Leveling Speed

Wiki says the following:

On release the developers anticipate max level should be attainable in approximately 45 days if playing 4-6 hours per day.

This is equal to ~225 hours to reach level 50. What is your opinion about it? Would you like it to be faster or slower?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

Myosotys wrote: »

You've just put your finger on the problem I've raised dozens of times which is a misconception of the leveling.

You invoke the argument of less time to devote to gaming because of family life.

No one is forcing anyone to play a video game, with or without a family life or any other occupation other than gaming.

Are you implying that playing AOC is a chore or a drudgery before max level and that the game starts once max level is reached? It's this idea that you have to forget, otherwise it means that the gameplay sux. Everyone should be able to enjoy the game, whatever their level.

The game starts at level 1, not level 50. And in my experience, when you feel trapped by the need to reach the max level, you'll automatically be disappointed once you've reached that max level and stop playing.

I didn't see Zehlan say anything about wanting to reach max Adventurer Level faster than 225 hours.
It's not really about reaching Level 50. Again, it's about the time it takes to reach the next Level each Level before 50. And, yes, there comes a point where being stuck using the same abilities and skills over and over and over at Level 27 for 16+ hours feels like a tedious chore. Even for a Hardcore Time player, like myself.

For Ashes, the game is designed to start at Level 1. And we basically are doing the same stuff at Level 50 that we were doing at Level 1. Just we have many more ways to solve a challenge because we have tons of different abilities and skills.
But, also, with the rise and fall of Nodes, we continue to encounter new mobs and new content. In addition to the Events system churning out new stories and Weather and Seasons affecting our abilities differently.
And the devs should be able to drop new content every 3-4 months - which is the current trend.
Ashes is a dynamic game rather than a static game.

Dygz

Noaani wrote: »

They want Ashes to be that game that (to them) saves MMORPG's, and they know that if I am right, it absolutely will not do that. They don't want to hear what I'm saying even if I turn out to be 100% right.

I mean...
That was when Ashes was going to release Before 2020.
At this point... even WoW is fun to play again. We no longer need a savior for MMORPGs.
There are plenty of fun games to play. And a bunch more coming.
Some of those will be before Ashes releases - and I already don't have the time to play all the games I enjoy playing.
It's a very different circumstance now than it was back in 2017.

I agree that Ashes is being designed almost exclusively for Steven's playstyle - especially once he took over as Lead Game Designer after Jeffrey Bard left.
Average MMORPG fan is not the target audience for Ashes.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

It's a very different circumstance now than it was back in 2017.

Indeed it is, but I see it somewhat different to how you have described it here.

To me, there is some good gameplay in WoW now - but it isn't the MMORPG staple of running dungeons, killing mobs and taking their stuff. From what I understand, that aspect of Ashes is still kind of stale.

That is why many people are still looking for that game that will (to them) fix MMORPG's.

Keep in mind as well, you are more interested in having something that you enjoy doing, as opposed to specifically having that thing be the gameplay that people expect from an MMORPG. For a change, I'm not saying this as a negative towards you, it's a good thing. You'll play Fortnite and find a part of it that you like and play that, then you'll play New World and find a part of it that you like and play that, etc. This is a good thing for you - but isn't at all what most MMORPG players (at least not the ones I know) want.

An interesting point to me is that back in 2017, games like Fortnite and New World (games like New World, obviously not specifically New World) wouldn't have even been discussed in an MMORPG forum. Now, not only are they valid games in discussion, one of them (New World) is even considered by some to be an MMORPG itself (it is not).

To many, there is even more of a need for a game to save the genre (to them) now than there was 5 years ago - because there hasn't been a good example of that core gameplay loop of running dungeons, killing mobs and taking their stuff for a decade or so.

Myosotys

Dygz wrote: »

I didn't see Zehlan say anything about wanting to reach max Adventurer Level faster than 225 hours.

I didn't see neither so I don't understand your point.

Dygz wrote: »

there comes a point where being stuck using the same abilities and skills over and over and over at Level 27 for 16+ hours feels like a tedious chore. Even for a Hardcore Time player, like myself.

Ashes is not suppose to be an old school grindy game, or I missed something.

Dygz wrote: »

For Ashes, the game is designed to start at Level 1. And we basically are doing the same stuff at Level 50 that we were doing at Level 1.

So having a long leveling shouldn't be a problem. By long, I mean at least the announced time, but in the case where it concerns the time actually spent on XP (not the total time playing the game).

Mag7spy

THis leveling thread again x.x. The only benefit of longer leveling is hardcore players. The longer the leveling the more people you lock out of things, even more so in a pvp type game.

Their current leveling experience is already long, and that isnt even including gearing at end game with enhancing and such.

There is 0 achievement for hitting max level, its not a challenge its just a time investment thing. All this leads to is a stronger organized guilds grinding out faster then anyone and snow balling on the server.

Ungohil

tautau wrote: »

The people who have entered the gaming world in the last 15-20 years have bought into the idea that "the fun game really starts when I get to max level."

