Intrepid - Time spent travelling?

I know that large map size is a defining feature of Ashes of Creation and serves multiple functions which are important to many of the interconnected systems. Travel time, and lack of fast travel, are also major core features since the beginning of the game concept.

Part of the reason is due to the time sink and inconvenience of travelling across the map. Maybe you only have an hour to play so you don't want to spend 30m of that travelling. Maybe you think 30m of holding W and steering a char is boring AF. It's not something most people like doing.

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?

Does Intrepid have a good sense of what a typical player time % will be spent travelling or straight W running from A to B? Maybe the first time it is a fun adventure through an area but the 5th time you do it and you are running for 5-10 mins straight it starts to lose its appeal.

If its something like more than 70% of time spent is travelling rather than combat, then travelling MUST be fun somehow. Otherwise most of the game time is spent doing something considered a punishment lol. Our whole progression paths and MMO efforts are spent on things we are only doing 30% of the time or whatever.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

blat

Otr wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

I've wondered how many people will want to push scientific nodes to max for the better fast travel options.

I wonder if their democratic vote style will prove superior compared to the other ones.

Interestingly I wonder if Military nodes will end up reasonably democratic, at least more so than Economic (blind bid) and Divine (rep).

Dygz

Songcaller wrote: »

The lack of fast travel won't stop zergs, what the lack of fast travel will do is stop an appropriate fast response to a zerg.

Yep. We'll have to see what other impediments to Zergs Steven has in mind - and test how well they work.

Depraved

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Again... depends on what the other interests of each individual player are - primarily first and last; rather than whether Explorer is third.
It really matters who has an Explorer rating close to 0%. Which is likely going to be comparitively few.

Also... again... the Bartle Score does not really factor in Gathering - and Gathering will be a major component of Ashes gameplay...
Caravans are also a major component of Ashes gameplay...
The Open Seas is also a major PvP zone...
So, the majority of Ashes players will be OK with lots of travel. It's not like you can't travel and Gather or you can't travel and PvP or can't travel and PvE.

true but that wasn't what xeeg was talking about. he means if you are just walking from a to b, no gathering, no pvp, no events, how to make that traveling more interesting ( I also get distracted with gathering which annoys me cuz I just wanna get to my destination ahahahha) although those are things to make traveling interesting. but he is asking for a way to make holding w from a to b more interesting than just holding w, without the additional activities of gathering, PVP, etc.

Xeeg

Depraved wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Again... depends on what the other interests of each individual player are - primarily first and last; rather than whether Explorer is third.
It really matters who has an Explorer rating close to 0%. Which is likely going to be comparitively few.

Also... again... the Bartle Score does not really factor in Gathering - and Gathering will be a major component of Ashes gameplay...
Caravans are also a major component of Ashes gameplay...
The Open Seas is also a major PvP zone...
So, the majority of Ashes players will be OK with lots of travel. It's not like you can't travel and Gather or you can't travel and PvP or can't travel and PvE.

true but that wasn't what xeeg was talking about. he means if you are just walking from a to b, no gathering, no pvp, no events, how to make that traveling more interesting ( I also get distracted with gathering which annoys me cuz I just wanna get to my destination ahahahha) although those are things to make traveling interesting. but he is asking for a way to make holding w from a to b more interesting than just holding w, without the additional activities of gathering, PVP, etc.

I think we are probably good Depraved. I looked up the page on mounts and it seems to describe a bunch of cool mounts with cool abilities which could be fun to move around in. So this thread is might be obsolete. It's just that I had recent experience in a game with no fast travel and that was my biggest problem with the game, so i came on here to rant lol.

We still haven't seen anything other than mount models in the monthly updates, but it will probably be something we see and test in Alpha 2.

Otr

blat wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

I've wondered how many people will want to push scientific nodes to max for the better fast travel options.

I wonder if their democratic vote style will prove superior compared to the other ones.

Interestingly I wonder if Military nodes will end up reasonably democratic, at least more so than Economic (blind bid) and Divine (rep).

A zerg vs zerg vote seems democratic enough

We may also see external interference into the election process...

Diamaht

CROW3 wrote: »

I’m curious what % of players become citizens to nodes close to their starting location v. far from their starting location.

Eventually, wherever I do settle somewhere very far away I hope I hear “Where’d that dwarf come from?’

And then you'll wander into a field and they'll say "Where'd the dwarf go?"

blat

Otr wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

I've wondered how many people will want to push scientific nodes to max for the better fast travel options.

