what I dont understand is why the heck do you think hardcore guilds or "semi hardcore" guilds whatever that is, being encouraged to rush to max level due to Freeholds/Sieges lvl requirements is an issue or something worth lowering the bar for...
even if theres absolutely no endgame or content they would still min max and rush to max level, thats why they are called 'hardcore'
if theres a guild that wants to enjoy the game, not worry about efficiency and getting to max lvl quick, thats called a casual guild and they wont/shouldnt be thinking about castle sieges... focus on Node sieges those are made for everyone to be part of
even if theres absolutely no endgame or content they would still min max and rush to max level, thats why they are called 'hardcore'
I want sieges to happen sooner for this precise reason. As I explained in the OP, getting a castle earlier would mean that this guild would now want to level up its nodes and protect the tax caravans, because that's the most optimal thing to do in order to benefit from having a castle. Those actions take away time from direct vertical progress.
Other strong guilds would then also want to get siege scrolls asap, because the earlier you manage to siege a castle-owning guild - the higher your chances of winning, because that guild hasn't snowballed from all the money they're getting.
And considering that it would most likely be 5 of the strongest guilds on the server that get the castles (or at least 5 of the top10 guilds) - that means that other hardcore guilds would have a higher chance of contesting farming spots or simply even farming them, because the castle guilds are busy with other stuff more often.
As I've been saying from the very moment I've come to these forums, I want tighter pvp balancing, be it through gear, through ability acquisition or, in this case, through slowing down the snowball effect of the strongest guilds on the server.
I want that tight balancing because that is a way more fun way to have pvp in your game, rather than have a super obvious dominating guild that everyone is afraid to wardec and every noob wants to join because they think they'll get some benefits from it.
From all the L2 servers I've played on - the funnest ones have always been the ones where you had at least 3 different strong guilds fighting each other, with several "satellite" smaller guilds that could leverage their members to gain favors and benefits from the stronger guilds. And this could only be possible if the strong guilds were close in power, rather than far apart.
I want that kind of interaction in Ashes, which is why I believe that having sieges sooner would be more beneficial for the game overall.
I want sieges to happen sooner for this precise reason. As I explained in the OP, getting a castle earlier would mean that this guild would now want to level up its nodes and protect the tax caravans, because that's the most optimal thing to do in order to benefit from having a castle. Those actions take away time from direct vertical progress.
but then you are taking away from one of the main points of AoC endgame for large-scale guild content which is all the preparation and dedication required to gear up through a highly lengthy crafting system, dealing with all the open world competition for rescources from raids, world bosses, dealing with guild wars and drama, to be able to get to 50 while Ready for the PVX raid that will take place at castles,
castles which are taken by 5 of the main antagonists in the game - so they must be lvl +50 for obvious reasons, AoC is not New World where you just level up and go spam sieges, its a very difficult raid that you need the best gear possible which takes a tremendous amount of effort to achieve as already mentioned,
what you are asking for goes against what AoC is IMO to pretty much no benefit, balancing castle holders snowballing through gold acquisition can be addressed in lots of different ways
I cannot give a detailed answer about my opinion because Im super busy with work these last days but Im 100% with you @NiKr
The PvP should be reachable at early game at any level included events like Castle siege that is only once a month.
First because it's fun
Second because of the argument of vertical progression only (people gonna spend the month focus only on level up to be able to castle siege)
Third for economic reasons as it was discussed in millions onf threads : An MMO focused on the end game max level impacts the economy and all tems below max level become obsolete, unsellable and useless. Not to mention that, because of transmog, low-level aesthetic items will be of no interest.
mmorpgs are marathons, not sprints. doesnt matter if you cant participate in the first 1-3 sieges because you leveled slower than others...you will be able to participate in the next 10 years of sieges...
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
castles are content made for the sweatiest of the hardcore players, as it should be
would love if players accepted that not every content is meant for every type of player, and stopped asking to lower the bar for stuff to try and make casuals or "semis" happy, that's what new world did with daily sieges that were inclusive, look how that turned out
I accepted that I won't ever be a rank 1 arena player in AoC, even tho I'd love to, because I wont practice 8h a day for that, and I'm not here asking for skills to be balanced like FF14, only one weapon type allowed or CCs to be disabled for arenas so I get a better chance of competing for those,
I think it should be possible the initial Castle Sieges to be designed for the sweatiest of the Hardcore players who are Level 35 or Level 42, rather than Max Level.
And then... that will become even more challenging as those Level 35 Hardcore Guilds progress from Level 35 to Level 50.
I don't know that Casuals are asking for a bar to be lowered.
I'm saying that the current design seems significantly different from the Kickstarter design.
Keep in mind that the Kickstarter vision was probably a blend of Jeffrey and Steven.
Jeffrey bringing the EQ vision and Steven bringing the L2/ArcheAge vision.
At the time of the Kickstarter, most of the Intrepid Devs were EQ devs, so I was expecting EQ/EQ2 players to be a key part of the Target Audience.
Also, Nodes and Meaningful Conflict are very similar to designs and concepts in the EQNext design, so I was very eager to support that development financially (even if the PvP ended up being too much for me to actually play). I still got my money's worth on that regardless, I think. Although, we haven't seen enough of that in the game yet for me to know that Nodes are actually working.
Most of what we've seen demoed is generic for UE4/5 MMORPG Tools.
What I find most intriguing about the EQNext design... and then by extension, the Ashes design... is the potential for Nodes (and Castles) and Meaningful Conflict to push me from a Carebear PvEer into an uncaring PvPer.
My favorite form of PvP is objective defense. Defending Towns/Cities or some other objective.
If I help build a Town or City - I'm going to want to return to defend it from destruction even if I'm out exploring on the other side of map. Even though I'm a Carebear Explorer first and foremost, I would drop exploration and race back to Town regardless of whether it was an evironmental threat, like an earthquake, or a mob attack, like a Monster (Coin) Hoarde or a PvP attack.
Similar for Meaningful Conflict - PvP that is a catalyst for changing the world.
For EQNext, the Kithicor Forest example of their "PvP Conflict" Pillar was perfect because the core motivation of the conflict involved increasing the Stealth stat and Stealth is the stat I focus on most. So, I could see how I could be pushed to PvP if I had to do that to increase my Stealth. If other players are going to try to impede me from collecting the Resources I need to increase my Stealth, I'd just have to kill them. Not because I enjoy PvP, but because I'm gonna do whatever I need to do to increase my Stealth.