I am hoping that AoC is able to successfully disabuse this concept and, once again, make the journey its own reward. The player at level 11 and the one at 32 and the one at 44 should all be having a great time. I'll feel sorry for the ones who rush to 'max' because they will miss so many great times in their foolish rush to be able to have great times.

In L2, I started a few months after launch and never quite caught up to max as the level caps increased as new Chronicles came out. It was a wonderful journey and I am hopeful that AoC will be as well.

That's it.

I just not fully agree with "fun starts up from max level" for some aged players. I've been playing MMOs for more than 2 decades and always loved levelling as long as the game was providing it in a smart way. Sure, I've also learned that "end game" can be unlimited fun, but getting bound to your character, increasing friendships and diving into a new, fresh world is one of the best experiences you can get. So, by contrast, I've experienced, that younger generations are more used to "rush" in games and get as fast as possible to a certain point and everything on the way to this (artificial) goal is meant to be a waste of time. That's why, unfortunately, "lobby games" are pushed to their limits during the last years.

In WoW I leveled about 6-9 months to get max level. I borrowed gold from my friend to get the first mount (level 40), and I got my first epic item long time after being max-level, everything up to than was rare (blue) gear. So, half of the game was the levelling and "get things to know" process, not "endgame". And that was great! Yes, that endgame-section opened up from max level, but still it was designed in a way that constantly, but not too fast, progress was provided. No stop, no overload. 20 years ago, that was perfect. Nowadays, that's not wanted from a certain player base. Talking about Ashes I guess they know the entire process (as Steven is at same experience when it comes to MMO and gaming years) so I'm convinced there will be a very cool, smart and long enough leveling time to get into the game, your character and all the little things to experience. And in the long run: Well, it's a sandpark, right? So there will be a lot of owpvp and still quest-/pve-driven content (crafting for it's one will be more than enough workload for players/guilds) to avoid, please at all costs, checklists like dailys or whatsover. Set your goal as a player, try to achieve it. That's the spirit of smart MMO. And if this goal at that evening is just owpvp for fun purpose - let's do it, there hopefully is no FOMO about 200 other things due to fully overloaded (und useless filler) content, because the existing systems are more than enough to get thousand hours of fun.

Flanker

Zehlan wrote: »

Flanker wrote: »

See again you claim something and then divert. I also find it funny that you have a problem with number 2 on that list which is the polling data showing the majority wanting to keep levelling as it is. Your assuming that because someone the minority group made a post that they overrule the majority who stayed silent and just voted but that is not how things work.
You are wrong about my personal preferences because I will level at what ever speed I want which usually is that I take my time and smell the roses so to speak. I figured 400-500 hours to hit max but after listening to you QQ and weasel your way through this discussion I might change my mind. I figure 18 days tops if I put my mind to it maybe less.
See for me it doesn't matter but for the person who has work, kids, wife aggro, the people who are the average players it does and the game is already going to put enough pressure on those casual players you don't need to pile on more. If you were as smart as you think you are you would of already figured that out.

I'm not diverting from anything, I'm ready to take any relevant information into account. Despite not being perfect in terms of sample quality, we can still take the poll results into account which I did. I also provided an explanation why majority would vote for the "middle-ground option" in majority of cases - whether you agree with it or not, anyone who has a bit of knowledge in cognitive psychology would confirm that my note is valid.I know that not everyone would know the term that I used which is why I provided an explanation about it. Feel free to do your own research and read more about it.

Just as I said before, you keep using "poor casual players" as an example. You do that because:
> Most likely you need played a game with long leveling
> Most likely you are a casual player yourself
> Most likely you don't realize that leveling in Ashes will not be the same boring thing as it is in other games
> Most likely you think that it is crucial for casual players to reach the level cap to actually enjoy the game

At least one of the points above apply to you. Or several. Or even all of them.

And even, EVEN if there the gap between casual and hardcore players was an issue (which is not, as it is inevitable in MMOs and casual players will never be equal to hardcore players in a game like Ashes because of the nature of the game) - this "gap" could be mitigated if Rested XP is balanced properly.

Flanker

Noaani wrote: »

Flanker wrote: »

Therefore, YOU want to make the game meet YOUR personal preferences, instead of thinking what is better for the game OVERALL - which is what I am doing or, at least, trying to do

A point to clarify, you are not doing what is the best for the game, or trying to.

Rather, you are doing what you think is best for the game, or trying to.

These are very different things, and literally everyone that posts a suggestion on these forums is trying to do what they think is best for the game.

Yeah, fair point, I agree.

Flanker

Dygz wrote: »

Gamers who love Lineage II apparently tend to have a different perspective about what makes for fun MMORPG gameplay than players who enjoyed playing EQ(2) and WoW.
I have no interest in playing Lineage II. It does not sound like a fun game to me. I dunno how people have fun playing that game, I just accept that there are people who love to play it.

We have different perspective because we know that playing a game where reaching level cap may take years (take official classic servers, for example) can be fun and rewarding. That's it. We have that experience. Most of you, probably don't (which is not a problem at all as long as you care to actually listen what we have to say). And Ashes will have a much wider variety of things you can do to level up which is much better than the way it used to be in Lineage.

