Will Streamers Take Over Our Servers?

Dear Intrepid Team,

First and foremost, I want to express my excitement and appreciation for all the hard work you’re putting into this incredible project. It's evident that you’re creating something truly special, and the vision for a dynamic, immersive world is inspiring. With that said, I have a suggestion that I hope you’ll consider in order to protect and enhance the experience for a wide range of players.

As we’ve seen in other games, influential content creators and streamers have a unique impact on server dynamics. While their contributions to community engagement and visibility are undeniable, there’s a growing concern that servers heavily populated by streamers can unintentionally shift the focus from organic, player-driven development to something more performance-oriented. In these cases, gameplay can feel less about exploring or building a cohesive in-game world and more like a backdrop for content creation, sometimes even leaving regular players feeling like props in someone else's storyline.

In fact, we’re already seeing this trend with content creators taking on influential roles as mayors on multiple servers, effectively carving out ownership of nodes. While they undoubtedly invest in their communities, this ownership can create environments where players feel overshadowed or pressured by the content-driven goals of these leaders. It can be challenging for regular players who wish to contribute to node development or play a more significant role in their community, only to find themselves feeling sidelined by high-profile influencers.

A possible solution, which I believe could benefit everyone, would be to create separate servers specifically for content creators and their communities. This approach would allow streamers and their followers to engage in a world where they can comfortably pursue content-driven interactions, while other players who prefer a more organic and unstructured experience can enjoy the game on regular servers without feeling influenced by the pressures of public viewership.

This distinction could serve the following goals:

Improved enjoyment for all players: For those who play for escapism, immersion, or purely for personal goals, a regular server ensures they aren’t inadvertently involved in someone else’s content. Meanwhile, streamer-focused servers allow creators to freely engage with their audience in a way that enhances their own and their followers' experience.

Freedom from unintended pressure: In an environment heavily influenced by content creators, regular players may feel that their actions or choices are part of a performance. This could hinder the natural development of the game world, leading to interactions and achievements that cater more to an audience than to authentic in-game progress.

More balanced dynamics: Streamers are often naturally gifted at gathering communities, and that influence can significantly shape a server’s culture, economy, and politics. In regular servers, the development of guilds, alliances, and rivalries would likely unfold in a way that's shaped by all players, rather than by the needs of content-driven entertainment.

I want to clarify that this suggestion comes from a place of respect and appreciation for content creators. Their work contributes immensely to the visibility and excitement around games, and I have no issue with their role in the community. However, I believe that maintaining separate servers for them could ultimately lead to a richer, more balanced experience for everyone.

Thank you for considering this suggestion, and for all the work you do to make this world a place we’re all eager to be a part of!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Lodrig

I, for one, Welcome our new Streamer Overlords.

Uncommon Sense

Streamers and influencers will self designate their own server, the lure of clout chasing will be enough.

All Intrepid has to do is provide the right number of servers at launch and anticipate the drop off and merge system mechanics when the hype train derails...

Though if Intrepid wants to provide and accommodate streamers by making a specific server for them that is also ok, as long as it does not result in non streamer servers being neglected or effected in some detrimental way as a result.

Personally would not be pleased if Intrepid shows favoritism or get sucked into the streamer hype train themselves. In which case having all the servers be the same is more appropriate.

As a player you either have the choice to join and participate in 'streamer content' or join another server with other like minded players who don't want to interact with streamers...

there a pros and cons to both options.

Noaani

Githal wrote: »

Pretty sure there will be core group of players that will stick to the game.

For sure.

They are the ones that will populate those last few servers.

Keep in mind, if there is only 1 European server and 2 NA servers, that is still up to 150k active accounts, and 30k concurrent players.

If the game has those 3 servers and they maintain that population 3 years after launch, that is actually still a financially successful game. That is $27 million a year in revenue just from subscriptions.

