Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
Right now, I can ruin the experience of entire groups solo, simply by using crowd control mechanics like mezz, stun, and other forms of lockdown. And I’m not theorizing I actually do it, easily. What I’m pointing out is that a small group of players can negatively affect the experience of the majority.
PvE is based on managing mob packs. So imagine if you’re actually playing the game what it looks like if corruption is made even more forgiving or removed altogether. How are players supposed to enjoy zones like the Church, HH, Sephilion, or the Citadel when groups get ambushed while fighting 5–6 mobs? It leads to nonstop wipes.
Today, if you want to engage a meaningful named boss, there are two options: either you’re in a big guild, or it’s simply not for you. And if you say otherwise, it likely means you’re not doing any, or you’re part of one of those dominant guilds.
You can’t design a game with difficult, punishing, and meaningful PvE, while letting other players come ruin the experience for others without consequences. The only game I’ve seen with a system like this was Age of Conan. And strangely enough, the PvP server quickly stopped functioning in favor of PvE.
Of course, there will always be those who say: “If you don’t like it, go play something else.” But let’s be realistic Intrepid has over 250 salaries to pay each month, and player retention right now is abysmal. I’ve been playing since October, and I’ve personally seen large guilds monopolize content, drive players away, and cause entire guilds to leave. Add to that a game still in development that’s not always fun, and you get servers nearly empty just two months after launch.
I’ve been playing MMOs for 27 years. And to me, killing someone already tanking 5 to 7 mobs? That’s not PvP. That just proves the system doesn’t work. And I’m sure some people enjoy it only because it gives them a feeling of power they don’t have anywhere else.
But if the devs continue to build this game for a minority at the expense of the broader community, they shouldn’t be surprised when financial reality catches up to them.
Also, the type of PvE matters just as much, if not more, when it comes to 'how difficult it is to kill off a group fighting a boss'. This also applies to certain designs of 'packs' in terms of mob fighting.
I'd be more worried about Ashes falling into the trap of having too few areas with appropriately challenging mobs, but 'appropriately' matters by player skill, so that's really a question of 'insufficient content variety for very skilled players'.
Except that even though Steven has sorta 'rolled back' some of our expectations on PvE challenge, he hasn't mentioned any need to temper our expectations about PvE dynamism.
tl;dr if you can ruin the experience of entire groups solo, it's probably not intended
In one regard i must agree. Even while Ashes of Creation shall never change in the Core Mechanics as what it is intended to be,
maybe after the Game is released and finished -> Sir Steven and his mighty Team can add a few more Game Mechanics to the Game that will appeal towards others also instead of only the Hardcore-Guilds for example.
SOOOOOOOOOOO many People will suffer (lol) - and why ? Because they are not so much Teamplayers and more like Solo Players.
And if they want to actually get somewhere, they would need to succumb to the Game's intended Mechanics and play like a Madman in a Guild to support it. At least this is my Expression.
But who knows ? Maybe besides all of that, there will be things which they can easily to solo. And with that i mean a little bit more than just farm a few Zones in the Riverlands in Phase One.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
I am in the guildless Guild so to say, lol. But i won't give up. I will find my fitting Guild "one Day".
An example of that is for melee attacks there were obnoxious yellow swooshes after every swing that cluttered your screen. Another is for Ranger their auto attacks sounded like the old nerf football whistler screeching on every attack.
Tab target combat always feel floaty. It is more anchored than most tab combat games though.
I want action combat, but if the goal is to make a game for all, that necessitates tab-target combat.
This game is not meant for me.
But honestly, this isn’t really about Steven. It’s a loud minority of the community cherry-picking lines and pretending they reflect the whole picture — when they’re ignoring everything else he said, especially the parts aimed at more casual players.
Like, the other day he said “embrace the suck,” and now people are screaming “EVEN STEVEN SAYS THE GAME SUCKS,” when that’s not what he meant at all. He was saying this is still alpha. It’s not perfect, and that’s okay. Embrace the rough imperfections. That’s part of the process.
The whole “not for everyone” thing? I remember hearing that in TheLazyPeon’s video a few months back. ~13 minutes in, Steven was talking about the different alpha phases. Phases 1 and 2 are all about systems, performance, stability, optimization — boring but necessary stuff. Phase 3 is where more "casual friendly" content drops: balance, quests, solo play.