Same could very well be true with Racial progression. If I have to attack some Nodes to insure that my Race has at least on City or one Metro so I can complete my Racial progression - I could probably be pushed to initiate PvP quite easily.
Castle Defense and Caravan Defense are also precisely the kinds of PvP I would love.
Risk v Reward PvP acts as anti-hype for me.
Just as I abhor non-consensual PvP combat. And dislike "random", FFA PvP.
That type of PvP is something I'd have to try to tolerate - because, you know, you can't always get everything you want in a game. But, could possibly be OK for me if the other features are excellent.
But, now, there is another major feature that was a draw for me, that is gated behind Max Level.
Oh! You really want to build and defend a Freehold? You have to reach Max Level first.
Oh! You love Castle Defense? You have to wait reach Max Level first.
If you want to PvP before Max Level, we have tons of Risk v Reward PvP for that.
Based on the Kickstarter, I was hoping to be able to jump into Castle Sieges and Node Sieges and Caravan attack/defense by Levels 25-30. Not have to wait until Max Level for that.
I dunno what any of that has to do with wanting that content to be Casual.
I would also HOPE that we don't have to wait until Max Level to begin participating in Arena battles.
I would also gripe about Arenas being gated as Max Level content.
castles are content made for the sweatiest of the hardcore players, as it should be
would love if players accepted that not every content is meant for every type of player, and stopped asking to lower the bar for stuff to try and make casuals or "semis" happy, that's what new world did with daily sieges that were inclusive, look how that turned out
I accepted that I won't ever be a rank 1 arena player in AoC, even tho I'd love to, because I wont practice 8h a day for that, and I'm not here asking for skills to be balanced like FF14, only one weapon type allowed or CCs to be disabled for arenas so I get a better chance of competing for those,
I think it should be possible the initial Castle Sieges to designed for the sweatiest of the Hardcore players who are Level 35 or Level 42, rather than Max Level.
And then... that will become even more challenging as those Level 35 Hardcore Guilds progress from Level 35 to Level 50.
I don't know that Casuals are asking for a bar to be lowered.
I'm saying that the current design seems significantly different from the Kickstarter design.
Keep in mind that the Kickstarter vision was probably a blend of Jeffrey and Steven.
Jeffrey bringing the EQ vision and Steven bringing the L2/ArcheAge vision.
At the time of the Kickstarter, most of the Intrepid Devs were EQ devs, so I was expecting EQ/EQ2 players to be a key part of the Target Audience.
Also, Nodes and Meaningful Conflict are very similar to designs and concepts in the EQNext design, so I was very eager to support that development financially (even if the PvP ended up being too much for me to actually play). I still got my money's worth on that regardless, I think. Although, we haven't seen enough of that in the game yet for me to know that Nodes are actually working.
Most of what we've seen demoed is generic for UE4/5 MMORPG Tools.
What I find most intriguing about the EQNext design... and then by extension, the Ashes design... is the potential for Nodes (and Castles) and Meaningful Conflict to push me from a Carebear PvEer into an uncaring PvPer.
My favorite form of PvP is objective defense. Defending Towns/Cities or some other objective.
If I help build a Town or City - I'm going to want to return to defend it from destruction even if I'm out exploring on the other side of map. Even though I'm a Carebear Explorer first and foremost, I would drop exploration and race back to Town regardless of whether it was an evironmental threat, like an earthquake, or a mob attack, like a Monster (Coin) Hoarde or a PvP attack.
Similar for Meaningful Conflict - PvP that is a catalyst for changing the world.
For EQNext, the Kithicor Forest example of their "PvP Conflict" Pillar was perfect because the core motivation of the conflict involved increasing the Stealth stat and Stealth is the stat I focus on most. So, I could see how I could be pushed to PvP if I had to do that to increase my Stealth. If other players are going to try to impede me from collecting the Resources I need to increase my Stealth, I'd just have to kill them. Not because I enjoy PvP, but because I'm gonna do whatever I need to do to increase my Stealth.
Same could very well be true with Racial progression. If I have to attack some Nodes to insure that my Race has at least on City or one Metro so I can complete my Racial progression - I could probably be pushed to initiate PvP quite easily.
Castle Defense and Caravan Defense are also precisely the kinds of PvP I would love.
Risk v Reward PvP acts as anti-hype for me.
Just as I abhor non-consensual PvP combat. And dislike "random", FFA PvP.
That type of PvP is something I'd have to try to tolerate - because, you know, you can't always get everything you want in a game. But, could possibly be OK for me if the other features are excellent.
But, now, there is another major feature that was a draw for me, that is gated behind Max Level.
Oh! You really want to build and defend a Freehold? You have to reach Max Level first.
Oh! You love Castle Defense? You have to wait reach Max Level first.
If you want to PvP before Max Level, we have tons of Risk v Reward PvP for that.
Based on the Kickstarter, I was hoping to be able to jump into Castle Sieges and Node Sieges and Caravan attack/defense by Levels 25-30. Not have to wait until Max Level for that.
I dunno what any of that has to do with wanting that content to be Casual.
I would also HOPE that we don't have to wait until Max Level to begin participating in Arena battles.
I would also gripe about Arenas being gated as Max Level content.
why do you hate risk/reward so much? every objective based pvp has risk vs reward...the devs just don't phrase things that way.
also, you are a hardcore time player, you can get to 50 fast. and even if you focus on things that rent leveling, you will get to 50 eventually, and you will be able to enjoy years and years of objective based pvp. don't look at things short term!
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
but then you are taking away from one of the main points of AoC endgame for large-scale guild content which is all the preparation and dedication required to gear up through a highly lengthy crafting system, dealing with all the open world competition for rescources from raids, world bosses, dealing with guild wars and drama, to be able to get to 50 while Ready for the PVX raid that will take place at castles,
castles which are taken by 5 of the main antagonists in the game - so they must be lvl +50 for obvious reasons, AoC is not New World where you just level up and go spam sieges, its a very difficult raid that you need the best gear possible which takes a tremendous amount of effort to achieve as already mentioned,
what you are asking for goes against what AoC is IMO to pretty much no benefit, balancing castle holders snowballing through gold acquisition can be addressed in lots of different ways
Again, Ashes is not supposed to have an Endgame.
That's what the devs stated for the first 5 years of development.
I don't see how kicking the Ancients out of the Castle at Level 35 negatively affects the large-scale Guild content. It's just that the PvP competition for owning a Castle begins earlier than Max Level.