If something happens in my life tomorrow that makes it possible for me to play only 3-4 hours a day (not up to 18 as I can now) and Intrepid announces that "Hey, reach level 50 now takes 5000 hours" - I'd be "Cool. If I like the game and leveling is meaningful - as long as I'm an achiever and I don't mind challenges, I'm ready to dedicate years to play this game". And I wouldn't care if there will be people who play more than me, because I will still have plenty of fun and achieve what I want to achieve one way or another.

And when you @Dygz share your opinion, don't forget that it comes from someone who:
> Openly admits that he does not belong to the target audience of Ashes;
> Openly admits that he won't do leveling and plans to play as level 1;
> Openly admits that he has 0 interest in anything remotely related to PvP;
> Has a tendency to worry about weird things, such as "Why do I have to worry about ecological consequences of me gathering resources?"

These are all your words from the podcast. So I don't expect you to be unbiased when it comes to this topic

RocketFarmer

Experience in terms of days matters if it’s tied to the scale and time of the world. And if you go by that, then you need mechanisms to ramp up the experience for the casual player and/or ramp it down for the hardcore to keep the pace.

But activity is activity and the experiences of the casual vs hardcore do not need to be equal. Resource acquisition definitely favors the hardcore player because they’ve earned it. Pacing of these players, however can play a factor in the perception of the players with respect to “fun” and feeling the time played is not wasted, or you feel you can participate despite real world limitations on your time.

So would a model of earning the most experience in the first hour, and then each subsequent hour earning less, be a method to achieve the feeling of “slowness” some hardcore players may want without punishing the casual? I realize you also have hardcore players who want “faster” progression to reach max level first, although those could be another category of player than hardcore wrt leveling.

Everyone still needs the same XP and/or achievements to reach the next level. And yes, I added achievements because I think leveling requirements need to be more than just killing X many hogs. But that’s another topic to figure what 50 (or 49) achievements are necessary to reach the next levels.

I do not expect Intrepid to implement any of this, but think it would be refreshing to see new ideas in an MMORPG that stands out from other games. Someone is always going to complain or feel that it’s unfair to them based on this, that or the other.

For the play experience the goal is to incentivize quality play and have a game world that feels full and alive. In most games, even tabletop games, XP for leveling (progression in skills/abilities) and other rewards (cool gear) have been those incentives. Unless you want to pay players to play, but that’s hardly a successful business model. So you’ll need a mix of players engaged in the game.

You need the player who has no real world responsibilities who will rack up 40-80 hours a week playing a game. I think content streamers can also fall into this category for those who want food on the table or aren’t living off of someone else.

You need the regular prime time player who will be there every day for 4-6 hours consistently. Believe that’s what Steven is and what he’s designing the game to support first and foremost.

You need the player who plays less frequently but for the same duration as the prime time player. You are likely going the have a larger population of these to fill out the roster. These are the players with the “game nights” that are earned via wife points. They would be in the previous category if they didn’t have a significant other or children to spend their time with.

You also need the player who may only play a couple of hours but come every day. Overall they may play the same hours per week as the previous/casual player, but could find it more difficult engaging in content that lasts more than a couple of hours. So satisfying content in smaller bites incentivizes them.

The sentiments expressed have been if it takes longer to level then these latter players will quit. However, if leveling is too easy or “fast” then you may be pushing those who play more, the ones who also may have a higher probability of sticking with the game long term because they’ve made that time investment. Casual gamers are also very casual about jumping from one game to the next, and while they can form a large portion of your player base they also can be your least loyal.

I think Steven is making the game he wants that fits his type of player style/dedication, and I don’t know whether he’s factored these other player types or not. Oh, I am sure he’s aware they exist, but I am not sure he’s factored the incentives to draw these players to the game and retain them.

Ungohil

Dygz wrote: »

Sure, if your primary reference is Lineage II and you haven't played EQ or EQ2 or DAoC or AO or WoW - especially if you have never experience Hell Levels - you may not be able to properly understand the pushback against "slow" Leveling.

This lack of experience is valid for several points and topics, not only the levelling part which is discussed here in this particular thread.

Gamers who love Lineage II apparently tend to have a different perspective about what makes for fun MMORPG gameplay than players who enjoyed playing EQ(2) and WoW.

Very true. I would attach games like ESO, GW2 and NW as well (Ashes is taking some concepts from NW, so some comparison is valid, weapon skills or quest town boards for instance).

I have no interest in playing Lineage II. It does not sound like a fun game to me. I dunno how people have fun playing that game, I just accept that there are people who love to play it.

I fully agree (and I've played close to every MMO out there, except L2 - seems to be a very special target group, idk).

And still... most people sharing their perspectives in this topic will agree that racing to Endgame is bad.

True, because it is bad.

The journey is the destination.

Dygz

Myosotys wrote: »

Ashes is not suppose to be an old school grindy game, or I missed something.

