Xeeg wrote: » Well it looks like travelling through a node by mount will take about 3.5min. So if your friends are 3 nodes away that's a 10.5min run by mount. It's a lot of running, but probably not that bad. It's a bathroom break, small snack and getting the coffee made with a fresh cup. Achievable in a 2 hour session. A 3-5min queue time for many games is reasonable, from when you boot up the game to when you get in the action.
Xeeg wrote: » If you only want to socialize online with a group of people then that is what discord is for, and can be done at any time everyone is around. Ashes of Creation is a game first, and games are fun because of the rules/restrictions. If you only want to socialize/roleplay with a 3d character running around in a virtual world there are plenty of Roblox games that are free to play, have open worlds with 0 combat, and you can RP all day without any interference. Pick your theme; wolves, horses, western, medieval, magical...There is no real "game" there, but that isn't required for roleplay. My belief is that for the "game" designers, the game play should come first.
Xeeg wrote: » The vast majority of Ashes players aren't going to be setting up impromptu social events with the devs. They are going to be playing "the game".
Xeeg wrote: » It's like sitting down to play a game of cribbage with a friend. The game's rules don't have anything to do about socializing or talking or anything. It is simply how the cards work and the pegs move, that's "the game". The players create the socializing while playing "the game".
Xeeg wrote: » If "the game" results in pvp zergs, as many games have, it can be next to impossible for a small group of players to even play most of the content in the game. This has happened enough in other games that they are trying to limit the prevalence in Ashes.
Xeeg wrote: » I'd say this is a much more important aspect to deal with, for the health of "the game", than impromptu social events.
Xeeg wrote: » My argument here is not against the current design of travel times. It's more about how travelling time ends up being a large % of player time.
Dygz wrote: » Xeeg wrote: » It's like sitting down to play a game of cribbage with a friend. The game's rules don't have anything to do about socializing or talking or anything. It is simply how the cards work and the pegs move, that's "the game". The players create the socializing while playing "the game". It doesn't really have anything to do with that. Poor analogy. But moot in any case.
Dygz wrote: » Xeeg wrote: » I'd say this is a much more important aspect to deal with, for the health of "the game", than impromptu social events. Yep. That was a long and windy and oddly oppositional way for you to basically say, "Oh. We agree."
Dygz wrote: » Xeeg wrote: » My argument here is not against the current design of travel times. It's more about how travelling time ends up being a large % of player time. Maybe... Depends on how each individual allocates time for activities during their play sessions. For instance, how much time does it take to travel to a Dungeon or Raid v how much time the individual stays at the same Dungeon or Raid during their play session. And how much of a concern it is to an individual will depend on playstyle. It may be less of a concern for a playstyle that is: Explorer 87%; Socializer 73%; Achiever 47%; Killer 0% It may be a great concern for a playstyle that is: Killer 87%; Achiever 73%; Scoializer 47%; Explorer 0% Especially if the travel time is 30% or more of the game session and the playstyle is Explorer 0%
Xeeg wrote: » Well the analogy is that the game itself doesn't need to create rules that hinder the game play in order to have socializing.
Xeeg wrote: » If someone wanted to add the rule "Every 5 peg movements, players must take a 2 minute break to socialize." to cribbage in order to encourage "socializing", it would add nothing to "the game".
Xeeg wrote: » Apologies. I took your original comment as an attack at the game design and was being oppositional by defending the anti zerg vs impromptu social event argument. I'm not sure we agree, seeing as I do not value the social aspect of fast travel versus the game play that results from Ashes' design.
Xeeg wrote: » Sure, I was using the 250 hours to level 50 as a baseline. I doubt Intrepid is allocating 100 hours of that to pure socializing. If you want to socialize 70% of the time, it may take you 450 hours to get to level 50. But the travel time will remain.
Dygz wrote: » Xeeg wrote: » If someone wanted to add the rule "Every 5 peg movements, players must take a 2 minute break to socialize." to cribbage in order to encourage "socializing", it would add nothing to "the game". That is a moot point. Who said anything about adding a rule - other than you?
Dygz wrote: » My main issue with restricted travel is not being able to impromptu social events - especially with devs. Obviously, socializing is more important to me than zergs.
