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.
Options
Comments
While I have some very slight insights in to developing an MMORPG, i have essentially none at all in regards to financing one.
However, I would think that the above is very true.
While this is indeed true, it puts Intrepid in a bit of a position.
There are already large segments of the MMORPG community that will never be interested in Ashes. Steven's comments on combat trackers (not his decision, his obvious lack of understanding as to their function) has made it so every raiding community that i know of is no longer interested. That is quite literally millions of dedicated MMORPG players that will never again look at this game.
While it's easy to say "but this game was never for them", when talking about how Ashes probably needs to find a wider audience than it is currently likely to get, the fact that this game has not been aimed at that group of dedicated MMORPG players is exactly the point.
The problem gets worse when you consider two other points. The first is that players in the very hardcore PvP sphere are also not interested in this game. No full looting, no always on, consequence free PvP, many of those players are as disinterested as the raiding community is.
The second point is that any attempt at trying to court a wider playerbase will, without a doubt, alienate at least some of the existing playerbase. There is too much discussion/information from Intrepid now for then to change the direction of the game without it having negative consequences that outweigh any positives (one of the issues with talking about the game before you have made it and seen if all the systems you have talked about actually work togrther).
Basically, the target audience this game has now is the only target audience it really can have.
The assumption on Intrepid Studio side was that there is a large audience, in-between the PvP and PvE focused players.
But can still happen that this large audience will not feel attracted to the game as it is implemented, not necessarily because they prefer more PvP or more PvE but for other reasons.
It means you don't know or have any clue whom the target audience is.
Another one who missed the point. No one is asking for that.
A game for everyone that ends up being for no one still ends up with a massive playerbase.
A game for a very small few usually ends up not being a game for very long.
Ashes target audience is getting smaller and smaller every time Steven talks about it.
✓ 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".
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.
[/quote]
Archeage is a great example because it shows how stupid the zones going to war was. People just waiting around the edges until it was over and no one even fighting in those areas.
People disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are trying to trigger you. They are usually say so because that is what they feel they can add to the conversation, it has nothing to do with you.
That is a very self centered world view you seem to have there. Just saying.
Caravan system. The sieges. Nodes. Player run citys with political systems. World that changes by what citys are big. There is actually a ton of new stuff. Not all of it is brand spanking, but it has not put together like this. AoC is very creative with the lego.
I really hope for Intrepid's sake that all the people who are interested in this gameplay type actually really want to play a Fantasy MMORPG and not just the sci-fi ones they are playing already.
- Caravans were in AA and in Silk Road (afaik)
- Sieges were in L2
- Nodes, as I said, we got no damn clue how exactly they'll end up being design by release
- I guess player-led cities might be somewhat unique in fantasy, but I coulda sworn I've heard about something very similar before.
- Node-lvl-related changes remain to be seen too. I hope it's as deep and intricate as was promised before
A somewhat rudimentary combo of those 2 last points was in L2 with the Manor system. Castle owners could add different items to mob loot tables in their region, which was both a political tool that attracted players (somewhat akin to node buildings in Ashes) and was related to the state of the region, cause if the castle was unowned - that loot would not be present and gameplay related to it would not exist in that region.L2 also had a religious system that opened up dungeons based on player activity, so, in a way, that is another similar system.
And that's just examples from almost a single 20y.o. game. I'm sure I'm missing several fantasy mmos that had either very similar systems or literally the same ones. And, as was said above, space games literally have the exact same systems.
Thats what I meant, not all of it is new. Much of it is good features taken from other games, put a Intrepid twist on it, and putting it together. Its like making a good dish, you take a bunch of good food and put it together. Games does not have to have a new feature to make it good. You can make any game good, with already developed features. Its sa matter of how you implement them, how the game feels etc.
because a Game for Everyone - is a Game for NO ONE. Quite a few Games failed like this already - and they failed horribly at that. Sir Steven knows better. And i bet his Crew knows this as well.