This game will be geared towards a hardcore crowd; he's setting that expectation. I'm in a season of my life where my kids' homework takes priority over logging in. The rest of the gaming community shouldn't have to cater to the casuals because of my priorities. Instead, I can have fun and enjoy it -- continue giving feedback and help Intrepid elevate the game despite my perspective and personal priorities. I've been impressed by all of the feedback you've written, so I hope you choose the same.
Ashes won't change in it's Core-Mechanic at all. But "WILL" have additional Contents for Players not that suited for the Core-Mechanics.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
I am in the guildless Guild so to say, lol. But i won't give up. I will find my fitting Guild "one Day".
I was hoping to find more structured systems, PvP zones or content, and mechanics, even imperfect ones, that reward risk-taking and make it engaging. Something, at least, that could hint at a future compelling enough to hold my interest. But that’s not the case.
I wish you the best in making it work by launch.
Been on a break since January. Grind. Professions not fun at all. Distances too far for grouping. Not solo-friendly. Mob drops didn't provide the dopamine I need. Inventory management sucks balls. Plus it's just so lame to have inventory inaccessible at nodes across the map, especially when it took 20 minutes to get to a different node, which just added to the list of many many reasons why professions suck so badly. And that was with only a handful of nodes. Imagine what it will be like when the map is 10x and there are like 90 nodes (I don't remember the exact number and don't care).
But I am still a believer that "it's an alpha," and hopeful that they will work it out. I'll be back for beta for sure, maybe sooner to try summoner. Summoner is probably my only hope. And I need more solo-friendly and casual-friendly content and systems. Period. Otherwise, the game "isn't for me" and the tards who have been telling everyone that for the past 8 years can have fun for a couple years with their struggling game. I mean, this could be the biggest game ever, with plenty of hardcore content, but it needs to be a thriving company for that to be sustainable, which means broader appeal.
In 2017 when I started following Ashes I was all about being more hardcore. Now I'm much older. By the time this game gets to beta I'll be old AF. My son was 9 when I started following Ashes and he's going to college next year lmao.
Anyway, I like Steven and find him as genuine. I think reality will catch up with him and the game will shift toward broader appeal. I hope so. I'm not abandoning it yet and really hope it develops into a fun game. Fun. That's the key.
Maybe the "it's not for everyone" could hurt overall pre-sales. Maybe not. I think Steven is just trying to be as open as possible, and the truth is, is the game isn't for everyone. BG3 isn't for everyone. I love CRPGS and a coop on top of the depth was awesome. But no matter how good it is I can't get some friends to play it even if I bought it for them. They just don't like those games. Most gamers are going to know if it's for them or not, eventually at least. It's still really earlier. I see the "we're not for everyone" as a drawing of a line in the sand. They're not going to try to please every group of players, they're focusing on their take on pvx. A sure way to piss everyone off is to try to please everyone. No game can be for everyone.
I'm really confused about the statement "limiting itself before launch.". What's being limited here? We're still about two years from launch, maybe a little less if we're lucky. They're in full scale development mode, not advertising. The games not complete, there are systems and assets not even in the game lol, of course it feels limited.
Sub vs no sub model debate. In my experience sub games are better and last longer, being sub helps keep the team away from p2w bs in cash shops. To each their own, so people hate subs. To me I'd paid more than 15 a month for a premium mmorpg. Other's wouldn't. I don't know what success is to Steven, but he's not worried about the money as far I can tell. I assume success to him is going to be a couple healthy realms mostly full of players exploring the game and fighting it out over resources. There'll need to be updates to keep people interested. Playing any game that relies on the players to make the content dies fast.
To me when I head "it's not for everyone". It means they aren't pandering to people to buy in for their money. They're sticking to their principals and vision. It's a good thing.
I'm not sure what you expect from the game. It's not supposed to be like anything else out there, so I've just taken the position to expect the unexpected and hope I'm pleased with it. Are they losing some sells by their choice of words, yes, but are they gaining some, yes, which is more? Are they making a niche game? Probably. Will it be successful? Probably. Still too early to tell on much of it. Right now the game is in alpha and it's a heavy grind through broken, unfinished, and placeholder systems if it's fun great, if not, well fun isn't the target right now, just needs to work. I wouldn't judge the release version by what you see today or even in a year.
There just isn't the same workload in maintaining an MMORPG and making post launch content as there is in making the game in the first place.
