else. However, the unwashed masses of MMO players in the west prefer to play an MMO to just chill, and then maybe go off and do something challenging from that base. This is why games like WoW are so popular in relation to basically all other MMO's - same with ESO and FFXIV. Players can just log in to those games and just chill. They don't need to be concerned with other players attacking them, even if it is unlikely
Noaani wrote: » there will be more corruption based PvP in Ashes than you seem to be assuming, there has to be enough to make the Bounty Hunter path viable.
NiKr wrote: » And that's the other extreme then. They wouldn't play a game because of pvp.
Kilion wrote: » They literally said themselves "this is a PvP game" that makes it kind of makes PvP a core mechanic in my mind. Like I said in the last paragraph, I'm not highly invested in T&L so I don't know too much of it, but if the highest employees of a game tell me "this is PvP" only to go on and say "and it can be completely avoided" then that raises questions. Also since you now added that they will not have the open world gathering I kind of wonder what is the core mechanic of T&L if it is nt PvP and the crafting loop doesn't seem to be the focus either?
Noaani wrote: » I'm not saying Ashes should change to acclimate these players - I feel I've been ear for years that the game needs to stick to what it claimed to be. What I am saying is that what it is trying to be only appeal to a very small segment of the MMO player base - a fact I thought we all understood.
NiKr wrote: » Yeah, that is what I expect, but I do think that there's enough people in the middle of the spectrum that are just waiting for a good game to come out that is placed in that middle. So far we either have pve games with arena-like locations for pvp or full-on murderhobo games with unpunished PKing. And Albion is obviously niche in its style (well, when compared to other mmos, that is), so we'll have to see if Ashes can appeal to more people cause of its much more basic style.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » I'm not saying Ashes should change to acclimate these players - I feel I've been ear for years that the game needs to stick to what it claimed to be. What I am saying is that what it is trying to be only appeal to a very small segment of the MMO player base - a fact I thought we all understood. Yeah, that is what I expect, but I do think that there's enough people in the middle of the spectrum that are just waiting for a good game to come out that is placed in that middle. So far we either have pve games with arena-like locations for pvp or full-on murderhobo games with unpunished PKing. If anything, popularity of Albion kinda hints at me being at least somewhat correct. It's obviously closer to the pve side of the spectrum cause it has non-pvp locations (iirc?), but I think that pvp locations also relate to economy, so it's somewhat similar to Ashes in that respect. And Albion is obviously niche in its style (well, when compared to other mmos, that is), so we'll have to see if Ashes can appeal to more people cause of its much more basic style.
Azherae wrote: » As a person with access to three (two and a half, I guess?) separate internal datasets of sample size > 8000, I say that your belief is incorrect.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » As a person with access to three (two and a half, I guess?) separate internal datasets of sample size > 8000, I say that your belief is incorrect. Yeah, probably. I said this a few years back at this point, but Ashes will be the last check for me to see if my preferences are shared by enough people to warrant a game like this successfully existing. If Ashes completely fails - I'll just know for sure that the time for me to play mmos has past. I'll still play the soloable stuff, just to experience the story and world, but I won't invest myself as much as I'd like to invest myself into Ashes.