Eventually, the occupants of the Castle are going to be Level 50 Guilds.
And Castle Sieges occur every month. You still have to gear up and prep as best you can to win a Castle
I would much rather kick the Ancients out of the Castles at Level 35 - 42.
Have monthly PvP battles at the Castles as the Guilds ramp up to Level 50.
And then, several months after Level 50 Guilds have occupied the Castles have a PvX Event where Level 60 Ancients try to kick the Monarchs out.
I don't understand why that's an issue or "lowering" the bar.
but then you are taking away from one of the main points of AoC endgame for large-scale guild content which is all the preparation and dedication required to gear up through a highly lengthy crafting system, dealing with all the open world competition for rescources from raids, world bosses, dealing with guild wars and drama, to be able to get to 50 while Ready for the PVX raid that will take place at castles,
castles which are taken by 5 of the main antagonists in the game - so they must be lvl +50 for obvious reasons, AoC is not New World where you just level up and go spam sieges, its a very difficult raid that you need the best gear possible which takes a tremendous amount of effort to achieve as already mentioned,
what you are asking for goes against what AoC is IMO to pretty much no benefit, balancing castle holders snowballing through gold acquisition can be addressed in lots of different ways
Again, Ashes is not supposed to have an Endgame.
That's what the devs stated for the first 5 years of development.
I don't see how kicking the Ancients out of the Castle at Level 35 negatively affects the large-scale Guild content. It's just that the PvP competition for owning a Castle begins earlier than Max Level.
Eventually, the occupants of the Castle are going to be Level 50 Guilds.
And Castle Sieges occur every month. You still have to gear up and prep as best you can to win a Castle
I would much rather kick the Ancients out of the Castles at Level 35 - 42.
Have monthly PvP battles at the Castles as the Guilds ramp up to Level 50.
And then, several months after Level 50 Guilds have occupied the Castles have a PvX Event where Level 60 Ancients try to kick the Monarchs out.
I don't understand why that's an issue or "lowering" the bar.
you might not even be able to kick them out of their castle at level 35...since you would probably need to farm good gear for that. so instead of farming 2 months to get to 50, then lets say another month to get some gear, you would spend 1 month to get to 35, plus lets say another month to get gear, and you will probably level up anyways trying to get that gear.
nothing indicates that you will be able to win the fight vs the ancients as soon as you hit level 35, or even at 50. no one will most likely have a castle for the first few months, depending on the stats requirements to kick the ancients out...even if the mobs were level 35...I don't see why it is a problem to do one of the many activities that the game offers at level 50 instead of sooner.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
why do you hate risk/reward so much? every objective based pvp has risk vs reward...the devs just don't phrase things that way.
also, you are a hardcore time player, you can get to 50 fast. and even if you focus on things that rent leveling, you will get to 50 eventually, and you will be able to enjoy years and years of objective based pvp. don't look at things short term!
Because I am a non-competitive, commie, hippie, boomer, carebear player.
And because for the first 20 years of RPGs (which is when I began playing), RPGs were cooperative gameplay, rather than competitive gameplay.
And because I play RPGs to emulate the Fantasy novels I read in the 20th century - wherein the hero protagonists were not primarily motivated by rewards.
There is a reason that I capitalize Meaningful Conflict and Risk v Reward.
Just as there is a reason that I captialize Good when I'm talking about RPG Alignments.
Steven's "Risk v Reward" is different than just generic risk v reward.
Steven defines Risk v Reward for Ashes as: "There can be no Reward without significant Risk."
And that Risk primarily means PvP - especially PvP combat. Specifically, PvP combat that is not objective-based.
So, yes... I do not have an issue with the risk v reward that is a byproduct of Meaningful Conflict.
I do have an issue with Steven's obsession with Risk v Reward, where "There can be no Reward without significant Risk."
I am a Hardcore-Time player.
That has nothing to do with whether categories of content should be gated to be Max Level content in RPGs.
That kind of gating is inherently poor game design. And should be avoided where possible.
I've left this thread along for a bit to see how others were reacting to this.
My first thought on this is "of course". I've said this was likely to be the case in discussions with Dygz in the past - specifically stating that while it hasn't been said, the mobs in castles will obviously be end game mobs.
While I can see the issue some people have in relation to this simply meaning that the strong get stronger - with the way sieges are, with the speed of leveling, castles were always going to go to the people that hit the level cap first - whether by them being the first to get them, or by them being the first to take them in a siege.
The thing to keep in mind - Ashes is only being made for gamers like Steven. if you don't want a game where the strong get stronger, where they hold the weaker under their thumb to prevent them from rising up, then Ashes isn't the game for you, because that has always been the game Ashes was always going to be - but then I've been saying this for two years now.
castles which are taken by 5 of the main antagonists in the game - so they must be lvl +50 for obvious reasons
Could you give me that obvious reason? Cause to me it seems way more interesting to see guilds walk on the edge of balancing speed, pve skill and pvp skill. If castles are at 35, guilds gotta decide:
do they just level up in hopes of overleveling the boss or do they get better gear at 35 and push with their good pve skill?
but what if while they're getting better gear there's a guild that overleveled slightly and now has better augments and can win the pvp side of the encounter?
or what if there's a superior pve guild who could beat the boss at lvl30 with somewhat shitty gear?
and all of that is then considered in the context of wardeccing, because you neither have time to level up PKing alts nor do you want to gain PKs on your mains, cause dying with those penalties would set you back too much
All of that decision making at the top lvl of gameplay is way more interesting to me than simplistic fucking "we get lvl50, we get bare minimum gear, we beat boss". And that's exactly the kind of situation things would come down to, because grinding out 225h (probably more cause nodes will not level up faster) means that more and more hardcore guilds filter out, due to them not being able to keep up the insane leveling pace for all that time. So only the sweatiest sweats will get the castles. But not because they're good at pve or pvp or literally any other fucking mechanic. They'll only get it because they can sleep the least and grind mobs the most. And to me that shit sounds like the most boring-ass political situation in the game
AND AGAIN, I'm literally saying "only hardcore guilds will get the castles", but I want those guilds to have better and more interesting competition.
The thing to keep in mind - Ashes is only being made for gamers like Steven. if you don't want a game where the strong get stronger, where they hold the weaker under their thumb to prevent them from rising up, then Ashes isn't the game for you, because that has always been the game Ashes was always going to be - but then I've been saying this for two years now.
But that's the funny thing, "gamers like Steven" fought for castles before max lvl because castle guards weren't max lvl.