Seems like you missed Zehlan's context.
Programming the journey to Level 50 Adventurer to be significantly slower than 225 hours would make Leveling feel like an old school grindy game.

Myosotys wrote: »

So having a long leveling shouldn't be a problem. By long, I mean at least the announced time, but in the case where it concerns the time actually spent on XP (not the total time playing the game).

225 hours should not be a problem.
And, if players want to take longer, they can do so by focusing on other progression paths before they reach max Adventurer Level.
Also.... there's still other stuff to do after all of that. And by the time most people do all that stuff, the devs should be able to drop in new content and story/chapter with a Seasonal (3-4 month) update.

Dygz

Chaliux wrote: »

Very true. I would attach games like ESO, GW2 and NW as well (Ashes is taking some concepts from NW, so some comparison is valid, weapon skills or quest town boards for instance).

That really has nothing to do with Leveling speed needing to be slower than 225 hours. Leveling speed for NW and GW2 is not slower than 225 hours to Level 50. Pretty sure Leveling speed for ESO is not slower than 225 hours to Level 50.

I fully agree (and I've played close to every MMO out there, except L2 - seems to be a very special target group, idk).

Yep.

Dygz

RocketFarmer wrote: »

Experience in terms of days matters if it’s tied to the scale and time of the world. And if you go by that, then you need mechanisms to ramp up the experience for the casual player and/or ramp it down for the hardcore to keep the pace.

Days really only matter from a dev perspective.
Devs are going to want to try to time the days/weeks/months it takes average players to run out of content so they have a reasonable schedule for giving the players new content. Especially when the players can race through all the content in 6 weeks, but it takes the devs 12-18 months to develop and implement new content

You don't ramp up the experience for Casual Time players based on days - you do that by hours played.
Really the same is true for Hardcore Time players.

RocketFarmer wrote: »

But activity is activity and the experiences of the casual vs hardcore do not need to be equal. Resource acquisition definitely favors the hardcore player because they’ve earned it. Pacing of these players, however can play a factor in the perception of the players with respect to “fun” and feeling the time played is not wasted, or you feel you can participate despite real world limitations on your time.

For an RPG, the primary activity is supposed to be Class (Primary Archetype) progression.
Regardless of Casual Time or Hardcore Time, if it takes 16+ hours of focused gameplay to move from Level 27 to Level 28 when the Level cap is 50, that is going to feel like a grind. Days are irrelevant.
In an MMO, resources can be shared between Casual Time and Hardcore Time players - so that is not really an issue - unless the population is comprised primarily of highly competitive gamers.
Class progression to Level 50 that takes significantly longer than 225 hours is unlikely to feel like fun. Because that means at Level 27, you're going to be stuck with the same limited abilities doing basically the same stuff for 16+ hours.

RocketFarmer wrote: »

So would a model of earning the most experience in the first hour, and then each subsequent hour earning less, be a method to achieve the feeling of “slowness” some hardcore players may want without punishing the casual? I realize you also have hardcore players who want “faster” progression to reach max level first, although those could be another category of player than hardcore wrt leveling.

Fantasy RPGs are intended to follow the Hero's Journey of Fantasy novels, where the hero begins as a mundane peon and gradually becomes a demi-god.
After 15+ years of Endgame in MMORPGs, where you reach max Class Level in 4-6 weeks and then spend 12-18 months in Dungeons/Raids while waiting for an expansion - for many gamers, Endgame is the real game and Class Leveling is mostly an unnecessary time sink. They would basically prefer to start as Gandalf.
If you start as Gandalf - already having 40 Levels of Skills and Abilities... it probably doesn't matter much how long it takes to get to Level 50 because you already have a bunch of different abilities and skills to add variety to how you overcome challenges. By Level 40, you probably already solidly feel like a powerful Wizard/Mage.
Level 40 - 50 is mostly icing on the cake.

But... the dilemma that's truly the key is not Leveling speed. The dilemma is how to retain players once they run out of new content after reaching max Class/Adventurer Level.

RocketFarmer wrote: »

Everyone still needs the same XP and/or achievements to reach the next level. And yes, I added achievements because I think leveling requirements need to be more than just killing X many hogs. But that’s another topic to figure what 50 (or 49) achievements are necessary to reach the next levels.

XP, Quests, Tasks, Achievements, Reputations... sure. Could be a bunch of stuff.

RocketFarmer wrote: »

I do not expect Intrepid to implement any of this, but think it would be refreshing to see new ideas in an MMORPG that stands out from other games. Someone is always going to complain or feel that it’s unfair to them based on this, that or the other.

Ashes already has several solutions to putting an end to Endgame.
We'll have to play to see if the Release successfully meets the design goals.

RocketFarmer wrote: »

For the play experience the goal is to incentivize quality play and have a game world that feels full and alive. In most games, even tabletop games, XP for leveling (progression in skills/abilities) and other rewards (cool gear) have been those incentives. Unless you want to pay players to play, but that’s hardly a successful business model. So you’ll need a mix of players engaged in the game.

