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
Got it.
Can't say that was the case in Allods, for me at least, back when I first started playing it. There was challenge in the open-world, whether it was from certain powerful enemies, or from other players (PvP).
Though you do overcome that challenge by increasing your power (gear, and other systems that give you power, which were often p2w). It wasn't challenging due to complexity, it was challenging due to inherent difficulty of mobs compared to your own power - which again is easily solvable by p2w or getting better gear. The thing that made it interesting is, that if you don't p2w, you actually do have fun chasing that gear, getting stronger, while content also levels up accordingly, when you move to new zones, so you're almost never just overpowering everything in front of you.
I was happy to grind for any gear upgrades, or even XP so I could unlock more passive points, new abilities, new quests, etc. by leveling up.
There were instances where you could make a group, so you grind faster, or you just need a group for a particularly strong mini boss, but that was all "optional" content, that you could just ignore. There were also some areas of a zone with stronger mobs in general, where you get a lot more drops/gold/xp for killing them.
Usually in those games you mention, the challenge comes from instanced content, and rarely the open world. In a game like Ashes, instanced content will be almost non-existent, so you need it in the open-world.
Though I guess what I'm failing to think of currently, are the examples of complexity you are thinking of, in the open world.
As I did play Archeage, I guess I'm failing to spot where that complexity is in that game, and whether it exists. World bosses? Most of the challenge there is from PvP itself. Or maybe I'm not understanding your point completely yet.
But it is as you say, a game like Ashes must provide its complexity within the open world, or just be labeled as a game with poor PvE.
It doesn't matter a lot though because for many, having challenging Open world would BE poor PvE, and for those who are very used to complex instances, Open World can never quite match up. It's just that Alpha-1 started with the type of experience gaining system that implied it would have it.
That's probably no longer relevant much, even though signs of it are still there. Either way, I think I answered your question, and I don't think there's anyone here outside of my own group and probably Ludullu who would care about the 'open world enemy complexity' thing.
EDIT: A possibly reasonable 'shorthand' would be 'did the game have a common/'at least not rare' enemy type that had access to Sleep/AoE Sleep?'. If it has this as a semi-common thing, it probably fits my personal 'standard' for complex open world PvE.
I do understand what you're saying though, now that you have mentioned an example.
Honestly, I don't even know if such thing existed back then in Allods, maybe some particular mobs, or elites had something similar. I wouldn't remember, as I played the game 10 years ago.
So the complexity comes from combat encounters that introduce some more mechanics, that make you think, reposition, dodge, block/avoid certain abilities, rather than simple "do damage, heal if necessary" combat. Or rather, there's an actual sense of danger from even regular mobs, if you don't pay attention.
I'm guessing the "fun" part comes from being engaged while playing and killing mobs, rather than turning your brain off and just mindlessly grinding away?
In any case, I do see it as a preference, where some might prefer to just turn their brain off, put some music on, and just mindlessly kill hundreds of mobs, without putting in much effort.
Others might prefer actually being engaged in what they're doing, putting in slightly more effort.
Btw. Archeage definitely had that sort of complexity, now that I think of it. I vividly remember a mob in Auroria that would shoot a bubble ability at you, that would lift you into the air for a couple of seconds, and would do some decent damage. You need to pay attention to it, and avoid it.
"I hate grinding, it's so boring."
"That's because the average player chooses the easiest, lowest challenge grindspot so that they don't have to worry about weak teammates or friction, just go somewhere else."
"There's no 'somewhere else, it's all the same'."
The third line has three possible explanations to me.
The games I play are usually #3. FF11 forces the issue for certain level stretches, which then become the 'hell-levels' for people who aren't very good, to me AA is a bit of #2 and a bit of #3, Throne and Liberty is 'a bit of all 3' for exp gains. BDO is a long debate, Guild Wars 2 is... well... let's not discuss GW2 and 'challenge' for this context. TERA is also a long debate but I'd say it was closer to TL.
So sometimes people are saying "I just want to progress as fast as possible and therefore I must do the most boring thing", and sometimes they are saying "I only play games where there's absolutely only boring repeated situations" and occasionally they are saying "I judge games while only following the strategy guides which are always written by someone in one of the first two groups".
But I hate that in these sorts of situations because obviously if you are putting Questing up against the experiences of those types of people, Questing is better.
Comparing low-quality 'grinding' to 'Questing' is an auto-win for Questing, but that doesn't mean Questing is 'better' or often even 'good.
And, I'm always hoping to act out the personalities of my characters and prefer everyone around me to speak as much a possible from the pov of their character rather than from the pov of the player.
I refer to myself as a player, rather than a gamer.
It's more important to me for Quests to be connected to story - hopefully a story which will change the world as Quests are completed. Ideally, progression should not feel like a grind. There should be a variety of Quests and Tasks that progression does not feel repetitive and tedious - like a chore.
Originally, "grind" referred to Hell Levels - when you're stuck beating on the same few mobs that give somewhat decent xp, but won't kill you after a couple of hits (and add way too much XP debt if you die too many times).
Around 2010 is when I began hearing, "Endgame is the real game" and I think it's then that "grind" began to beused my many to mean any Leveling before Endgame. Gamers began to view Leveling as an unnecessary obstacle to the fun part of the game, which are the Endgame loop.
Which makes some sense because we would spend maybe a month or two Leveling to Endgame and then be stuck at Endgame for 12-24 months while waiting for an Expansion. So, the majority of time would be spent in Endgame - for those who don't take a break shortly after reaching max Level.
I think most gamers are used to being able to "beat" a single-player game in about 60 hours, and I'd say progression - especially story progression - should feel like it's around the same pace.
But, MMORPGs are intended to last way longer than 60 hours - and it's a massive challenge for devs to provide sufficient content that gamers won't race through and quit after a couple months.