✓ 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".
You are thinking of Albion online player cities I think. The mayorship system itself is unique as far as I know, but player built cities are still a thing even in other fantasy mmo's. I think this gets to the heart of Ashes current predicament. You can go on and on about how the game isn't for everyone, but Ashes has kind of always talked about itself as a 'special' and 'unique' thing that made that 'not for everyone' really mean something. Being an exclusive niche focused thing has no value unless that niche is offering something actually unique that you cannot find elsewhere.
In reality to me this game is just a spiritual successor to Dark Ages of Camelot, maybe L2 if they manage to shape things up further. That's not a bad thing, but this game is so people centric that it needs people. It is a social game with systems that only make sense at a certain player count. It needs to recapture that feeling of 'specialness' going forward and play to its strengths. All I see right now is a game that has under invested in everything that would make it great and over invested in all of the things that would make it 'not for everyone'. It is a real shame too because I keep seeing mmo's that are starting to deliver on the promises AoC made 6-8 years ago. Clearly the market wanted some of the stuff AoC was preaching and I definitely credit them at least in small part for the mmo renaissance of the past few years.
Yes AoC is not for everyone. But if it doesn't do something better or distinct from the games from which the audience comes from that AoC is meant to cater to, it isn't going to have an audience. They are going to keep playing on private servers or some of these new high quality mmos.
But the point is moreso that Intrepid is in a bad spot when it comes to that aspect. Small, 'less experienced' studio without the ability to pull on the resources of a big MMORPG producer. Most MMOs have a similar enough basis that if you wanted to add all this stuff Ashes talks about, it would be easy.
New games don't 'not add' things Ashes is offering 'because they can't'. They don't add them because they don't think people are going to want them/they think it isn't worth it.
If Amazon Games thought those things would work in , they'd have added them to New World instead of 'taking them away'. Which also means that if Intrepid 'proves' that people want to play a game with variable Nodes, we'll see more modern MMOs adding them.
This is why people end up focused on all the things that 'make Ashes unpleasant', because they 'know' they only have to wait a bit longer (possibly less long than even for AoC) for a game that does the same things but less unpleasant.
As a bystander to this convo, I think it would be beneficial for the point you are making (less for me, maybe moreso for others), to provide some specifics to illustrate that "exposition", since I myself see a few different ways of interpreting that.
I could see someone reading that and thinking "Azherae just doesn't have faith in Intrepid's vision and capabilties, but there is nothing inherently wrong with the potential audience demand/reception, and Riot could pull it off if they wanted to, so why not Intrepid, you're just a doubter"
So I think it would be in your best interest and help avoid potential misunderstandings for you to clarify-
Are you highlighting moreso the potential inability to execute financially, or even content quantity wise because of the smaller team?
Or is the point moreso about the lack of cohesion in the design? (Bringing various micro experiences/audience subsets together)
Or is it that the design is actually cohesive (the macro experience), to appeal to a certain player type, but the concern is the size of that subset?
Or is it that you feel its a gamble either way, and Intrepid shouldn't be the pioneers in this regard?
Etc.
Obviously I have an idea of what you are talking about, but for other readers who haven't had the priviledge of in-depth convo, I would hate for things to get twisted, and this would probably be a good thread to do it in.
Hm, ok, I see that (I fell into the trap of thinking 'I'm always ranting about that, surely no one wants to hear it more', but there's always the 'first time reader').
Therefore as an example, Ashes of Creation has talked about:
8x8 combinations of Archetypes to make unique classes.
FF11 is 20x20. Throne and Liberty is about to be 9x9 (I'll spare people the combinatorics, just assume that there are two styles of every combination even if they don't distinguish the combinations themselves). TL already contains more Augments than I even expect to see in Ashes, and technically more than Ashes has indicated or promised.