It was still hard as fuck, because the gear itself was even more behind the max lvl stuff, but that was the point - who could get a castle the fastest, given that your gear was still shit, your lvls weren't maxed and guards hit like trucks.
This is also one of the reasons why I'm not sure of the reason for this design. I feel like he was either told by other devs or just didn't think deeply enough about the interaction himself, and so "the obvious" choice was just "duh, it's gotta be max lvl, cause only max lvl can be the hardest". Except the "hardest" part there comes from only the pve part, while in a 35lvl design it would come from politics and pvx.
castles are content made for the sweatiest of the hardcore players, as it should be
would love if players accepted that not every content is meant for every type of player, and stopped asking to lower the bar for stuff to try and make casuals or "semis" happy, that's what new world did with daily sieges that were inclusive, look how that turned out
I accepted that I won't ever be a rank 1 arena player in AoC, even tho I'd love to, because I wont practice 8h a day for that, and I'm not here asking for skills to be balanced like FF14, only one weapon type allowed or CCs to be disabled for arenas so I get a better chance of competing for those,
A big failure of New World was that the fights over cities were exclusive to a few Players and very high reward/stake ( taxes ). I don't see AOC being any different there. Besides games don't change by somebody posting on the forum
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I've said this was likely to be the case in discussions with Dygz in the past - specifically stating that while it hasn't been said, the mobs in castles will obviously be end game mobs.
While I can see the issue some people have in relation to this simply meaning that the strong get stronger - with the way sieges are, with the speed of leveling, castles were always going to go to the people that hit the level cap first - whether by them being the first to get them, or by them being the first to take them in a siege.
The thing to keep in mind - Ashes is only being made for gamers like Steven. if you don't want a game where the strong get stronger, where they hold the weaker under their thumb to prevent them from rising up, then Ashes isn't the game for you, because that has always been the game Ashes was always going to be - but then I've been saying this for two years now.
They can't be Endgame mobs if Ashes doesn't have an Endgame.
The Ancients in the Castle being Level 50-55 makes sense for MMORPGs created prior to 2015 that have a static world, rather than a dynamic world... that are designed for Endgame to be the real the game.
Again, the primary draw of the Ashes design for me is that Verra is a dynamic world - with Nodes and Meaningful Conflict (in conjuntion with the Events system) putting an end to Endgame.
If it's going to be another race-to-Max-Level-and-then-focus-on-PvP-combat game - I'm not interested in playing that game.
And, yes, the addition of the Open Seas made it clear that Ashes is only being made for gamers like Steven.
With an EQ Lead Game Designer and so many EQ/EQ2 devs on the team, in addition to Nodes and Meaningful Conflict being very similar to the EQNext design, I was expecting EQ/EQ2/Landmark players to be in the Target Audience.
After Jeffrey Bard and several of the EQ/EQ2 devs left, it became clear that the Target Audience is primarily L2/ArcheAge/EvE.
It's just becoming clearer that Ashes is not really the game described in the Kickstarter.
Max Level is the real game.
And Ashes is a PvP-centric game with large areas of the map designated for Corruption-free FFA PvP.
Which is OK.
I think the MMO community kinda needs a game that shifts in this way as a counter to so many other MMOs, like NW, that shift towards PvE.
(I don't understand why Castle Sieges beginning at Level 35 - Level 42 would be in opposition to "the strong get stronger, where they hold the weaker under their thumb to prevent them from rising up.")
I don't really see the issue with having some content gated for level 50. Level 50s need things to do too, other than quit because the game is over or compete with lower levels for the same content.
People who want to rush to max level are going to rush to max level regardless. When Classic WOW was re-released, people rushed to max level, even though it was supposedly the "same game" that people played 20 years ago when they didn't rush to max level.
If you want it to take 3-6 months to get max level, then take 3-6 months to get to max level. I have a level 65 Dracthyr on dragonflight with my kid, and it's taken us over a year to get there. All you have to do is spend your time doing content that doesn't give you experience, pretty simple. We spend most of our time roleplaying, it takes us an hour just to do 1 quest lol. She has zero interest in grinding out levels, and mostly wants to avoid combat.
People can say that "Retail WOW is all about end game content." but that definitely ain't true for my kid. She could care less about that stuff, but she still enjoys playing the game. The fact that content exists is completely irrelevant to our gameplay.
We have even met a few players in the open world and RPd with them randomly from time to time and overall it has been a fun experience. Sure, most people are off doing their own thing, but if you walk around the game roleplay "saying" things in chat, you attract people who want to join in the fun.
If the only real reason to fear the power levelling grind is because level 50s are going to come around and stomp noobs who are smelling the roses, that's the entire point of the corruption system. So complain about corruption system not working as intended instead of the game having some content gated at level 50.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2
Um...
So... you're saying that Level 50 Guilds would stop doing Castle Sieges for some reason?
Why would the game be over when Guilds reach Level 50?
Guilds would first occupy Castles at Level 35.
At some point, the first Guilds on the server will reach Level 50.
And then the primary actual competition for Castles would be Level 50 Guilds.
Since Ashes is supposed to be a dynamic game, rather than a static game, that should mean that there can be Events where Level 60 NPC Ancients join in the Sieges in order to try to retake the Castles.
People who want to try to rush to Max Level can do so.
That doesn't mean that the game has to be designed such that "the real game begins at Max Level".
When WoW released, it really wasn't possible for the average player to reach Max Level in a few weeks.
I have no clue what they did with Classic WoW, but I had no expectation for Classic WoW to put an end to Endgame - especially since it's a static world, rather than a dynamic world.
And, yes...
Dragonflight has found a different solution for putting an end to Endgame. For me. Battlepasses.
Which is why I expect to be playing WoW, when I want to play an MMORPG, instead of playing Ashes.
But, I'm also not aware of content in Dragonflight that is gated for Max Level.
Maybe you can refresh my memory. What are the activities in Dragonflight that remain gated until reaching Max Level?
I don't really see the issue with having some content gated for level 50. Level 50s need things to do too, other than quit because the game is over or compete with lower levels for the same content.
If the only real reason to fear the power levelling grind is because level 50s are going to come around and stomp noobs who are smelling the roses, that's the entire point of the corruption system. So complain about corruption system not working as intended instead of the game having some content gated at level 50.
But why has it to be gated there? And how exactly would allowing that content to be at lvl35 magically prevent it from existing at lvl50?
but then you are taking away from one of the main points of AoC endgame for large-scale guild content
Who is taking away that? Sieges will exist for as long as the game does and they'll all be at max lvl after pretty much the very first one.