Noaani

Kilion wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

I really cant stress this enough, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that people waiting for years to play this game have to become subject to the ingame actions of someone who is not primarily driven by the enjoyment of gaming, but the commercial interest of entertaining others on a different platform.

Streamers and their audience have the same "rights" to the game as you and I do. They have just as much right to enjoy Ashes in their own way as we do.

The fact that Ashes is a game where others can fairly significantly negatively impact your own experience is something those of us that have been here a long time should be well aware of, and so those that have been here the longest have the least validity to any complaints in this regard.

Where do I state ANYTHING about them "not having the same right" to play the game? Did you even read my comment? And the fact that you would then go on to tell others who has more or less "validity" is just icing on the cake. Better keep it down, mate.

You don't.

I'm saying that there is nothing Intrepid could or should do about it, because playing the game their way is perfectly fine.

You are suggesting that people that have been waiting years to play shouldn't be subject to *whatever* other players wish to do in game, and that is just outright incorrect.

This game is literally about you being subjected to what others are doing.

Aszkalon

So what if they do ?

This should be a NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE Warning-Test of what happens if You are still to unsocial to form and join Guilds when the Game gets released.

GET ALLIES.

Or be dominated by those who managed to get some.

Githal

midnight2024 wrote: »

Githal wrote: »

TBH i have always wondered why people play PVE focused MMORPG games. And the answers i reached were that: The PVP in those game sucks and has no PVP content, The players have no Skill and dont want to feel like they are bad when they lose in pvp, so they play PVE where they have 0% chance to lose since the content is for brain dead people.

But i am yet to find the answer how can doing the exact same pve content for the 200th time be any interesting for a person? I mean why do this instead play some RPG game or whatever.

I play both.

It can be hard to relax in games with open PvP.

I totally get someone who wants to be in MMOs while PvE relaxing, although I've returned to doing the RPG thing for my PvE relaxation.

Ye i mean when Wow for example provide new expansion, it can be quite fun the first few months till you explore everything. After this it becomes a chore that me personally dont find fun.

Would much rather play something like God of war, Dark souls, Elden ring or something like this to relax from a PVP experience. But The PVP has its own charms that bots in pve cant provide.

RedLeader1

RocketFarmer wrote: »

Are we thinking casual solo players are running nodes?

Putting the MMO back in MMORPG means larger groups. Streams will be part of that. Fortunately there should be enough servers and nodes to spread things out. If the problem is that all of the nodes are full on all of the servers, then you have a successful game. Right now in Alpha 2 there are a total of 30 nodes. Very easy to have streamers and large guilds fill that up.

Git gud, find frens.

Not 30 nodes, only 5.

I haven't seen anywhere that the optimal size of a node is, "As many as possible" though, and you can't exclude people from a node AFAIK. So if I want to go to a streamers node and become a citizen, as long as I pay my taxes I'm using up a slot and I don't have to join the guild..

Aszkalon

They already took over.

Kilion

Noaani wrote: »

You are suggesting that people that have been waiting years to play shouldn't be subject to *whatever* other players wish to do in game, and that is just outright incorrect.

That is false. Read again. My entire point is INFLUENCE FROM OUTSIDE THE GAME like trying to run an entertainment show. I have no problem that some people want to do that.
But what I don't understand, nor accept which you didn't address either is, why I have to be subjected to someone elses business endeavor in my freetime. Without consent, without payment. That is why the only thing I ask for is an information option so I can avoid being used as a prop in someones entertainment business. And giving players the information to make an informed decisions is not much to ask.

Blip

We can see that this is something the community wants as US managed to losely agree on what server is for what.

I think its only fair that Intrepid follow the sentement and classify / tag servers for and not for streamers.

Noaani

Kilion wrote: »

But what I don't understand, nor accept which you didn't address either is, why I have to be subjected to someone elses business endeavor in my freetime. Without consent, without payment.

Again, because that has literally always been a part of the game.