I wonder if their democratic vote style will prove superior compared to the other ones.

Interestingly I wonder if Military nodes will end up reasonably democratic, at least more so than Economic (blind bid) and Divine (rep).

A zerg vs zerg vote seems democratic enough
We may also see external interference into the election process...

Aha, hadn't crossed my mind.. ! This game has a ridiculous amount of potential.

Yeah direct interference or even indirect; warring nodes/guilds could choose election week to attack, spreading forces thin. This is gonna get spicy.

Tbh even without external influence, it sounds pretty interesting; pledging your combat contributions rather than a mere vote. Candidates will be recruiting not just numbers but competing for skilled players.

blat

CROW3 wrote: »

I’m curious what % of players become citizens to nodes close to their starting location v. far from their starting location.

Eventually, wherever I do settle somewhere very far away I hope I hear “Where’d that dwarf come from?’

Me too. I can imagine the more enthusiastic Ashes fans (inc those on this forum) will be more likely to have specific biomes/nodes in mind and head straight for those, whereas those newer to the game might be more likely to go where the path takes them, IE: to local nodes.

Apok

I like there to be decent travel times, makes for a decent economy. If things are to easy to obtain then prices will crash on alot of items then you'll be left with one of those market places where half the items are dirt cheap and the other half are overly expensive

blat

Apok wrote: »

I like there to be decent travel times, makes for a decent economy. If things are to easy to obtain then prices will crash on alot of items then you'll be left with one of those market places where half the items are dirt cheap and the other half are overly expensive

Same.
Tbh also just to keep the world big. It's an obvious point but also amazes me how often it's overlooked; "let's build a huge world.. and then zip around it at 100mph making it small again". Pointless.

CROW3

blat wrote: »

Same.
Tbh also just to keep the world big. It's an obvious point but also amazes me how often it's overlooked; "let's build a huge world.. and then zip around it at 100mph making it small again". Pointless.

100%. Alan Watts makes almost the exact point with air travel (back in the 60s), but it could be said for today as well. When can arrive at foreign lands in almost no time, it has a reductive impact on the world's scale and wonder.

Dygz

CROW3 wrote: »

100%. Alan Watts makes almost the exact point with air travel (back in the 60s), but it could be said for today as well. When can arrive at foreign lands in almost no time, it has a reductive impact on the world's scale and wonder.

This is not true for me. Likely for the same reasons that Steven's concept of Risk v Reward is not a factor of my worldview.

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

100%. Alan Watts makes almost the exact point with air travel (back in the 60s), but it could be said for today as well. When can arrive at foreign lands in almost no time, it has a reductive impact on the world's scale and wonder.

This is not true for me. Likely for the same reasons that Steven's concept of Risk v Reward is not a factor of my worldview.

So if you could instantly teleport from your place to Tokyo buy some street food, teleport to Dublin for a pint, then teleport home, the world wouldn't feel smaller?

Dygz

It would not feel smaller and I would still retain my sense of wonder regarding the scale and impact.
Indeed, I would appreciate it more because I actually get to experience more of the world, rather than being stuck in the same locale.
This is especially true with a dynamic world, rather than a static world.
And even more true if it has the beauty of UE5 environments.

But... I view RPGs from the eyes of an artist first. Rather than through the eyes of a gamer first.

I don't have a lack of wonder regarding scale just because I can take an elevator to the top of the Empire State Building, rather than grappling to the top as I build it.

blat

CROW3 wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Same.
Tbh also just to keep the world big. It's an obvious point but also amazes me how often it's overlooked; "let's build a huge world.. and then zip around it at 100mph making it small again". Pointless.

100%. Alan Watts makes almost the exact point with air travel (back in the 60s), but it could be said for today as well. When can arrive at foreign lands in almost no time, it has a reductive impact on the world's scale and wonder.

Totally. I love the variety too as Dygz suggests but there's something in the journey.. and in the vastness itself, somehow.
To the extent that I will always look for alternatives to flying if I have the time and an interesting route to explore.
I am a bit of a map geek tbh (hence the multiple threads about biomes etc!).

CROW3

Yep. Flying and portals destroyed the 'wow' of WoW for me. Even in DF I tend to use my horse than my dragon. This is one of those design principles where I am damn near 100% on w/Intrepid: the world needs to feel big - in every sense - and wonderous and dangerous like Bilbo stepping out of the Shire.