How exactly what I'm proposing takes away content at max lvl?
I feel like people have been so damn brainrotted by recent mmos that they can't even conceptualize a game having content that exists at more lvls than "just the max one".
Well, if i have a grind group to level in, the direction seems clear. Mill around the nodes until level 35 or 40 and then head towards a castle to finish the grind/scout/skirmish.
Well, if i have a grind group to level in, the direction seems clear. Mill around the nodes until level 35 or 40 and then head towards a castle to finish the grind/scout/skirmish.
I'm not sure what the "finish the grind/scout/skirmish" means here. Do you mean that you just level up somewhere else up to 35 and then go to the castle in hopes of beating the boss? Or what context are you talking about here?
I don't really see the issue with having some content gated for level 50. Level 50s need things to do too, other than quit because the game is over or compete with lower levels for the same content.
If the only real reason to fear the power levelling grind is because level 50s are going to come around and stomp noobs who are smelling the roses, that's the entire point of the corruption system. So complain about corruption system not working as intended instead of the game having some content gated at level 50.
But why has it to be gated there? And how exactly would allowing that content to be at lvl35 magically prevent it from existing at lvl50?
I mean with this line of questioning why have any level 50 monsters at all? Cap them at 35, heck cap them at level 1. Boom, game is done...
I feel like people have been so damn brainrotted by recent mmos that they can't even conceptualize a game having content that exists at more lvls than "just the max one".
Uhh, Ashes has content that exists at more levels than the max one. We see the devs at level 25 doing stuff. I don't see why you are insulting people who are OK with a couple pieces of content being gated at max level. For crying out loud we have only seen 2 systems out of the thousands proposed by the Ashes design (Freeholds and Castles) and you are freaking out about it.
What next, a level 50+ raid boss is shown and we get a forums post going on for days about how there is an end game and now everything is fucked?
Uhh, Ashes has content that exists at more levels than the max one. We see the devs at level 25 doing stuff. I don't see why you are insulting people who are OK with a couple pieces of content being gated at max level. For crying out loud we have only seen 2 systems out of the thousands proposed by the Ashes design (Freeholds and Castles) and you are freaking out about it.
You say this and yet literally in the first part of this comment you say "why not cap things at 35". I know that's a joke, but it's not the joke that's funny and instead the attitude.
My whole point is that all types of gameplay should exist at, at least, several progression levels. I would post about lvl50 raid bosses, because that feature exists across all lvls of the game. I won't cry if metropolis mayoral caravans can only be initiated by lvl50 people, because caravans (supposedly) are available on earlier lvls.
The issue is that both freeholds and castles are now ONLY available at 50. Yes, you could argue that some true pro uber pvers can kill the castle boss at below lvl 50, but then it's a question of how hard is the pve in the game, rather than a question of when the content is available.
Having freeholds at lower lvls would mean that guilds need to spend their money against each other sooner. Having castles at lower lvls means that guilds need to spend more time on non-progression activities. Neither of those things mean that normal castle sieges won't be filled by purely lvl50 people or that all freeholds won't be operated by lvl50 players. It simply means that earlier access to them would create a shift in general top skill player behavior.
This would lead to more optimal ways of playing the game than just "kill mobs get lvls". This would lead to more interesting political gameplay than just "become the strongest by killing mobs and getting lvls before others can do the same - and you'll have power". This can potentially shift the guild power on the server, because the hardcorest guilds will be preoccupied, which will allow other hardcore guilds to outpace them - and in the end both of them will be more evenly matched, which will lead to better server health and optics for the game.
All of those things seem way more interesting and better for the game than the general argument from this thread of "well duhhhh, this obviously has to be at max lvl, becaaaause... WELL IT HAS TO BE!"
Well, if i have a grind group to level in, the direction seems clear. Mill around the nodes until level 35 or 40 and then head towards a castle to finish the grind/scout/skirmish.
I'm not sure what the "finish the grind/scout/skirmish" means here. Do you mean that you just level up somewhere else up to 35 and then go to the castle in hopes of beating the boss? Or what context are you talking about here?
Well, when you have grinders and few grind spots you can bet castles will be grind spots until a castle is captured. Its a shame that the castles don't level with the nodes but I will take what has been offered.
Well, when you have grinders and few grind spots you can bet castles will be grind spots until a castle is captured. Its a shame that the castles don't level with the nodes but I will take what has been offered.
That is an interesting idea and could potentially be the case if Intrepid want it that way. If the mobs do stay lvl50 then I think it'd definitely be very interesting to have them give lvl50-approiate lvls of xp and loot, cause that would mean HUGE fights for those rewards between the top farmers.
Only 5 spots in the entire game that are ahead of the leveling curve? Sounds like a great place to pvx to your heart's content.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I mean with this line of questioning why have any level 50 monsters at all? Cap them at 35, heck cap them at level 1. Boom, game is done...
Again... that might kinda make sense for a static game.
But all you are actually saying is that Castle PvP should be Max Level content, so if that becomes available at Level 35, Level cap should be 35.
Which is about as backwards as backwards-thinking can be.
In a dynamic game world, if player characters can Level from 35 to 50, NPCs should also be able to Level from 35 to 50+.
But, also, kicking the Ancients out of the Castles at Level 35 just means that Castle PvP can start at Level 35 and becomes increasingly difficult as Guilds Level from 35 - Level 50.
And then Level 60 Ancients can try to reclaim the Castle.
Uhh, Ashes has content that exists at more levels than the max one. We see the devs at level 25 doing stuff. I don't see why you are insulting people who are OK with a couple pieces of content being gated at max level. For crying out loud we have only seen 2 systems out of the thousands proposed by the Ashes design (Freeholds and Castles) and you are freaking out about it.
What next, a level 50+ raid boss is shown and we get a forums post going on for days about how there is an end game and now everything is fucked?
We see devs demoing content while they use dev code cheats. Yes.
I would expect complaints if Raids were gated to only become available after players reach Max Level.
It truly feels like "pvpers" don't understand nuance. I guess I should've just outright said "HARDCORES WILL GET THE FIRST CASLTES AND IT IS AS IT SHOULD BE" in the OP, though I feel like even that would still fly over their heads.
What could argue against that ?
Those who gives their best, hardest, etc. - and have the best Condition - first sprint 100 Meters.
Or run a full Marathon.
Or perform best in most kinds of Sports.