Streamers are free to play the game how they want, and agreeing to play Ashes is agreeing to be subject to how others want tonplay the game.

Honestly, your take here is exactly the same as people complaining that they don't want open world PvP. If you play Ashes, you are subject to what ever other people playing the game wish to subject you to. You do not get to decide other than opting to not play the game. Streamers streaming is a part of that.

This has always been the deal.

Azherae

Kilion wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

You are suggesting that people that have been waiting years to play shouldn't be subject to *whatever* other players wish to do in game, and that is just outright incorrect.

That is false. Read again. My entire point is INFLUENCE FROM OUTSIDE THE GAME like trying to run an entertainment show. I have no problem that some people want to do that.
But what I don't understand, nor accept which you didn't address either is, why I have to be subjected to someone elses business endeavor in my freetime. Without consent, without payment. That is why the only thing I ask for is an information option so I can avoid being used as a prop in someones entertainment business. And giving players the information to make an informed decisions is not much to ask.

In your mind though, what's the cutoff for this?

Like, if my group decides to pivot to streaming AoC for some reason after already starting to do pretty well and therefore 'reaching the threshold where it might be entertaining', and you're already on our server, what is IS supposed to do about that, for you, flag everyone who pulls up a stream or even hits 'record' on their stuff, with a little icon?

Seriously asking if that would be enough. Because, sure, you can say 'no, I mean big streamers', but all big streamers are small first.

Laetitian

Azherae wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

You are suggesting that people that have been waiting years to play shouldn't be subject to *whatever* other players wish to do in game, and that is just outright incorrect.

That is false. Read again. My entire point is INFLUENCE FROM OUTSIDE THE GAME like trying to run an entertainment show. I have no problem that some people want to do that.
But what I don't understand, nor accept which you didn't address either is, why I have to be subjected to someone elses business endeavor in my freetime. Without consent, without payment. That is why the only thing I ask for is an information option so I can avoid being used as a prop in someones entertainment business. And giving players the information to make an informed decisions is not much to ask.

In your mind though, what's the cutoff for this?

Like, if my group decides to pivot to streaming AoC for some reason after already starting to do pretty well and therefore 'reaching the threshold where it might be entertaining', and you're already on our server, what is IS supposed to do about that, for you, flag everyone who pulls up a stream or even hits 'record' on their stuff, with a little icon?

Seriously asking if that would be enough. Because, sure, you can say 'no, I mean big streamers', but all big streamers are small first.

I think the cutoff could be relatively clearly defined. Only that it would simply be up to the communities in question to actually stick to that standard, because the edges are sufficiently fuzzy that I wouldn't expect Intrepid to bother trying to moderate it as a hard rule.
The cutoff would be: If your community is formed around one or more personalities with a public social media audience, you're invited and encouraged to play on one of the streamer server realms instead of another one.
If there happens to be a famous person in your community, but their presence is not central to your community's identity, you're fine to play on any realm.

Now, at the edges of this definition, in a universe where streamer server realms would exist:

If you have 50 regular viewers on Twitch, and this audience forms a guild around you, chances are you wouldn't get a ton of hate for playing on a non-streamer server together, even though it's arguably a streamer guild; because it's small enough that it really doesn't matter. If you eventually grow to be massive, you will catch some Flak for not planning ahead.
But if you're Asmongold, and your clan (not just individual players) joins a non-streamer realm, claiming that your community doesn't revolve around you, you'd probably earn a lot of criticism for that. And then most people would know to treat your server like a streamer realm anyway...

Essentially, the point is, if all it would take is to give a few servers a tag that says "streamer-friendly", while strictly disavowing any promises of enforcing that as a moderation rule...why not just do that?
But again, I have no horse in this race, I think either solution is fine, because players who care should care enough to research which servers are safe from most major streamers before they create their character.

Azherae

That one seems reasonable to me. Might even be specific ways to 'enforce' it if Intrepid is willing to take the flak of 'making certain pseudo-agreements with streamers'.