Some companies move them on to other games, some just end their employment.
Ohh i REALLY hope Intrepid will keep more People in the Team. Because it is apparently not thaaat huge a Team to begin with.
Plus they could immediately go and work on Expansions and new Content in general.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
I am in the guildless Guild so to say, lol. But i won't give up. I will find my fitting Guild "one Day".
This is going to sound really bad - even more so when you consider I know some of these people.
I hope they don't.
When EQ2 went live, SoE ran with two teams of developers, one would be creating the next expansion, and the other would be working on the live game. Then when the expansion came out, those teams would swap over, so the team that worked on the expansion were also working on live updates to the game while their work was the games current content. They would also then pitch ideas for the following expansion, ready for when they rotated again.
With this model, EQ2 was able to put out a full expansion (WoW sized) every year.
Doing this required about 12% of the game developers that were employeed to actually build the game to begin with.
The thing with Ashes is - it can't really handle new content at that rate. Players would freak out. You can't just double the size of the game world within 2 years of launch in a PvP based game.
Then you have the fact that post launch content in Ashes is not going to be charged for - where as EQ2's expansions sold for as much as $120 back in the mid 2000's (I recall one having a $200 variant).
When the gmae is launched, all initial bugs are ironed out and all promised content that wasn't ready for launch day has been added, Intrepid need to scale their development team down to fit the cadence of new content that they feel the game and it's players can handle.
I would much rather they base their decision here on what is best for the game - and I am absolutely sure that is what they will be (it is what every game developer does).
There's a decent chance that this is naive, and the best chance Intrepid has to stay operational after launch without overwhelming the player base is by scaling their costs down and mostly working on maintenance aside from some (potentially big) content updates over the years.
But the topic of this thread has basically been: "How can Intrepid consolidate its large aspirations with its niche target audience?" - then this is the only potential answer. Appeal to the niche, but also make the niche so amazing that more normies find their way into it.
The main reason is that you need to attract subscriptions to warrant that money (many subscriptions), and adding in more variations of what state a node could be in isn't going to really do that. Most players will look at the content they have to play, not the variations on that content that they can't play.
If Intrepid task their development team post launch to making more variations of node states, they will spend a lot of time creating content that will never be seen on any server.
What this design paradigm has as a strength is that it means people that are playing the game will see the content change up over time, so the game will be slightly different (on a scale measured in months though). This could well have the effect of keeping the people that would leave the game after 6 - 12 months in the game a little longer, another 6 months or so. I do think Ashes will see a delay on it's second population drop off in relation to most other MMORPG's (first dropoff is month 2 and 3, second is usually around month 6)
It won't attract new people to the game though.
In regards to your last comment, BG3 paved the way for how to make a niche game appeal to a much wider audience than the niche it is from would suggest it could appeal to.
That path is to first make your game the best possible example of the niche genre, without tricks or gimmicks, without being too flashy, just doing every aspect of that niche as well as it can be done. Then, the second step, is to make the game that you have just created accessable to everyone - you spend time identifying the barriers that the genre and your game have, and you knock them down.
Ashes isn't even attempting to do that first step. It is trying to add in too much to the basic formula, it is trying to be a new thing rather than the best example of the existing thing. Intrepid would need to drop nodes, castles, caravans, sieges and naval content, then focus on making the PvP experience essentially perfectly balanced so that those that lose aren't at too much of a perpetual disadvantage vs those that win.
That isn't Ashes at this point, and that is only the first step. An attempt at the second step would add 2 or 3 years to this games beta testing, which I don't think will happen either.
No MMORPG is going to break through that open world PvP MMORPG niche barrier with someone in charge of development that has never led multiple MMORPG's all through development, and on to full release before, let alone someone that has never worked on an MMORPG before.
There is zero chance of this game breaking through that niche.
It honestly isn't even worth discussing, imo.
I agree you need to make enough money to attract the talent to make the great things that will attract and keep the players. I don't know if there is a talent drain happening. I can tell you I looked up the salaries they're paying a few months ago and it's not much, especially for San Diego.
I might have missed your point on why the game might not last, but I do agree it's possible. But I think exploits, RMT, hackers will be their largest challenge. With the game leaning so heavy into competitive play people will use everyone advantage they can get. And I think enough will chance it to get ahead. Cracking down hard on cheating has the effect of making cheating even more valuable. I don't think a sub model is a large barrier, the most successful MMOs use them, but just having one doesn't mean you're successful.