All World Champion Ships are full of "Hardcore" Athletes.
Why should Hardcore-Players not be rewarded for being Hardcore in an MMORPG ?
Why should Hardcore-Players not be rewarded for being Hardcore in an MMORPG ?
Which is exactly the question I'd be asked after saying that they should get rewarded. Hell, I already did get those questions. Half of this thread is about that question, even though the OP says "I'm ok with strong people being strong".
Well, when you have grinders and few grind spots you can bet castles will be grind spots until a castle is captured. Its a shame that the castles don't level with the nodes but I will take what has been offered.
That is an interesting idea and could potentially be the case if Intrepid want it that way. If the mobs do stay lvl50 then I think it'd definitely be very interesting to have them give lvl50-approiate lvls of xp and loot, cause that would mean HUGE fights for those rewards between the top farmers.
Only 5 spots in the entire game that are ahead of the leveling curve? Sounds like a great place to pvx to your heart's content.
Yeah. I will see what happens in the future. So much hope, so many assumptions and so many guestimations. 😀
Comments
even if theres absolutely no endgame or content they would still min max and rush to max level, thats why they are called 'hardcore'
if theres a guild that wants to enjoy the game, not worry about efficiency and getting to max lvl quick, thats called a casual guild and they wont/shouldnt be thinking about castle sieges... focus on Node sieges those are made for everyone to be part of
Other strong guilds would then also want to get siege scrolls asap, because the earlier you manage to siege a castle-owning guild - the higher your chances of winning, because that guild hasn't snowballed from all the money they're getting.
And considering that it would most likely be 5 of the strongest guilds on the server that get the castles (or at least 5 of the top10 guilds) - that means that other hardcore guilds would have a higher chance of contesting farming spots or simply even farming them, because the castle guilds are busy with other stuff more often.
As I've been saying from the very moment I've come to these forums, I want tighter pvp balancing, be it through gear, through ability acquisition or, in this case, through slowing down the snowball effect of the strongest guilds on the server.
I want that tight balancing because that is a way more fun way to have pvp in your game, rather than have a super obvious dominating guild that everyone is afraid to wardec and every noob wants to join because they think they'll get some benefits from it.
From all the L2 servers I've played on - the funnest ones have always been the ones where you had at least 3 different strong guilds fighting each other, with several "satellite" smaller guilds that could leverage their members to gain favors and benefits from the stronger guilds. And this could only be possible if the strong guilds were close in power, rather than far apart.
I want that kind of interaction in Ashes, which is why I believe that having sieges sooner would be more beneficial for the game overall.
but then you are taking away from one of the main points of AoC endgame for large-scale guild content which is all the preparation and dedication required to gear up through a highly lengthy crafting system, dealing with all the open world competition for rescources from raids, world bosses, dealing with guild wars and drama, to be able to get to 50 while Ready for the PVX raid that will take place at castles,
castles which are taken by 5 of the main antagonists in the game - so they must be lvl +50 for obvious reasons, AoC is not New World where you just level up and go spam sieges, its a very difficult raid that you need the best gear possible which takes a tremendous amount of effort to achieve as already mentioned,
what you are asking for goes against what AoC is IMO to pretty much no benefit, balancing castle holders snowballing through gold acquisition can be addressed in lots of different ways
The PvP should be reachable at early game at any level included events like Castle siege that is only once a month.
First because it's fun
Second because of the argument of vertical progression only (people gonna spend the month focus only on level up to be able to castle siege)
Third for economic reasons as it was discussed in millions onf threads : An MMO focused on the end game max level impacts the economy and all tems below max level become obsolete, unsellable and useless. Not to mention that, because of transmog, low-level aesthetic items will be of no interest.
Maybe longer.
And then... that will become even more challenging as those Level 35 Hardcore Guilds progress from Level 35 to Level 50.
I don't know that Casuals are asking for a bar to be lowered.
I'm saying that the current design seems significantly different from the Kickstarter design.
Keep in mind that the Kickstarter vision was probably a blend of Jeffrey and Steven.
Jeffrey bringing the EQ vision and Steven bringing the L2/ArcheAge vision.
At the time of the Kickstarter, most of the Intrepid Devs were EQ devs, so I was expecting EQ/EQ2 players to be a key part of the Target Audience.
Also, Nodes and Meaningful Conflict are very similar to designs and concepts in the EQNext design, so I was very eager to support that development financially (even if the PvP ended up being too much for me to actually play). I still got my money's worth on that regardless, I think. Although, we haven't seen enough of that in the game yet for me to know that Nodes are actually working.
Most of what we've seen demoed is generic for UE4/5 MMORPG Tools.
What I find most intriguing about the EQNext design... and then by extension, the Ashes design... is the potential for Nodes (and Castles) and Meaningful Conflict to push me from a Carebear PvEer into an uncaring PvPer.
My favorite form of PvP is objective defense. Defending Towns/Cities or some other objective.
If I help build a Town or City - I'm going to want to return to defend it from destruction even if I'm out exploring on the other side of map. Even though I'm a Carebear Explorer first and foremost, I would drop exploration and race back to Town regardless of whether it was an evironmental threat, like an earthquake, or a mob attack, like a Monster (Coin) Hoarde or a PvP attack.
Similar for Meaningful Conflict - PvP that is a catalyst for changing the world.
For EQNext, the Kithicor Forest example of their "PvP Conflict" Pillar was perfect because the core motivation of the conflict involved increasing the Stealth stat and Stealth is the stat I focus on most. So, I could see how I could be pushed to PvP if I had to do that to increase my Stealth. If other players are going to try to impede me from collecting the Resources I need to increase my Stealth, I'd just have to kill them. Not because I enjoy PvP, but because I'm gonna do whatever I need to do to increase my Stealth.
Same could very well be true with Racial progression. If I have to attack some Nodes to insure that my Race has at least on City or one Metro so I can complete my Racial progression - I could probably be pushed to initiate PvP quite easily.
Castle Defense and Caravan Defense are also precisely the kinds of PvP I would love.
Risk v Reward PvP acts as anti-hype for me.
Just as I abhor non-consensual PvP combat. And dislike "random", FFA PvP.
That type of PvP is something I'd have to try to tolerate - because, you know, you can't always get everything you want in a game. But, could possibly be OK for me if the other features are excellent.
But, now, there is another major feature that was a draw for me, that is gated behind Max Level.
Oh! You really want to build and defend a Freehold? You have to reach Max Level first.