Tunafingers

Laetitian wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

You are suggesting that people that have been waiting years to play shouldn't be subject to *whatever* other players wish to do in game, and that is just outright incorrect.

That is false. Read again. My entire point is INFLUENCE FROM OUTSIDE THE GAME like trying to run an entertainment show. I have no problem that some people want to do that.
But what I don't understand, nor accept which you didn't address either is, why I have to be subjected to someone elses business endeavor in my freetime. Without consent, without payment. That is why the only thing I ask for is an information option so I can avoid being used as a prop in someones entertainment business. And giving players the information to make an informed decisions is not much to ask.

In your mind though, what's the cutoff for this?

Like, if my group decides to pivot to streaming AoC for some reason after already starting to do pretty well and therefore 'reaching the threshold where it might be entertaining', and you're already on our server, what is IS supposed to do about that, for you, flag everyone who pulls up a stream or even hits 'record' on their stuff, with a little icon?

Seriously asking if that would be enough. Because, sure, you can say 'no, I mean big streamers', but all big streamers are small first.

I think the cutoff could be relatively clearly defined. Only that it would simply be up to the communities in question to actually stick to that standard, because the edges are sufficiently fuzzy that I wouldn't expect Intrepid to bother trying to moderate it as a hard rule.
The cutoff would be: If your community is formed around one or more personalities with a public social media audience, you're invited and encouraged to play on one of the streamer server realms instead of another one.
If there happens to be a famous person in your community, but their presence is not central to your community's identity, you're fine to play on any realm.

Now, at the edges of this definition, in a universe where streamer server realms would exist:
If you have 50 regular viewers on Twitch, and this audience forms a guild around you, chances are you wouldn't get a ton of hate for playing on a non-streamer server together, even though it's arguably a streamer guild; because it's small enough that it really doesn't matter. If you eventually grow to be massive, you will catch some Flak for not planning ahead.

But if you're Asmongold, and your clan (not just individual players) joins a non-streamer realm, claiming that your community doesn't revolve around you, you'd probably earn a lot of criticism for that. And then most people would know to treat your server like a streamer realm anyway...

Essentially, the point is, if all it would take is to give a few servers a tag that says "streamer-friendly", while strictly disavowing any promises of enforcing that as a moderation rule...why not just do that?
But again, I have no horse in this race, I think either solution is fine, because players who care should care enough to research which servers are safe from most major streamers before they create their character.

All of this right here is good. I have been super concerned with the state of affairs involving a content creator fan bases. No one plays these games to get dominated by a large group of people in a "your either with us or against us" mentality that will get formed along side these groups. Asmongold is the best example of this where when he creates guilds on new servers...they don't go away. in fact they will stick around for a very long time in hopes that whenever he does return they will already have a spot in the limelight. He has such a genuinely large following that ANY server he is on is now "his" server. Sure, you could say its the name of the game and they have a right to do that but...that's not a healthy gaming experience for people who aren't a part of that group.

Pirate softwares groups genuinely scares me because not only is it a, at this point in time, 3500 Strong, their is also a tremendous amount of organization and planning going into it. They WILL be a force to be reckoned with. Luckily we know what server he will play on so we can avoid it but...who's to say other streamers won't follow suit? its a very tough math problem to solve.

Lodrig

Blip wrote: »

We can see that this is something the community wants as US managed to losely agree on what server is for what.

I think its only fair that Intrepid follow the sentement and classify / tag servers for and not for streamers.

Tagging if useless given that streamers often have an incentive to move to realms/servers where they would be the only one and able to dominate, thus anything tagged as not for them is immediatly what they would want to go to. Unless the tag is enforced with bans (which I don't think is viable or desirable) then it's pointless.