Social Organizations and related perks/relationships
Elite Dangerous is entirely made of this, and Throne and Liberty would implement this faster than Ashes would (a currently stronger base scaffolding), and the form of PvP/PvE separation that many players prefer, while also using the implementations that keep it 'safer' from bad actors. So while it 'doesn't exist now', if somehow something 'proves' that people really want this, it will probably appear.
Nodes
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/elite-dangerous-trailblazers-update-3-now-live.636973/
or
https://wiki.albiononline.com/wiki/Cities
The amount of work required to make sure that Nodes are fun and not some of the most 'degenerate' gameplay possible in all of gaming will be monumental (and I am here cheering all the way, Intrepid). And Ashes is still not actually poised to be the primary/optimal deliverer of this content type precisely because Albion Online would do it better with minimal relative effort. That's practically guaranteed.
Dynamic World, Weather, Mob Spawns
I don't think most people who follow MMOs think that Ashes is going to revolutionize this aspect, it's old, and fairly common now Therefore any benefit would come from 'how it affects gameplay, either combat or one of the other three above' (let's just count Archetypes and such under Combat actually). But, again, this is already a thing in modern PvP/PvE MMORPGs, and the influences of weather and a dynamic world on PvX isn't 'redefined' by slightly more focus on that PvX-ness. If it rains at Frenzied Queen Bellandir, the experience isn't vastly different than Ashes would provide relative to this aspect. If anything, TL is more 'interesting' because we do have something that is a 'stand-in' for 'social orgs' and that is that the most active person on the server can control the rain once per day.
So, Albion could flesh out Nodes and Weather. Throne and Liberty could flesh out Boonstones to make Node-like relationships similar to the old FF11 ones or an improved version of the BDO ones. Both games already have established combat depth that Ashes is still muddling through.
If this becomes a 'race' to 'the endpoint that Ashes promised', Albion will win, TL will finish right after, and Ashes of Creation will pass the finish line 2 years later imo. We'd be banking on Naval Combat and then it's a race against Archeage 2 even considering that game's pivot.
The main 'unique' thing Ashes 'allows people to do' that other games are almost desperately trying to limit/solve, is zerg.
And a nontrivial chunk of Ashes' original, fairly invested/dedicated audience is opposed to this 'feature'.
The issue here is that in both cases, with food and with game design, it still takes knowledge and experience to get this right on a large scale.
You could take all the best foods you like and put them in to one dish, but if you dont know how food works, there is no guarantee it will work.
I like taleggio cheese, and i like salmon. There is no world in which these two foods should ever be on the same plate. Ideally, there is no world where these two foods should even be in concurrent courses in a multi-course meal.
On the other hand, white chocolate and caviar go together incredibly well, if executed by someone that can get the balance perfect.
Same with game design, different aspects that are great in some games wont all necessarily fit together in one game and result in a good game.
Placing limitations on crafters being able to get to the top end of crafting that only organized guilds are likely to be able to achieve can be a good mechanic. Making the vast majority of items in your game be player crafted can be a good thing. Putting these two things together, however, isn't necessarily a good thing.
Ashes is full of contradictions like this.
At the risk of repeating myself as well, just to kind of get you to explain your thought process all in one place- Im gonna play devil's advocate here to try to simplify some of your key points and give you a chance to address some potential counter-points some people (or even myself, sprinkled in) might try to make.
To summarize, basically,
1. the "micro-experiences"/niche content types Ashes plans to offer are better satisfied through other more "specialized" games (like Albion's nodes, Elite Dangerous' RP/social orgs, etc.) or games that have "more purist" content segregation/opt-in structures/constistent access to those experiences through instancing/level sync (like TL); and Ashes dynamicsm can't necessarily make up for the quality difference in each respective content type (such as the weather effects on the combat experience, and the appeal this has on combat enjoyers vs games that simply provide a variety of opt-in combat experiences) as discussed here:
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/67882/how-do-you-feel-about-immersion-focused-changes-that-shift-by-complicating-game-mechanics#latest
and
2. the "macro-experience"/emergent gameplay Ashes plans to provide (system integration/interdependence) may not exist yet "in full" in other games, but probably will exist in those games before Ashes is finished (like TL/Albion), while also being more tailored to the player subsets it appeals to (more refined systems, more content for each experience type, etc.).