What would be success to you? A player count? Specific ROI? I guess I'd say success is that if it runs for at least as long as it was in active development for. But there are different stages of development so that might not be always fair.
People hate me for saying this, but to me, success would be one fully populated server and Intrepid being able to afford a small, sustainable team to maintain and update the game.
If they leaned further into the sandbox side rather than sandpark, they'd benefit from more evergreen content and less reliance on constant story updates or raid tiers. The strength of sandbox MMOs is that players are the content. There's no seasonal need to invent a new “big bad” that ends up forgotten a year later.
I don’t think the size of Intrepid’s team is what determines success. If, in the end, Steven is running the game solo from his basement but the servers are full and players are having fun, that still counts as a win to me.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
It's a fair point of view. I personally don't see sandbox games that lean into the players generating the content being successful or being fun for an extended period of time. Much less deserving of a sub.
One server would never meet the required ROI of course, but I've played games that existed on one server and they were fun, some are still running decades later. A dedicated core fan base will keep playing and pay for sure.
What barriers did BG3 have to knock down? Isn't it just a slightly more shallow Dragon Age: Origins, with flirtier characters added to make it more marketable?
Otherwise it looks to me like it preserved pretty much all the niche genre traits; if anything, the commitment to DnD mechanics would be "too mechanical" for the mainstream on the surface. I haven't played it myself yet, but I'm not sure what I could have missed from the playthroughs I've started to watch that would give me such an incorrect impression there.
It just has polish, but not having polish isn't inherently what makes games niche - that's kind of baked into what you're saying.
I'd say your example is exactly what I prescribed Ashes would need. It's a niche game, but it's so refined in delivering perfectly on the best part of its niche that outsiders get to see the appeal.
That seems awfully reductive. The essence of Ashes's niche is defined by more more than PvP balance.
And frankly, making the losing side too protected from disadvantage would go against the genre's vision/ideal. The whole point of the system is that you have to fight against the odds, in order to turn the tides after you've been on the losing side for a while. That's what makes it fun.
Ashes isn't that much of a new thing. It's somewhere between Dark Ages of Camelot and release-day-ArcheAge. With some of the extra harshness of Lineage II. It's been done. Now they'd need to refine it (I'll fully grant you that it's questionable whether they can have the expertise to deliver on the refinement part - I'm saying that's what they'd need to aspire to, given the path they have chosen.)
...BG3, anyone?
I also disagree in general: Making it modular doesn't have to mean it has to be vastly redundant. You can copy an experience but change the outcome for the player/node. You can restrict the experience, but repeat it in a modified version somewhere else, later. You can move assets and ideas between events, dungeons, bosses, quests and story arcs. Obviously that's going to take creativity to do elegantly, especially for players who play on multiple realms with multiple characters. (Notably, streamers.) But if you mix and match by sometimes being redundant with "surplus" development, other times re-using experiences, it's not all that tricky not to mess it up and make it a realistic workload.
And in reality, there are pretty much always parts of every MMO not every player gets to see, or at least they don't care about all of it. That doesn't make it wasteful dev time, it just makes it a complete game, where the player's preferences and choices aren't steamrolled over.
->
C'mon...
The thing is, BG3 isn't shallower than DA:O. It presents itself as shallower, and it can be played shallower, but it actually has more depth to it (a lot more, tbh). DA:O had too many situations where there was only one viable path, BG3 has very few. This is the case not just for the story, but also for combat.
The difference is that in BG3, all of that content is available to me, and *I* am the only thing standing in the way.
WIth node states in Ashes, any content that Intrepid add to it, an individual player has the entire server standing in their way. They have no meaningful way of influencing what content they will and will not have access to. That isn't to say Intrepid should do away with the node system or anything, it is just to say that adding new content via this system will not attract players to Ashes.
I'm not sure where the mistake here has come from, but we are not talking about content that some players will not see.
Rather, we are talking about content that no player will ever see.
Content that is harder to access for many players is ok. It is seen as asperational content, it keeps people in games because there is still something they want to do or see. The thing is, people need to have a clear path as to what they need to do in order to get to that content - much like in BG3 it needs to be something they can do if they wish.
Content added via the node system is not something a player has a clear path laid out for, there is no means they have as a player to access that content.