Dygz wrote: » Xeeg wrote: » Sure, I was using the 250 hours to level 50 as a baseline. I doubt Intrepid is allocating 100 hours of that to pure socializing. If you want to socialize 70% of the time, it may take you 450 hours to get to level 50. But the travel time will remain. Your baseline calculation is flawed. And it's worthless to use as some standard measure.
Dygz wrote: » And, that's just Bartle Score - which doesn't really factor in Gathering. Players who focus on Gathering mostly likely also would not be concerned with 70% travel time.
Dygz wrote: » We currently do not have enough info about Mounts and Caravans and Science Node Fast Travel to evaluate travel time in any meaningful way.
Dygz wrote: » Xeeg wrote: » Sure, I was using the 250 hours to level 50 as a baseline. I doubt Intrepid is allocating 100 hours of that to pure socializing. If you want to socialize 70% of the time, it may take you 450 hours to get to level 50. But the travel time will remain. Ashes will have some players frustrated by the travel time and many players not frustrated by the travel time.
Dygz wrote: » Ashes will have some players frustrated by the travel time and many players not frustrated by the travel time.
Xeeg wrote: » Well it looks like travelling through a node by mount will take about 3.5min. So if your friends are 3 nodes away that's a 10.5min run by mount. It's a lot of running, but probably not that bad. It's a bathroom break, small snack and getting the coffee made with a fresh cup. Achievable in a 2 hour session.
Aszkalon wrote: » Xeeg wrote: » Well it looks like travelling through a node by mount will take about 3.5min. So if your friends are 3 nodes away that's a 10.5min run by mount. It's a lot of running, but probably not that bad. It's a bathroom break, small snack and getting the coffee made with a fresh cup. Achievable in a 2 hour session. And i don't want it to shrink. I want that we have to use Time to travel from A.) to B.) This way fast-travel Methods are much better and feel more significant. Also, i know the World of Verra will be huge - but this would be kinda negated if the Developers would for Example create Mounts or other things which reduce the Travel-Time down to one tenth or so from what it "should" actually take to travel from Point A.) to Point B.) It will be impossible to make "Everyone" like the Game anyway. The Developers should not cave in and let the Players have several Heart-Stones like in WoW or other Teleporation Methods. The House/Home/Family-whatever Scroll/Spell is quite enough. Travelling should be seen as something huge ingame. Not as a Joke.
Xeeg wrote: » Actually, you did when you posted on the thread.
Xeeg wrote: » Implicit in your comment, due to the topic of the thread, is that you would prefer a rule that fast travel was possible and give zergs a boost because it lets you socialize with devs.
Xeeg wrote: » Then I attempted to explain that impacting game play by making rules to promote socialization isn't required, because you can socialize regardless. My analogy was fine for that explanation.
Dygz wrote: » Xeeg wrote: » Implicit in your comment, due to the topic of the thread, is that you would prefer a rule that fast travel was possible and give zergs a boost because it lets you socialize with devs. It's not implicit in my comment. It's just your flawed inference. Fast Travel is already possible via the Science Metro Super Power. And I said nothing about actually adding anything else to give myself or zergs a boost.
Depraved wrote: » since ashes is mostly a PvP game, don't you think most people who will play it will be mostly killers or socializers? players will most likely be explorers third or last...so its entirely possible that many players will be frustrated by the travel time (or as xeeg's said, not the travel time itself but how you travel) and only some players will not be frustrated by it? seems to me that most people who will play ashes wont be the explorer type, they will be the killer type. so if the logic behind removing players frustrations is based on majority of players, something about boring traveling should be done in ashes, according to your logic.
Xeeg wrote: » Dygz wrote: » My main issue with restricted travel is not being able to impromptu social events - especially with devs. Obviously, socializing is more important to me than zergs. What other inference is one supposed to make from this statement?
Xeeg wrote: » Just think about what often constitutes as "punishment" in these types of games, typically at least running back to your body after death. And it is considered "punishment" because running across a map feels tedious and boring. Now doesn't this pose a bit of a problem? How much time are we really spending travelling as opposed to combat or town stuff?