If it's an RPG, the Class/Primary Archetype progression needs to have a reasonable pace, rather than feeling like a tedious grind. Rather than feeling arbitrarily slow.

RocketFarmer wrote: »

You need the player who has no real world responsibilities who will rack up 40-80 hours a week playing a game. I think content streamers can also fall into this category for those who want food on the table or aren’t living off of someone else.

I disagree that MMORPGs need Hardcore Time players. But, it's probably good to have fun stuff for Hardcore players to do after they race through the available content. And have a good plan for how quickly HArdcore Time players can encounter new content.

RocketFarmer wrote: »

You need the player who plays less frequently but for the same duration as the prime time player. You are likely going the have a larger population of these to fill out the roster. These are the players with the “game nights” that are earned via wife points. They would be in the previous category if they didn’t have a significant other or children to spend their time with.

I would not phrase it as they are needed, but...
Most MMORPG fans are some from of Casual:
Casual Time/Casual Challenge
Casual Time/Hardcore Challenge
Hardcore Time/Casual Challenge

The minority is going to be Hardcore Time/Hardcore Challenge.

RocketFarmer wrote: »

You also need the player who may only play a couple of hours but come every day. Overall they may play the same hours per week as the previous/casual player, but could find it more difficult engaging in content that lasts more than a couple of hours. So satisfying content in smaller bites incentivizes them.

That's kind of more about having Quests and Tasks that can be completed in less than an hour than Leveling speed, but... yes.

RocketFarmer wrote: »

The sentiments expressed have been if it takes longer to level then these latter players will quit. However, if leveling is too easy or “fast” then you may be pushing those who play more, the ones who also may have a higher probability of sticking with the game long term because they’ve made that time investment. Casual gamers are also very casual about jumping from one game to the next, and while they can form a large portion of your player base they also can be your least loyal.

That's a bit too simplistic. Also, again the focus on days to reach max Adventurer is flawed - it's really about the hours it takes to reach the next Class Level and attain the abilities, skills and stats associated with that next Level.

Time investment is irrelevant. I'm a Hardcore Time player. I tend to play around 6-8 hours per day.
There just needs to be fun stuff for me to do. And, when I feel stuck doing the same stuff over and over and over and over again using the exact same abilities and skills - I'm going to quit and go play some other game.
Doesn't matter how much time I've already spent in the first game.
If I've spent more than 100 hours in the game, it means I'm likely to return once the Leveling speed is nerfed (if I left due to being stuck in a Hell Level) or once new content has been added.

RocketFarmer wrote: »

I think Steven is making the game he wants that fits his type of player style/dedication, and I don’t know whether he’s factored these other player types or not. Oh, I am sure he’s aware they exist, but I am not sure he’s factored the incentives to draw these players to the game and retain them.

Steven is making a game that caters to his specific playstyle. Yes.
Ashes is not made for everyone.

Dygz

Flanker wrote: »

We have different perspective because we know that playing a game where reaching level cap may take years (take official classic servers, for example) can be fun and rewarding. That's it. We have that experience. Most of you, probably don't (which is not a problem at all as long as you care to actually listen what we have to say). And Ashes will have a much wider variety of things you can do to level up which is much better than the way it used to be in Lineage.

Uh. No.
EQ, EQ2 and WoW used to take years to reach max Class Level. That was fine...because reaching max Class Level was not necessarily goal.
Again, the issue back then was Hell Levels which artificially extended the time it took to reach the next Level at certain points during Class progression. Eventually the devs had nerf those Hell Levels to retain players and that allowed people to rush to max Adventurer Level much more quickly than the devs could drop an Expansion.

Lineage II players tell me that grinding individual mobs is fun and rewarding.
I find that to be exceedingly tedious and soul-numbing. And I am not a fan of PvP combat.
Lineage II players tell me that eating a piece of cake one crumb at a time is fun. And it's fine if it takes a year to finish eating one piece of cake.

MMO Survival games can be fun without character progression, so days it takes to reach max Class Level is not really the issue. Always having fun stuff to do is the issue.
And, the Ashes solutions for having fun after reaching max Adventurer Level are the inclusion of numerous other progression paths, in addition to Nodes generating new content as Nodes rise and fall and as Towns, Cities and Metros are governed by different Races. Along with a bunch of other stuff.
Years to max Adventurer Level isn't needed for Ashes of Creation - for a variety of reasons.

After spending 225 hours to reach max Adventurer Level, Ashes will still have plenty of other stuff to do via the numerous other progression paths, Node progression and Caravans and Castle Sieges and the Events system and Seasonal updates.
It's not necessary for the game to systemically force players to eat the bundt cake one crumb at a time in orsder players to enjoy eating cake. And the game is designed for there to always be different cake to eat - even after the first bundt cake has been fully consumed.

Flanker wrote: »

If something happens in my life tomorrow that makes it possible for me to play only 3-4 hours a day (not up to 18 as I can now) and Intrepid announces that "Hey, reach level 50 now takes 5000 hours" - I'd be "Cool. If I like the game and leveling is meaningful - as long as I'm an achiever and I don't mind challenges, I'm ready to dedicate years to play this game". And I wouldn't care if there will be people who play more than me, because I will still have plenty of fun and achieve what I want to achieve one way or another.