So at that point, what is the real differentiating value proposition of Ashes or underlying experience that ties everything together in a unique/appealing way? Even if the experience of Ashes as a whole is similar or worse to near-future alternative game options, the moment-to-moment gameplay/combat has the potential to serve as this x-factor, but similar (soon) game types to Ashes (like TL/Albion) might even be more appealing in this regard to the target audience (more combat experience variations, weather-effect undulations, build options, etc. than what Ashes promised).
Therefore, because of the market-gap on the pvx spectrum that games like TL fills (system integration/interdependence with options for content segregation), and the difficulty/impossibility for Ashes to surpass this design style in terms of quality/appeal/differentiation (even accounting for content dynamicm), thus, it seems the logical market-gap for AOC to fill is on the more "extreme" end of that pvx spectrum (Hyper-focused on large scale pvp control of all available content access, rather than a more balanced/segregated approach to various player subsets within Ashes potential target audience), hense the growing concern from a large portion of the community.
Question 1
- How would you respond to someone who reads that and thinks about these counter-points?
A- Let's assume Ashes targets the "same" segment as other "similar" mmo types (they go for a wider pvx appeal like TL instead of the guild circle jerk route). One could say that players don't always fit into "neat and tidy" categories, and even when they do, there is a "give-and-take" and degree of player-elasticity to consider for each player within that segment, so there is hardly ever "an objectively better design" even when aiming for the "same" general target audience, so surely Ashes in totality will appeal to a certain player type even with all its, what you would call, "inconsistencies". What you might call "a muddled mess" is a select few's dream game. The fact that there isn't as clearly defined of lines drawn in terms of content segregation (like the pvp vs pve debate surrounding the corruption system) is exactly the appeal to this potentially undiscovered/neglected/growing and very specific player type. So as far reliable player schema data is concerned, if Ashes goes the TL route, does Ashes really even need to pull from those games' audience/player type, or is there "enough room" for more niche preferences within that overarching segment?
- My personal response to that perspective, is that while this is potentially true imo (feel free to tell me im wrong), because this philosophy is uncharted territory in a way (in terms of Ashes specific combination of systems/content/experience types and ratios), it is very hard to say where the lines should be drawn for each experience/content type in order to retain "enough" players. So while Ashes may have a distinct appeal in this regard, it is a gamble as to how many of these players there could be. And for a game like Ashes, if there isn't enough of these players, then none of them will get to enjoy the game.
B- The above point was more in terms of the macro-experience, but the same could be said for the micro-experiences Ashes offers as well. What you might consider to be better in terms of each micro-experience (like TL's combat vs Ashes combat) to where you could apply the same thought process as above in terms of potential appeal and retention, or if you believe player's preferences have consistently shown otherwise even at a more granular level.
C- Last key thought starter- one could argue that games like TL, even with its more bespoke approach to player segmentation, has a degree of gameplay-experience "dilution", just by the simple fact of trying to converge different player types who have different preferences. Trade-offs are inherent to a degree in mmos, as you know. So what keeps players playing TL for its combat, vs. a more specialized combat experience (I dunno, Predecessor or whatever example you want to use). So, if it work can work in TL relative to combat-centric games, then why wouldn't the same be possible for Ashes and all its systems relative to other more "segmented" mmo designs in the genre, to where there Ashes has a degree of dilution relative to TL's design but could still be successful in the same way? What changes would be necessary (if any) to retain players for each respective content type in order to compete with more focused experiences, or is it more about the macro experience that will keep players playing long-term?