Dygz wrote: »

It would not feel smaller and I would still retain my sense of wonder regarding the scale and impact.
Indeed, I would appreciate it more because I actually get to experience more of the world, rather than being stuck in the same locale.
This is especially true with a dynamic world, rather than a static world.
And even more true if it has the beauty of UE5 environments.

Huh - interesting. I feel the opposite, but for kind of the same reasons. Being on top of Mt. Whitney is breathtaking and awesome, but part of the reason is that I spent 8 days walking a hundred miles to enjoy the view. My gut tells me I'd appreciate it less and feel like it's much closer to me if I could just teleport there, chill for 10 min, then teleport to Costco to run errands.

Azherae

Based on my study of it, the effect that is experienced is entirely related to whether or not the traveler has any interest in the 'scenery' along the trip. My sample size is small, ofc (less than 200 people).

Brains seem to measure distance in 'number of points of interest', not travel time or actual distance in any way. Any two trips that provide the same number of PoI (this is personal to the traveler) are mentally stored as the same, with a general preference for shorter time ones.

People I know seem to vary in terms of how often they want to have a PoI brought to their attention while traveling, but the range is 33-60 seconds, so I generally tune for around 44.

Due to this, I now have a huge bias for this value and notice it really easily when a game chooses not to use anything near that value, either as a positive (to make an area feel large, e.g. BDO) or a negative (miscalibration due to other design constraints, e.g. specific parts of Throne and Liberty).

blat

CROW3 wrote: »

Yep. Flying and portals destroyed the 'wow' of WoW for me. Even in DF I tend to use my horse than my dragon. This is one of those design principles where I am damn near 100% on w/Intrepid: the world needs to feel big - in every sense - and wonderous and dangerous like Bilbo stepping out of the Shire.

Dygz wrote: »

It would not feel smaller and I would still retain my sense of wonder regarding the scale and impact.
Indeed, I would appreciate it more because I actually get to experience more of the world, rather than being stuck in the same locale.
This is especially true with a dynamic world, rather than a static world.
And even more true if it has the beauty of UE5 environments.

My gut tells me I'd appreciate it less and feel like it's much closer to me if I could just teleport there, chill for 10 min, then teleport to Costco to run errands.

The way people often take relatively little interest in the wonders near their own home, whereas others from the other side of the world will pay a fortune for the trip of their lifetime to see what you have around the corner.

Funny old world eh.

blat

Dygz wrote: »

I don't have a lack of wonder regarding scale just because I can take an elevator to the top of the Empire State Building, rather than grappling to the top as I build it.

Although in this example the scale can be appreciated visually in the moment, unlike the sense of scale that you have after travelling for a period of time across the globe.

In that latter case, there's no real frame of reference so the experience feels diminished.
Whereas travelling over time builds that sense cumulatively.

It's not just time though. Slight deviation here but; there is nothing like travelling broad distances over land.
Eg W Europe to Asia, feeling the geography & climate change gradually, watching as architectural styles slowly blend into one another. It is a real experience.
Teleportation (which going to an airport near home then emerging from an airport on the other side may as well be) is incredibly bland and forgettable by comparison.

Dygz

blat wrote: »

Totally. I love the variety too as Dygz suggests but there's something in the journey.. and in the vastness itself, somehow.
To the extent that I will always look for alternatives to flying if I have the time and an interesting route to explore.
I am a bit of a map geek tbh (hence the multiple threads about biomes etc!).

Yeah. I mean... I will frequently take the long way.
Also, 2+ alts re-explore the entire map the long way.

But there are times when fast travel is desirable - especially when you're trying to reach buddies halfway across the map.
Fast Travel is great for non-competitive, cooperative PvE gameplay.
Fast Travel can be very disruptive for competitive PvP (or competitive PvE) gameplay.

From my perspective, it's not the Fast Travel that makes a gameworld seem small, rather it's static content and static locations that can be outleveled.
Even in static gameworlds, with the first 2 or 3 characters - it's fun to explore the world from the eyes of a different gender or different Race/Culture or different Class or different Profession. Especially wearing different Gear.
I don't really care about Teleporting to different Zones/Nodes, but I do like being able to hop on Gryphons and/or Blimps. And it's especially fun when you are close enough to other players that you can recognize them as they fly in front of you or when you can recognize players running across the ground below you.
Even more fun with shapeshifting.

If gamers are focused on using Fast Travel to "beat the game" as quickly as possible or reach "the real game" as quickly as possible or lock content away from other gamers - yeah... Fast Travel is going to be problematic.

Ultimately depends on the Target Audience and the specific (MMO)RPG playstyles the game intends to support.

Child Item