Again.... that is a flawed example because the issue isn't really about how long it takes to reach Level 50.
The issue is about being stuck at Level 27 for 16+ hours doing the same stuff over and over and over and over again with the same abilities and skills, while waiting to acquire the next set of abilities, skills and stats.
Again... the number of hours played per day is irrelevant. The issue is how many hours of focused gameplay it takes to reach the next Class Level and the abilities, skills and stats associated with that Class Level.

"If I like the game" is a meaningless statement. If it takes more than 225 hours to reach Level 50, that indicates that the Leveling is not meaningful. It's an indication that the Leveling is mostly a tedious time sink full of Hell Levels.
Challenges are fine. I don't want to be stuck in the mid-Levels for 16-20+ hours at a time using the same few abilities and skills over and over and over completing challenges while waiting to obtain the next set of abilities, skills and stats. I'm not going to like that game.
Reaching max Adventurer Level in 225 hours should not be the end of the game. There should still be plenty of other fun stuff to do after reaching max Adventurer Level. Reaching max Adventurer Level in 225 hours and continuing to play the game for years afterwards are not inherently mutually exclusive.
You present a false dilemma.

I don't care whether people play more hours than I play. I care about how long it takes me to reach the next Class Level.
And, sure, if a player wishes to extend the time it takes to reach max Adventurer Level past 225 hours of game time, they can do so by pursuing the other progression paths available or focusing on PvP and Sieges before hitting max Adventurer Level.
It also shouldn't matter to you that most people are OK with it taking to 225 hours to reach max Adventurer Level because there will be plenty of other fun stuff to do after reaching max Adventurer Level.

Flanker wrote: »

And when you @Dygz share your opinion, don't forget that it comes from someone who:
> Openly admits that he does not belong to the target audience of Ashes;
> Openly admits that he won't do leveling and plans to play as level 1;
> Openly admits that he has 0 interest in anything remotely related to PvP;
> Has a tendency to worry about weird things, such as "Why do I have to worry about ecological consequences of me gathering resources?"

These are all your words from the podcast. So I don't expect you to be unbiased when it comes to this topic[/b]

Yep.
And none of that has any bearing on whether the Leveling speed to max Adventurer Level needs to be longer than 225 hours.
Of course, I take all of that into consideration - along with a bunch of other stuff, like being a game dev for 10+ years and playing a whole bunch of other MMORPGs besides just Lineage II.
I haven't asked for the Ashes game design to be changed.
You are the one asking for the Ashes game design to be changed.

Azherae

Flanker wrote: »

Zehlan wrote: »

Flanker wrote: »

See again you claim something and then divert. I also find it funny that you have a problem with number 2 on that list which is the polling data showing the majority wanting to keep levelling as it is. Your assuming that because someone the minority group made a post that they overrule the majority who stayed silent and just voted but that is not how things work.
You are wrong about my personal preferences because I will level at what ever speed I want which usually is that I take my time and smell the roses so to speak. I figured 400-500 hours to hit max but after listening to you QQ and weasel your way through this discussion I might change my mind. I figure 18 days tops if I put my mind to it maybe less.
See for me it doesn't matter but for the person who has work, kids, wife aggro, the people who are the average players it does and the game is already going to put enough pressure on those casual players you don't need to pile on more. If you were as smart as you think you are you would of already figured that out.

I'm not diverting from anything, I'm ready to take any relevant information into account. Despite not being perfect in terms of sample quality, we can still take the poll results into account which I did. I also provided an explanation why majority would vote for the "middle-ground option" in majority of cases - whether you agree with it or not, anyone who has a bit of knowledge in cognitive psychology would confirm that my note is valid.I know that not everyone would know the term that I used which is why I provided an explanation about it. Feel free to do your own research and read more about it.

Just as I said before, you keep using "poor casual players" as an example. You do that because:
> Most likely you need played a game with long leveling
> Most likely you are a casual player yourself
> Most likely you don't realize that leveling in Ashes will not be the same boring thing as it is in other games
> Most likely you think that it is crucial for casual players to reach the level cap to actually enjoy the game

At least one of the points above apply to you. Or several. Or even all of them.

And even, EVEN if there the gap between casual and hardcore players was an issue (which is not, as it is inevitable in MMOs and casual players will never be equal to hardcore players in a game like Ashes because of the nature of the game) - this "gap" could be mitigated if Rested XP is balanced properly.

Hm, no. I too must urge you to see past your own 'biases' here.

It is not necessary or even particularly likely for any claims you made about the 'poor casual players' example to be true. Intrepid has told us how their systems work. Design wise, the number we were given is the number, like, this is basically a known thing in MMORPG design. They're 'following standard best practices for their game type'.

And anyone who knows this either intuitively, from experience in MMOs, or knows about those design practices, will look at the number given and go 'this is where it should be'.