- I find this to be a very interesting perspective, as it touches on the idea of whether convergence (bringing different player types together, for those who don't know what im referring to) even matters at all in game design. Why do players accept dilution to their preferred experience, to a degree, rather than switching to games that focus more on their preferences? If its that they prefer the macro-experience the most, then do you even need to have convergence by including those micro-experiences? If convergence does matter the most, then who cares if the combat isn't as good in Ashes compared to TL, or as good in TL compared to Predecessor. At that point, its the social aspect that matters at that point. If that is the case, how does the elasticity work, where do you draw the line? Because clearly some mmos fail and some succeed even if they are convergent to a degree. How far are players willing to give in on their preferred content type in order to play this game type? For me, its not very far (I won't sacrifice much on combat before dismissing the game), for others I have no idea, but there is certainly "give", so how do you know what standard is necessary for Ashes combat, node system, etc. to get players to log in for that specific type of content? Im not saying to do the bare minimum at all, but moreso that if you need to sacrifice on a certain content type in order to accomodate the macro experience then that might be all thats neccessary for certain players, assuming the macro-experience delivers to the target audience. I imagine this just comes down to, as usual, the very specific preferred content types of each individual player. How many players care more about that specific macro-experience, vs the players who care about the sub-systems that make up that macro-experience? Why do the players who care about those micro-experiences play the mmo version of that to begin with (as opposed to an alternative specialized game) unless they care about that overarching macro-experience to a degree, at which point do you even need to have any micro-experiences at all? Its probably a combination of both. This is probably why it is important to think of players more in terms of having multiple interests and being more mood-based (like myself) because player preferences are fickle, so your game should probably accomodate that to a degree to help prevent players from switching to a different game. Im not really sure the answer to this atm but basically- if convergence matters most, then "what makes players play micro-experiences in an mmo, as opposed to just enjoying the mmo macro-experience, and switching to other games for those micro-experiences"? Clearly players want that flexibility, but what is the underlying reason and what does the player-elasticity look like for each content type? Thinking about it, each micro-experience/system in the game is a "macro-experience" from a certain perspective (like combat with weather effects to vary the ovarching experience is a macro-experience over a more simpltic combat system/micro-experience), so maybe ultimately it does just come down to making sure all of the sub-systems in an mmo competes with more specialized games, in terms of providing experiences that even moreso appeal to those players (like mmo combat has the liberty to include higher player counts, more system integration, etc. into combat vs something like a fighting game, so the mmo can provide a more macro-experience with its own distinct appeal compared to the more "straightforward" micro-experience of the fighting game, so even though the fighting game provides a more specialized experience, it doesn't mean it is necessarily better for certain player subsets). So ensuring each sub-system has appeal in its own right, in addition to having that flexibility to opt-in to that more grandiose macro-experience (open world/integrated pvx) to appeal to a different subset, will be able to capture a larger total audience than each individual approach in a vacuum, along with the aspect of shifting player moods and opt-in options, which can appeal to other players for an experience that is greater than the sum of its parts. If that is the case then the sub-systems in Ashes (combat, econ, nodes, etc.) are just as important as the macro-experience that Ashes provides, and these micro-experiences need to provide a distinct appeal to certain subsets within the target audience, so as usual it comes down to whether there is that "wiggle room" for a different "take" on those systems to appeal to those players within that player segment (compared to other mmos who are considered to be "doing it better"). At that point "dilution" could potentially be more of an illusion and cope for saying "we don't know" rather than "this won't work", and its just about whether the niche exists for that combination of systems, which is just harder to identify at a more granular level, rather than "lumping players into segments". This would mean that for Ashes to "succeed", there would just need to be "enough" players who prefer the specific take on either any of the included micro-experiences or the specific macro-experience that Ashes intends to provide. So each of these, respectively, would need to have a compeititive advantage/unique and sufficient appeal over alternative game options within the potential segment that Ashes appeals to, even if it is "unorthodox". So all of those differences in Ashes' various systems compared to other games on the market could end up being the benefits/appealing factors of Ashes, for both the unique micro and macro experiences they provide for potential (but ambiguous) subsets within the target segment. But all of that is kind of just over-analyzed common sense and another way of saying "based on what we know about player schema, that would be risky". Your thoughts?