What WOULD work is a simple differentiation of servers. Give certain servers a double or tripple guild size (both initial and at each size expansion upgrade) and groups will self segregate to ones that fit their prefered playstyle better. The Big Fish will go to the Big Fish pond and the small fish will go to the small fish pool without any heavy handed control.

And BOTH sides will love it because they have been disagreeing over guild size from day one.

And best of all it's a trivial easy system to program and test durring the Alpha.

RationalThought

I personally will be choosing servers carefully if all of them will be infested with streamers. It is tolerable if the streamers are small or medium because you can deal with them one way or another. But if there is someone like Asmongold (ugh) or anyone else similar in size/hype in my region...no thanks. Absolute cancer legion of mindless drones. No cure for that. Even if several big guilds form alliances (assuming no guilds will join streamer, which is unrealistic), they will need a miracle and then some to overcome the sheer number of zombies.

I played many games on different servers. Most miserable experiences were always on the ones with a huge streamer+megaguild.

PS: I have big doubts that any policies regulating big streamers will be implemented considering how Steven is catering to them on streams and in comments on their videos (I understand why he is doing that; don't get me wrong). For now, my plan is to wait 1-2 days after launch, missing precious jumpstart, but choosing the server to play optimally.

magical-hobo

I'm in Actual Pirates. Good luck

Gromlof

Hey, thanks for briging in this subject ! For me the real issue is the guilde base gameplay instead of a faction base gameplay. In a Faction base gameplay a streamer and his comunity can be as big as they want they will never be as big as a Faction (Think the horde and the alliance). When a guilde is created they should have to join a faction (faction could be more than 2) and the number of slots available in a faction could be regulatade so it's fair competition. It's s just a suggestion but im at the moment playing on Throne and liberty wich is a guilde focus game, and what i see is huge alliances of hardcore players controlling all the pvx content so if you want to be a part of the game you have no choice but to join one of thoses. Archeage PVX content was so good because it was faction driven and not guild driven so even if you are a member of a casual friendly guilde you steal are a member of the Faction so you can be part of those events. For the nodes mayor you could have a leaderboard of players who contributed the most to it's developement. And only the top 3 could be candidate for the mayor so streamer could not just be candidate and count on their viewers to elect them, they would have to work for it like the rest of us. (Also nodes could join a faction aswell ? maybe )

Kilion

Azherae wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

You are suggesting that people that have been waiting years to play shouldn't be subject to *whatever* other players wish to do in game, and that is just outright incorrect.

That is false. Read again. My entire point is INFLUENCE FROM OUTSIDE THE GAME like trying to run an entertainment show. I have no problem that some people want to do that.
But what I don't understand, nor accept which you didn't address either is, why I have to be subjected to someone elses business endeavor in my freetime. Without consent, without payment. That is why the only thing I ask for is an information option so I can avoid being used as a prop in someones entertainment business. And giving players the information to make an informed decisions is not much to ask.

In your mind though, what's the cutoff for this?

Like, if my group decides to pivot to streaming AoC for some reason after already starting to do pretty well and therefore 'reaching the threshold where it might be entertaining', and you're already on our server, what is IS supposed to do about that, for you, flag everyone who pulls up a stream or even hits 'record' on their stuff, with a little icon?

Seriously asking if that would be enough. Because, sure, you can say 'no, I mean big streamers', but all big streamers are small first.

If you decide to do that then I'd say: Pay to transfer to a server where streaming is allowed.
Again the point is that outside incentives undoubtly change player behavior. Therefore if someone wants to leave the option open for that, then they can just play on a server where streaming is allowed. And mind you: I am not saying "push those streamers into a far corner". I am pretty sure that most people are much more relaxed about this than I am. I'd just like have a corner of gameplay for a change where there is no reason to deal with cameras, potential clout chasing, this BS drama (see recent AoC news with the ban hammer situation) or someone making decisions ingame to earn money with something that everyone else has to pay for.

I want to play with people that are acutally there to PLAY undisturbed by the clout chasing, efame BS.

Child Item