Oh! You love Castle Defense? You have to wait reach Max Level first.
If you want to PvP before Max Level, we have tons of Risk v Reward PvP for that.
Based on the Kickstarter, I was hoping to be able to jump into Castle Sieges and Node Sieges and Caravan attack/defense by Levels 25-30. Not have to wait until Max Level for that.
I dunno what any of that has to do with wanting that content to be Casual.
I would also HOPE that we don't have to wait until Max Level to begin participating in Arena battles.
I would also gripe about Arenas being gated as Max Level content.
why do you hate risk/reward so much? every objective based pvp has risk vs reward...the devs just don't phrase things that way.
also, you are a hardcore time player, you can get to 50 fast. and even if you focus on things that rent leveling, you will get to 50 eventually, and you will be able to enjoy years and years of objective based pvp. don't look at things short term!
That's what the devs stated for the first 5 years of development.
I don't see how kicking the Ancients out of the Castle at Level 35 negatively affects the large-scale Guild content. It's just that the PvP competition for owning a Castle begins earlier than Max Level.
Eventually, the occupants of the Castle are going to be Level 50 Guilds.
And Castle Sieges occur every month. You still have to gear up and prep as best you can to win a Castle
I would much rather kick the Ancients out of the Castles at Level 35 - 42.
Have monthly PvP battles at the Castles as the Guilds ramp up to Level 50.
And then, several months after Level 50 Guilds have occupied the Castles have a PvX Event where Level 60 Ancients try to kick the Monarchs out.
I don't understand why that's an issue or "lowering" the bar.
you might not even be able to kick them out of their castle at level 35...since you would probably need to farm good gear for that. so instead of farming 2 months to get to 50, then lets say another month to get some gear, you would spend 1 month to get to 35, plus lets say another month to get gear, and you will probably level up anyways trying to get that gear.
nothing indicates that you will be able to win the fight vs the ancients as soon as you hit level 35, or even at 50. no one will most likely have a castle for the first few months, depending on the stats requirements to kick the ancients out...even if the mobs were level 35...I don't see why it is a problem to do one of the many activities that the game offers at level 50 instead of sooner.
And because for the first 20 years of RPGs (which is when I began playing), RPGs were cooperative gameplay, rather than competitive gameplay.
And because I play RPGs to emulate the Fantasy novels I read in the 20th century - wherein the hero protagonists were not primarily motivated by rewards.
There is a reason that I capitalize Meaningful Conflict and Risk v Reward.
Just as there is a reason that I captialize Good when I'm talking about RPG Alignments.
Steven's "Risk v Reward" is different than just generic risk v reward.
Steven defines Risk v Reward for Ashes as: "There can be no Reward without significant Risk."
And that Risk primarily means PvP - especially PvP combat. Specifically, PvP combat that is not objective-based.
So, yes... I do not have an issue with the risk v reward that is a byproduct of Meaningful Conflict.
I do have an issue with Steven's obsession with Risk v Reward, where "There can be no Reward without significant Risk."
I am a Hardcore-Time player.
That has nothing to do with whether categories of content should be gated to be Max Level content in RPGs.
That kind of gating is inherently poor game design. And should be avoided where possible.
My first thought on this is "of course". I've said this was likely to be the case in discussions with Dygz in the past - specifically stating that while it hasn't been said, the mobs in castles will obviously be end game mobs.
While I can see the issue some people have in relation to this simply meaning that the strong get stronger - with the way sieges are, with the speed of leveling, castles were always going to go to the people that hit the level cap first - whether by them being the first to get them, or by them being the first to take them in a siege.
The thing to keep in mind - Ashes is only being made for gamers like Steven. if you don't want a game where the strong get stronger, where they hold the weaker under their thumb to prevent them from rising up, then Ashes isn't the game for you, because that has always been the game Ashes was always going to be - but then I've been saying this for two years now.
All of that decision making at the top lvl of gameplay is way more interesting to me than simplistic fucking "we get lvl50, we get bare minimum gear, we beat boss". And that's exactly the kind of situation things would come down to, because grinding out 225h (probably more cause nodes will not level up faster) means that more and more hardcore guilds filter out, due to them not being able to keep up the insane leveling pace for all that time. So only the sweatiest sweats will get the castles. But not because they're good at pve or pvp or literally any other fucking mechanic. They'll only get it because they can sleep the least and grind mobs the most. And to me that shit sounds like the most boring-ass political situation in the game
AND AGAIN, I'm literally saying "only hardcore guilds will get the castles", but I want those guilds to have better and more interesting competition.
But that's the funny thing, "gamers like Steven" fought for castles before max lvl because castle guards weren't max lvl.
It was still hard as fuck, because the gear itself was even more behind the max lvl stuff, but that was the point - who could get a castle the fastest, given that your gear was still shit, your lvls weren't maxed and guards hit like trucks.
This is also one of the reasons why I'm not sure of the reason for this design. I feel like he was either told by other devs or just didn't think deeply enough about the interaction himself, and so "the obvious" choice was just "duh, it's gotta be max lvl, cause only max lvl can be the hardest". Except the "hardest" part there comes from only the pve part, while in a 35lvl design it would come from politics and pvx.
A big failure of New World was that the fights over cities were exclusive to a few Players and very high reward/stake ( taxes ). I don't see AOC being any different there. Besides games don't change by somebody posting on the forum
The Ancients in the Castle being Level 50-55 makes sense for MMORPGs created prior to 2015 that have a static world, rather than a dynamic world... that are designed for Endgame to be the real the game.
Again, the primary draw of the Ashes design for me is that Verra is a dynamic world - with Nodes and Meaningful Conflict (in conjuntion with the Events system) putting an end to Endgame.
If it's going to be another race-to-Max-Level-and-then-focus-on-PvP-combat game - I'm not interested in playing that game.
And, yes, the addition of the Open Seas made it clear that Ashes is only being made for gamers like Steven.
With an EQ Lead Game Designer and so many EQ/EQ2 devs on the team, in addition to Nodes and Meaningful Conflict being very similar to the EQNext design, I was expecting EQ/EQ2/Landmark players to be in the Target Audience.
After Jeffrey Bard and several of the EQ/EQ2 devs left, it became clear that the Target Audience is primarily L2/ArcheAge/EvE.
It's just becoming clearer that Ashes is not really the game described in the Kickstarter.
Max Level is the real game.
And Ashes is a PvP-centric game with large areas of the map designated for Corruption-free FFA PvP.
Which is OK.