Your idea that you present of "You can restrict the experience, but repeat it in a modified version somewhere else, later. You can move assets and ideas between events, dungeons, bosses, quests and story arcs."... why?
That doesn't create a good game. That doesn't attract people to the game. That turns people away from the game. It means players don't have shared experiences. They can't talk about the game with people from other servers, they can't talk about hte lore, because it will be different on different servers as things like quests result in different outcomes.
That kind of thing is just a whole lot of work to make the game worse off, but with no payoff of additional players at the end. And yes, the game would be worse off, because everything would need to be modular - quests, for example, would all need to take the same amount of time so that the rewards from them that will be shuffled around all match the effort put in.
It's one of those things that sounds like it could be good, until you consider the implications of it all.
Back to one of the first things you said in your post
Again, as BG3 proves, the issue isn't in removing the depth - it is in making it so that players not from that genre don't need to engage with that depth and still get a great experience from the game.
Ashes can not and will not have that. I'm not even saying they should try.
Rather, I am saying they will not break through that niche barrier. This is simply NOT the game to do that with.
It is also worth pointing out that things like nodes, the economy, sieges and naval content are adding breadth to the game, not depth. This isn't a bad thing at all, it is just worth pointing out for this discussion.
And make no mistake, the biggest barrier that this niche (which is open world PvP MMORPG) has is in relation to snowballing based on the loser of a fight losing power, while the winner gains it. That is the barrier that needs to be broken down by which ever open world PvP MMORPG finally breaks through that niche - if any of them ever do.
This is good for read or reread. I think it really shows that the game is NOT for everyone. They are aiming for a specific audience.
Here's a couple things that stood out to me.
Ashes is a PvX game; and so in that regard, your ability to wholesale disconnect from the PvP elements of the game are likely not going to be entirely successful.
So, not everybody is going to like that and we accept that; and we're not trying to build a game that everybody is going to like,
A defining principle of Ashes of Creation as a PvX game is that PvE builds the world, and PvP changes the world
PvX players are the core audience of Ashes of Creation.[
What PvX will actually look like in Ashes won't be seen until later, probably late beta. We're still missing Religion, Vassals, and other systems. These will effect the actual PvP in the game quite a bit. I think those come in P3, well all features should be in before alpha is over.
For the game killer will be if my progress can be stopped by other players and I have no other viable, compelling, fun, way to continue my progress. If a large multi guild is just steam rolling Nodes stopping and regressing players progress for their leveling, gearing, Node leveling, gathering, ect. I just see a LOT of people quitting. People won't want a massive grind with a massive potential of loss, and if you drop the loss you lose people, if you drop the grind you lose people. It's like mixing oil and water... Seeing your efforts get wiped out from something you have no ability to stop isn't going to be fun. Steam rolling a Node 40 to 1 isn't going to fun. IMO this is Ashes greatest challenge second only to exploits, cheats, and RMT. If they nail it, they'll have created something amazing. If they go to far towards pvp it'll fail (in the ROI sense), if they go too far toward pve it won't be very unique, but it'll have more chances to actually succeed of hitting an ROI.
So even at this point I don't know if Ashes will be a game for me. Too much is unknown. Something might look good or bad on paper but in practice is the opposite.
It’s clear many of you care deeply about how things are framed—not just in vision, but in communication and community culture. While we remain committed to the core pillars of Ashes of Creation—like meaningful risk, no pay-to-win, and a player-driven world—we also recognize how important it is to leave the door open to new voices and evolving dialogue.
At times, it’s important to communicate expectations clearly—even when the message may be difficult for some to hear. Our goal is to ensure that players understand Ashes of Creation is being built upon a distinct set of design pillars, and it may not align with the preferences of those seeking a different type of gameplay experience.
So let’s keep this conversation going:
What’s one feature or system you think could help bridge the gap between hardcore and casual players without compromising the game’s vision?
Thanks again for being here and sharing your thoughts—we’ll be watching this thread and others like it with interest (and possibly snacks). 😄
Somehow I've always thought a simple PvP flagging system, outside of known PvP events, would allow both sides a chance at enjoying the entire map.
Also, CHANGE THE PVP EVENT DEATH PENALTIES BACK TO JUST GEAR DECAY. If you want people to drop items in pvp events - create special bags for this explicit reason. You already have the tools to make all of this much better, so I hope you use those tools.