Question 2
In regards to the all of the above and to tie things back to the main point of the thread, what would you say is the best path forward for Intrepid or different options to consider (Possibly more specific than "make RP/econ good")?
I think these are all very key considerations in terms of considering "who Ashes is currently for", "who ashes can potentially be for", and subsequently, "who Ashes is isn't for", while considering the pillars of Ashes and how it fits within the larger gaming landscape.
MMORPGs aren't convergent in implementation anymore, only the 'memory of MMOs' is. In the end that's what it boiled down to. They stopped trying to be because they thought players would all keep playing even if they left out the weather and the 'fairness' and the crafting, the challenge, the econ stuff, the build/gear variation, all of it.
And for a while, we did, because there wasn't anything like them and we wanted the memory. People wanted to believe those things would come back, that the memories they had of [whatever aspect of the game they enjoyed] weren't going to be relegated to a subgenre where you couldn't interact meaningfully with different people in their different lanes.
And for a while after that we got fed the illusions. Games where you didn't interact meaningfully, but at least you shared the same world. The occasional hiccup of 'oh we remember that you guys like cool bosses, we too played Elden Ring we should add some of those' (BDO, right after Elden Ring, got new boss things, for example). Or the games where the joy of skill was replaced by the fantasy of skill (this is where the PvP games mostly went, but a few PvE ones too).
Ashes was the first 'nah we're going back to the big form where the game has everything in it all tied together properly and we're going to add the stuff from the space games too because why not, we have the technology!'
And everyone was SO DAMN HYPE FOR THIS. All the poor souls that only grew up in the age of relics or the age of illusions got to hear about all the incredibly cool shit that used to be in these games and for the most part said "Sign me up!"
And then somehow along the way Ashes started to show cracks. The Convergent implementation, the 'simple modern copy-form of what people already understood', seemed to get muddled, or to start from a different point than the obvious ones and no one seemed to have any answers as to why (for why that is important, see spoiler section).
These cracks 'belong to Steven' for the most part. Sometimes Steven doesn't like something, and he doesn't really need to justify why that something doesn't get into the game, so it doesn't. Even if that something is required to fix a problem that arises when you combine stuff that isn't normally combined.
This is how an MMO design can cease to be convergent.
"I don't like X." "We need X to prevent Y, based on these years of data/experience." "Well I don't like it, find another way."
My original answer to Margaret's prompt in this thread was the very short version of the above.
"Some of you may not like the result of [me disliking the thing required when you combine these two aspects of gameplay], but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make." -> "This game is not for everyone."
But we hope because everything is subject to change, too.
Enemies now have level-gap scaling. Hope, like the Phoenix, springs eternal. And so if I had to advise anything, it would be that Steven's excellent staff continue to teach him why some things he doesn't like are still necessary, and when things that impress him are old and therefore already have precedent for how they are done.
Saabynator is absolutely correct, any game made with enough care and dedication and love which takes a serious approach to deciding what it needs and doesn't (from the space of what people enjoy) can be good. And someone will love it. In the MineCraft community, nearly every individual version has its fans, and many many modpacks exist with many different goals (this is the thing I don't bring up).
Yet nearly every MineCraft 'knock-off' failed. Not all, but a large number of them.
So since this lets me keep it short... 'why did these fail?'
A: Player Elasticity
A MineCraft player who changes their preferred style of play or plays with friends in one style on one server but with other friends in another style on another server is still not constantly subject to disruptive gameplay unless they chose this tradeoff. If the potential disruption is part of a requirement of the intended gameplay, the player often knows what this means.
"Why isn't this game toggle-flag PvP?" "Because players need to be able to attack you to drive you out of areas."