When 'poor casual players' are referenced, it is also the same. 'Casuals' have been telling designers for literally decades': "This is how much time I have per session, this is what I want to be able to achieve in that time for your game to be fun, can you accommodate me?"

Some games outright go 'no, we can't, our game won't work', and get the obvious response 'Understandable, have a nice day' (or whining).

Why would a game with the option to say 'yes' choose to say 'no' when it will enhance... what? Who is the target audience they need to 'retain' by 'dodging this bullet' that is the premise of the thread title? If Ashes is interesting, and those at the top are driving the dynamism and leading the 'poor casuals' which is literally how the game is designed, all that extra playtime they have will go to that.

But if those 'poor casuals' aren't given a game to play, then of course the 'National Leaders' would have 'less to do if there wasn't grinding to do' because there would be no one to lead.

Of those in my group 'smart enough to have an opinion without relying on me', they would all have voted for 'leave it as it is' and moved on, because there's no need to make a point or post about it. When a Dev does something logically correctly, some players just nod and move on to talking about the next thing that might not be correct. The rest is just basic statistics.

Also, is PvP in L2 fun when you are 6 levels below your opponent as a casual-time player? That's really hard to imagine, but I'll gladly learn why.

Flanker

Azherae wrote: »

Hm, no. I too must urge you to see past your own 'biases' here.

I'm aware about the majority of existing cognitive biases. I'm also perfectly aware about the thing called "Blind Spot Bias"

Azherae wrote: »

It is not necessary or even particularly likely for any claims you made about the 'poor casual players' example to be true. Intrepid has told us how their systems work. Design wise, the number we were given is the number, like, this is basically a known thing in MMORPG design. They're 'following standard best practices for their game type'.

I was talking about that particular individual and my assumptions are based on his comment history in this thread in particular and on this forum in general.

Azherae wrote: »

And anyone who knows this either intuitively, from experience in MMOs, or knows about those design practices, will look at the number given and go 'this is where it should be'.

I was pointing out the fact that not all information related to the poll has been taken account and another fact that opinions of those who share the same opinion is simply ignored and taken out of equation intentionally. I'm pretty sure, dear Chess Lady, that you know as well that this is not the way how the things should be done.

Azherae wrote: »

When 'poor casual players' are referenced, it is also the same. 'Casuals' have been telling designers for literally decades': "This is how much time I have per session, this is what I want to be able to achieve in that time for your game to be fun, can you accommodate me?"

I would say there are two possible approaches here:
1. You analyze which target audience you want to focus on, listen to their feedback and, roughly saying, make a game for them.
2. You make a game based on your vision and, again, roughly saying, whoever comes - comes.

Azherae wrote: »

Some games outright go 'no, we can't, our game won't work', and get the obvious response 'Understandable, have a nice day' (or whining).

Right. Steven said multiple times that "Ashes is not a game for everyone" etc. In the meantime, there are people who keep whining non-stop saying "remove PvP", "PK is bad", "leveling is long", "why I can't use flying mounts, it's unfair" and other garbage.

Azherae wrote: »

Why would a game with the option to say 'yes' choose to say 'no' when it will enhance... what? Who is the target audience they need to 'retain' by 'dodging this bullet' that is the premise of the thread title? If Ashes is interesting, and those at the top are driving the dynamism and leading the 'poor casuals' which is literally how the game is designed, all that extra playtime they have will go to that.

At this point, based on my empirical experience (which obviously can't be used as a valid argument), statistics that I provided in another thread that I consider relevant, and observation of other games failures... I have a firm belief that this will be a net positive for game's longevity and player retention. And player retention is not just crucial, but CRUCIAL when it comes to subscription-based games.

Azherae wrote: »

But if those 'poor casuals' aren't given a game to play, then of course the 'National Leaders' would have 'less to do if there wasn't grinding to do' because there would be no one to lead.

I didn't really understand this... metaphor or reference. Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker

Azherae wrote: »

Of those in my group 'smart enough to have an opinion without relying on me', they would all have voted for 'leave it as it is' and moved on, because there's no need to make a point or post about it. When a Dev does something logically correctly, some players just nod and move on to talking about the next thing that might not be correct. The rest is just basic statistics.

If I didn't have the knowledge I have (same applies to my past gaming experience) I would probably also for the option in the middle. Simply agreeing with devs requires no mental... resources? (idk how to phrase it properly in English, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say)... requires no analysis and it is basically a safe option as all responsibility remains on them. On the other hand, making decisions or suggestions based on limited information is no easy task. Also, I mentioned status quo bias which is a predominant thing to occur, when it comes to large samples of people and limited information (pretty sure you understand what I mean here, unlike... some other people)

Azherae wrote: »

Also, is PvP in L2 fun when you are 6 levels below your opponent as a casual-time player? That's really hard to imagine, but I'll gladly learn why.

First of all, you mostly encounter players around the same level as yours.
Secondly, it depends on the server's patch and other factors, such as experience, your and enemy's class, gear, positioning and other conditions.