As I’ve already said — and at the risk of repeating myself — there is clearly a vision for the game taking shape right now, and it’s obvious that it won’t suit everyone. This vision is likely to become even more entrenched in the coming months and years.
Personally, I have a hard time imagining a future where PvE and PvP can truly coexist in Ashes of Creation. The current POI system, as you’ve described it, pushes for slow and challenging character progression — and I agree with that principle. When tackled with the average gear and expected level, the current POIs are already tough. Mobs hit hard (I’m deliberately not talking about launch balance issues).
But in my experience both during P2 and now I’ve seen three players from a toxic guild successfully chase off entire groups at ROS, Citadel, and even Carphin. Why? Because it’s incredibly hard to fight tough mobs and deal with players who can freely PvP and train mobs onto you. Yet in your communication, this seems “normal”: PvP anywhere, anytime.
I’ll quote Steven: “Corruption is currently pushed to the extreme for testing purposes.”
But I must respectfully say you’re mistaken here. How can we test a real corruption system if it’s not actually planned, tested, and refined during this phase?
Let me be very clear: no group will be able to access elite POIs if players can kill others without any real consequences. PvE and PvP simply can’t coexist like this in Ashes of Creation.
And that brings us back to what I’ve been pointing out from the start: your “not for everyone” vision of the game.
This is one of the worst mistakes a publisher can make: letting a minority rule over the majority through fear.
Because if 10% of your players are able to ruin the experience for the remaining 90%, to the point where vital content becomes inaccessible, you’re headed straight for economic trouble.
And I’ve tested this personally. I temporarily prevented three groups from farming at HH. They died repeatedly. I flagged for PvP, pulled a few mobs, applied some control, and put pressure on the healers — all while avoiding corruption.
And alone, I managed to ruin the experience for 24 players in just a short amount of time.
I didn’t do it for long because I didn’t want to discourage players who were just trying to have fun.
But my conclusion is crystal clear: I could have done it for hours.
When it comes to valuable bosses, it’s always the same groups farming them over and over. The spawn timers are fixed, the players are well-geared, and they easily contest multiple bosses. Once again, a minority is dictating the rules to the majority.
Same goes for caravans. And you mentioned this during P2: a huge number of trade-focused guilds simply gave up on the game altogether, because once again, a minority is able to impose their dominance through fear.
And on top of that, it’s a triple penalty: you die, you lose your cargo, your caravan or boat, and your mount.
Same core issue, again and again.
So yes, because of some of the ideas you’re promoting, you’re at serious risk of losing a large part of your player base.
I say this as someone with between 1000 and 1500 hours played since October, who has played many MMOs and tested several alphas and betas.
And yet today, I’m genuinely concerned about the direction you’re taking. The game is drifting toward a “not for everyone” model and while I truly love many aspects of AoC, I still hope to see it evolve in a way that allows everyone to coexist.
Let’s take the example of ArcheAge, which had peace zones, conflict zones, and a system that shifted into war mode.
War zones gave +20% XP and loot, but there was a real balance between risk and reward. And Steven, whom I know is a big fan of ArcheAge, probably remembers that many players enjoyed trading in safe zones.
The real risk began at sea when venturing toward shipwrecks, trading routes, or fishing zones or when crossing conflict areas. That’s where risk vs reward really meant something.
Even in that game, the Library (an open dungeon) was PvP-free, because you simply can’t expect a group to defend itself from both tough NPCs and enemy players at the same time.
So maybe this is all deliberate. Maybe you truly want to build a game for a niche audience.
That’s fine. I’m not the one who invested tens of millions. I don’t work for Intrepid.
But allow me to say this: games built for a minority have never lasted long.
And even if it’s an old example, I remember saying something similar to the developers of WildStar, when they proudly claimed that only 1% of their players would be able to complete endgame content.
I told them:
“Once you’ve driven away the majority of your players, and your 1% can’t cover your salaries and overhead, you’ll be forced to sell… or end up unemployed.”
And as it turns out, I wasn’t wrong.
To conclude this wall of text (and thank you if you’ve read it all!):
I truly hope to see real PvP zones with objectives, rewards, trade, naval exploration, fishing like in ArcheAge… and most importantly, a meaningful reason to belong to a Node.
But please, protect your POIs from toxic players.
And don’t create a “safe” corruption system that does nothing because if you do, that’ll be the end...
(Yes, I’m concluding dramatically 😄)