"Why isn't this game full-loot PvP?" "Because players need to be able to spend time building up toward challenges."
You can expect players who don't care about the answer to stop playing faster.
By Contrast there's stuff like:
"Why is this character/class unbalanced?" (in either direction) "Because I think that balance is unrealistic so we made a weak character to represent realism."
People don't take this well, in my experience. It stops being a question of 'everyone likes different things' and starts to become 'everyone likes different experiences'. Design is then a negotiation. 'What am I getting out of sometimes giving up this thing I enjoy?'
We have to assume at some point that players who can't find enjoyment in a game stop playing it. So it boils down to the designer's ability to answer the question.
"Why does this game contain this thing I don't enjoy?"
"To provide this other experience we believe you will enjoy."
The answer "Because I felt like it should work that way." only holds up until the player is offered a game where the designer had an answer.
It doesn't even have to be that the decision was made differently. Only that one game offers the tradeoff and the other doesn't. For features with no tradeoff, parity is enough. And then inertia kicks in. If I'm already playing TL, getting me to switch involves 'finding something I am not enjoying about TL, and offering a better answer for why I should come over to Ashes and not enjoy it there' (assuming they're the same). The big issue comes when your ideal is 'retention'.
If Game A lacks a feature a player wants they might still play it even if Game B has that feature, based on mood.
If Game A has a fault most players won't jump to Game B just because it doesn't have that fault if you can explain what the fault 'exists for' (enjoyment of something in the convergence).
If both Game A and B have a fault there is a higher chance of a player simply ceasing to play both games or not factoring for it at all.
I don't think Ashes needs to pull 'in' the PvE players or hardcore PvP players. I believe in the PvX playerbase. If Ashes delivers , I believe they will come, and that Ashes is a viable 'slightly different younger sibling' to Throne and Liberty (or older depending on how you measure outcomes).
But when your 'older sibling' goes 'uh hey everyone's mad that I made it possible to have 280 people in one Alliance, it's stifling competition or something, they say' and you go 'But I like my Alliances big! It'll be fine, I think.' ... now what?
"MMOs are not actually convergent." They leave out stuff, design constraints, developer time, the phenomenal content consumption rate of 12h-a-day players grinds them down and they get stuck in a bleary-eyed loop of trying to figure out how to keep those people even playing....
They rebrand themselves as 'Action RPGs' and hold mini-contests to see how fast people can race to level cap... (it's 35m, 42m if you want the deathless run - New World).
They overcompensate for their lack of difficulty by making a 48-person instance with difficult mechanics in a game where players expect to be able to 'enjoy' all base content...
They shut down development altogether either by 'realizing they aren't any fun' or 'realizing that despite being very fun they would never make enough money' because they don't understand the business of making MMORPGs.
I hate that literal decades of data boils down to (or rather, doesn't?) not being able to 'answer' without only-half-confidently doing the equivalent of 'trying to teach a data analytics course' but so it is.
"Why is string theory wrong?" "Because we're all p-branes."
I think you are wrong. I think most game companies are controlled from a shareholders perspective, not from a perspective of a selv owned CEO, that wants to make a game he wants to play himself. Thats one of AOCs aces in the sleeve. They can make a game they want, with the quality they want. They arent forced the same way shareholder companies are.
There is a lot more to development than "what they think" especially for a company like Amazon.
But, Steven is just opening the restaurant, he is not making the food. He just bought the place, made a so and so menu, and now he hired a bunch of chefs, to fuck around and find out. The menu will not be the same on day 1, as it will on opening day. He has a vision ofcource, but the food will change, when the chefs chimes in, and the people taste the appetizers
I think thats a pretty harsh judgement, when the game is in alpha 2. I dont think combat trackers alone will keep people from a good raiding game. I think people like to min-max regardless. If the raiding is good, I think it will attract raiders, regardless - but, who knows.