But on average:
> Low levels: not that big of a deal, unless higher level player has completed 1st/2nd class transfer and you didn't. (For example, 2nd class transfer is on level 40, so in a situation with lvl 37 vs lvl 43 - lvl 43 would win in like 80-90% of cases). If it's not the case, for example, if we take lvl 32 vs lvl 38 - lvl 38 would probably win in 60-70% of cases.
> Mid level: not that big of a deal as well, lvl 68 would beat lvl 62 with probably 60-65% chance at most.
> High level: 6 levels difference there may be signigicant, lvl 83 would beat lvl 77 with probably 85+% chance.

But. You also need to take into account the fact that enemy's level was taken into account. So if you face a higher level player, there will be a higher chance that you spell will fail (deal 1 damage) and you have a lower chance to apply debuffs. And Ashes doesn't have this.

Ungohil

Flanker wrote: »

If something happens in my life tomorrow that makes it possible for me to play only 3-4 hours a day (not up to 18 as I can now)

That seems to be a very special situation. In my entire life, which seems to mean more years on this planet than you‘ve lived on it, I didnt have so much time for playing a computer game. To be honest you cannt assume, think and want to get a game where you talk about „poor casuals“ (= normal players) if your value of „time“ is completely different, here up to 18 (!!) hours per day! Thats a volume normal persons play in a week - maybe. Thats not the normal or average case and by all hope Ashes will NOT be designed for frequent players like you, because all those designs will fail soon as players like you are the absolute minority. No offense meant and I dont care if you are unemployed or whatever happened, but please accept that you are a very, very special case and a minority, although a load one.
I like the leveling phase, really I do. I dont like rushing to max level, but there always must be a reachable and rewarding goal for normal players, your „poor casuals“. For me a frequent player is poor, because he defines his life around a computer game.

„Ashes is not a game for everyone“
Please, forger this marketing speech. No game is for everyone. Thats a nonsense phrase without any value and sense. Baldurs Gate 3 is not for everyone. WoW is not for everyone. The Witcher is not for everyone. God of War is not for everyone. Mass Effect is not for everyone. But still all games were/are successful because they are good, and the are not designed for a minority. And thats what shouldnt happen: Designing a game for a minority of frequent elitist players. Because it will not work. Instead, design a game for a wide player base for different player types, because this will enhance the social and gameplay experience. And thats what Ashes is doing. Because town boards and fishing is NOT implemented for hardcore pvp players, but other player types. Sandpark, so the „park“ aspect, is designed for those players. And Ashes is a sandpark, by their own vision.

xiedd13ix

Flanker wrote: »

Wiki says the following:

On release the developers anticipate max level should be attainable in approximately 45 days if playing 4-6 hours per day.

This is equal to ~225 hours to reach level 50. What is your opinion about it? Would you like it to be faster or slower?

Slower

Flanker

Chaliux wrote: »

That seems to be a very special situation. In my entire life, which seems to mean more years on this planet than you‘ve lived on it, I didnt have so much time for playing a computer game.

It was used as an example to emphasize that if I was a "normal" player, I wouldn't care if leveling took thousands of hours in Ashes as long as it is fun.

Chaliux wrote: »

To be honest you cannt assume, think and want to get a game where you talk about „poor casuals“ (= normal players) if your value of „time“ is completely different, here up to 18 (!!) hours per day! Thats a volume normal persons play in a week - maybe.

Just for reference - I wasn't making fun of people who can't play a lot, don't take it seriously.

Chaliux wrote: »

Thats not the normal or average case and by all hope Ashes will NOT be designed for frequent players like you, because all those designs will fail soon as players like you are the absolute minority.

I never said that Ashes must be a game for me and it's not the reason why I say it. Based on everything I know at the moment, I believe longer leveling will be a net positive for a game overall. Not because it fits my personal preferences and I'm trying to rationalize it somehow.

Chaliux wrote: »

No offense meant

None taken and none would be taken even in case if offence was meant.

Chaliux wrote: »

I dont care if you are unemployed or whatever happened

I grinded IRL a lot (same as I grind in MMOs lol) and I can chill for the next couple of years. Also, I'm kind of stuck at my house with my cat for 953 days already, and my parents, friends and literally everyone I knew left the country because of the war. If anyone is curious.

Chaliux wrote: »

please accept that you are a very, very special case and a minority, although a load one.

I'm aware of that and once again: I never said that Ashes must be a game to please me in all ways, shapes or forms.

Chaliux wrote: »

I like the leveling phase, really I do. I dont like rushing to max level, but there always must be a reachable and rewarding goal for normal players, your „poor casuals“

Correct. And that's why (according to Steven) every single level will be rewarding and certain level milestones will be more rewarding than the others.

Chaliux wrote: »

For me a frequent player is poor, because he defines his life around a computer game.

You are free to think that way. We all have different goals, we all find different things entertaining

Chaliux wrote: »

„Ashes is not a game for everyone“

Please, prior to quoting, care to understand the context in which this phrase was used. I was talking about a specific segment of people who want Steven to change the game's core pillars after he said a dozen of times that it is not going to happen. I didn't use it as "an excuse to justify literally anything"

Child Item