I think the MMO community kinda needs a game that shifts in this way as a counter to so many other MMOs, like NW, that shift towards PvE.
(I don't understand why Castle Sieges beginning at Level 35 - Level 42 would be in opposition to "the strong get stronger, where they hold the weaker under their thumb to prevent them from rising up.")
People who want to rush to max level are going to rush to max level regardless. When Classic WOW was re-released, people rushed to max level, even though it was supposedly the "same game" that people played 20 years ago when they didn't rush to max level.
If you want it to take 3-6 months to get max level, then take 3-6 months to get to max level. I have a level 65 Dracthyr on dragonflight with my kid, and it's taken us over a year to get there. All you have to do is spend your time doing content that doesn't give you experience, pretty simple. We spend most of our time roleplaying, it takes us an hour just to do 1 quest lol. She has zero interest in grinding out levels, and mostly wants to avoid combat.
People can say that "Retail WOW is all about end game content." but that definitely ain't true for my kid. She could care less about that stuff, but she still enjoys playing the game. The fact that content exists is completely irrelevant to our gameplay.
We have even met a few players in the open world and RPd with them randomly from time to time and overall it has been a fun experience. Sure, most people are off doing their own thing, but if you walk around the game roleplay "saying" things in chat, you attract people who want to join in the fun.
If the only real reason to fear the power levelling grind is because level 50s are going to come around and stomp noobs who are smelling the roses, that's the entire point of the corruption system. So complain about corruption system not working as intended instead of the game having some content gated at level 50.
So... you're saying that Level 50 Guilds would stop doing Castle Sieges for some reason?
Why would the game be over when Guilds reach Level 50?
Guilds would first occupy Castles at Level 35.
At some point, the first Guilds on the server will reach Level 50.
And then the primary actual competition for Castles would be Level 50 Guilds.
Since Ashes is supposed to be a dynamic game, rather than a static game, that should mean that there can be Events where Level 60 NPC Ancients join in the Sieges in order to try to retake the Castles.
People who want to try to rush to Max Level can do so.
That doesn't mean that the game has to be designed such that "the real game begins at Max Level".
When WoW released, it really wasn't possible for the average player to reach Max Level in a few weeks.
I have no clue what they did with Classic WoW, but I had no expectation for Classic WoW to put an end to Endgame - especially since it's a static world, rather than a dynamic world.
And, yes...
Dragonflight has found a different solution for putting an end to Endgame. For me. Battlepasses.
Which is why I expect to be playing WoW, when I want to play an MMORPG, instead of playing Ashes.
But, I'm also not aware of content in Dragonflight that is gated for Max Level.
Maybe you can refresh my memory. What are the activities in Dragonflight that remain gated until reaching Max Level?
Liniker had the same take on this here Who is taking away that? Sieges will exist for as long as the game does and they'll all be at max lvl after pretty much the very first one.
How exactly what I'm proposing takes away content at max lvl?
I feel like people have been so damn brainrotted by recent mmos that they can't even conceptualize a game having content that exists at more lvls than "just the max one".
I mean with this line of questioning why have any level 50 monsters at all? Cap them at 35, heck cap them at level 1. Boom, game is done...
Uhh, Ashes has content that exists at more levels than the max one. We see the devs at level 25 doing stuff. I don't see why you are insulting people who are OK with a couple pieces of content being gated at max level. For crying out loud we have only seen 2 systems out of the thousands proposed by the Ashes design (Freeholds and Castles) and you are freaking out about it.
What next, a level 50+ raid boss is shown and we get a forums post going on for days about how there is an end game and now everything is fucked?
My whole point is that all types of gameplay should exist at, at least, several progression levels. I would post about lvl50 raid bosses, because that feature exists across all lvls of the game. I won't cry if metropolis mayoral caravans can only be initiated by lvl50 people, because caravans (supposedly) are available on earlier lvls.
The issue is that both freeholds and castles are now ONLY available at 50. Yes, you could argue that some true pro uber pvers can kill the castle boss at below lvl 50, but then it's a question of how hard is the pve in the game, rather than a question of when the content is available.
Having freeholds at lower lvls would mean that guilds need to spend their money against each other sooner. Having castles at lower lvls means that guilds need to spend more time on non-progression activities. Neither of those things mean that normal castle sieges won't be filled by purely lvl50 people or that all freeholds won't be operated by lvl50 players. It simply means that earlier access to them would create a shift in general top skill player behavior.
This would lead to more optimal ways of playing the game than just "kill mobs get lvls". This would lead to more interesting political gameplay than just "become the strongest by killing mobs and getting lvls before others can do the same - and you'll have power". This can potentially shift the guild power on the server, because the hardcorest guilds will be preoccupied, which will allow other hardcore guilds to outpace them - and in the end both of them will be more evenly matched, which will lead to better server health and optics for the game.
All of those things seem way more interesting and better for the game than the general argument from this thread of "well duhhhh, this obviously has to be at max lvl, becaaaause... WELL IT HAS TO BE!"
Well, when you have grinders and few grind spots you can bet castles will be grind spots until a castle is captured. Its a shame that the castles don't level with the nodes but I will take what has been offered.
Only 5 spots in the entire game that are ahead of the leveling curve? Sounds like a great place to pvx to your heart's content.
But all you are actually saying is that Castle PvP should be Max Level content, so if that becomes available at Level 35, Level cap should be 35.
Which is about as backwards as backwards-thinking can be.
In a dynamic game world, if player characters can Level from 35 to 50, NPCs should also be able to Level from 35 to 50+.
But, also, kicking the Ancients out of the Castles at Level 35 just means that Castle PvP can start at Level 35 and becomes increasingly difficult as Guilds Level from 35 - Level 50.
And then Level 60 Ancients can try to reclaim the Castle.
We see devs demoing content while they use dev code cheats. Yes.
I would expect complaints if Raids were gated to only become available after players reach Max Level.
What could argue against that ?
Those who gives their best, hardest, etc. - and have the best Condition - first sprint 100 Meters.
Or run a full Marathon.
Or perform best in most kinds of Sports.
All World Champion Ships are full of "Hardcore" Athletes.
Why should Hardcore-Players not be rewarded for being Hardcore in an MMORPG ?
Yeah. I will see what happens in the future. So much hope, so many assumptions and so many guestimations. 😀
Cause it seems like as soon as intrepid announces where they are going to put level 50+ monsters, people will start raging about "End game!"
You don't want them in castles, others don't want them in raids.
This just seems absurd.