I think these days, we're very close to that being solved because we're now getting Seasonal content drops rather than waiting 12-18-24 months for new content drops.
MMORPGs no longer need Nodes as a solution of static content. We'll have to see how Seasonal content stacks up against the Ashes design of long level grind along with Nodes and Sieges driving dynamic change.
With regard to bridging Casual players with Hardcore players:
Ashes isn't made for everyone. Especially not Casual players.
Ashes is designed for Hardcore gamers who love high challenge and high Risk.
Both Steven and Margaret believe that the most rewarding memories come from successfully overcoming high Risk. I don't think Casual players have that same gameplay philosophy.
I encounter far too many Hardcore players who (by the nature of being Hardcore, in some cases/respects), can't or don't maintain even the RP-PvP aspect of games properly.
A recent event in TL was supposed to be a cooperative-ish event. Players would hunt some 'loot Goblins' that appeared for about half an hour, in many areas, including open-world dungeons.
The person who has control of the 'Eclipse' on my server consistently activated it during this event, making the dungeons PvP zones during it. Specifically after newbies and more casual players would have spread out across the world to do this event. Just punching down, I know because my group went to one of the less-popular but not max-level ones to see if the Goblins spawned there (and the people who PvP'ed us out of the zone were def way stronger than us and we're not THAT weak).
Note that the only people who will know for certain this is going to happen are that person and probably their Guild. Their Guild controls the Castle. This is important for the main reason of this long ranty complaint...
This person is enjoying 'being the villain', in the name of 'spicing up the event', they say. Would anyone like to take bets on what will happen if a bunch of people decide to bring down the castle because of this behaviour?
That's the thing that 'should' happen in Ashes. Because a nontrivial number of people were calling out that 'villain' in world chat for their actions. My small guild, certainly, is more likely to at least try to fight on the attacking side in next Siege (we sometimes disrupt attackers instead), and there's been talk even of actually forming up in whatever small Alliance, just for the minor advantages this might give toward this.
I still want a game where these things get connected properly. Where the villain doesn't whine about how 'people take things too seriously' if they lose the castle, but instead maintain at least the same attitude as they had when they were Eclipsing the event. I want a game where "I made the lives of the peasants harder because I thought it would be more interesting" -> "The peasants didn't like it and revolted against my Liege the King/Queen" doesn't end in 'Y'all are just snowflakes I was just having fun'.
So I get story instead of just OOC disgust.
I would rather see increased res time per subsequent deaths than I would stat dampening. It accomplishes the same goal, but is less of a turnoff too casuals.
I’m saying you can have risk vs reward in scenarios that matter more. If the journey to max is more solo and casual friendly, they are more likely to stick around past that.
Those are nowhere near the same thing.
I don't know TL at all, not a game i was ever interested in. However, in Ashes, the basic design is that the strong get stronger at the expense of the not-strong.
Becoming strong enough to overthrough a group of people that get stronger as you get stronger is not really viable.
The notion of going to the castle (or node) next door usually doesn't work, as if you attack my guild today to take our castle (or node), i will attack you tomorrow to take your castle (or node). What we have now is not a situation where two guilds are fighting for in game assets, rather, we have a situation where two guilds are fighting to get the other guild to leave the game.
That is obviously not a good situation for the game to be in.
Casuals are unlikely to find that enjoyable. Cozies definitely won't.
And there are no Rewards that will change that. Especially when there are other games that fit the playstyle better.
When describing how Inventory is designed for bags, Steven said they are designed so that even we head out to gather we should be contemplating Economic warfare. I don't want to be constantly contemplating competition and Economic warfare any time I go out to gather some flowers.
First think I do, when I Level is go off an explore areas where no mobs longer con as Red/Skulls.
Steven thinks that is opt-in PvP if you go out to explore The Open Seas. I don't consider that opt-in Free-For-All PvP. Because Steven is motivated by the Rewards - and his love of PvP combat.
If I'm going out to explore, I just want to explore and not be distracted by other players pushing me into PvP combat. And there are no Rewards that are going to make Free-For-All PvP combat more enticing to me when I'm really only in the mood for exploration.
People who love PvP, say, "Well, you can always choose not to go to The Open Seas." But. I am an explorer first and foremost. Exploring the entire map probably has my highest interest, so, I'm not really going to be interested in playing a game where I can't explore the entire map. Instead I would just play a game where I can explore the entire map without having to deal with FFA PvP.
By the time Steven announced The Open Seas, WoW had already dropped Dragonflight - which I love to play.
Dragonflight has a level of PvE risk v reward that I enjoy. And Endgame loops I enjoy.
So... I would now play WoW rather than Ashes.
Had Ashes released Before 2020 with the original Kickstarter game design, I would have played Ashes rather than WoW.
Ashes has become less Casual-friendly since Jeffrey Bard left as Lead Game Designer.
Because Steven loves competition and high Risk... and he's creating a game for that niche who has his playstyle.
I really don't want to be playing on the same server as gamers with that mentality. And I don't want to be playing on the same server as people who are trying to get other players so frustrated they leave the game.
I play RPGs to team up with players in order to defeat NPCs and mobs.
Sure, I kinda like the story of being a defender of towns - so I might do that for about an hour of one game session... and I won't care during that hour whether PvP is involved. And, I love the idea of Dwarves losing control of their Dwarven Village to Elves and then returning to Siege in order to try to turn that Elven Town into a Dwarven City.
To me, that is Meaningful Conflict.
Some game designs attract gamers (and exploiters) who push competition and greed way too far.
This one makes me think of something. I think that maybe there's a sort-of equivalent of this feeling for Econ-focused players, it's just so long/complex that I never want to try explaining it, but honestly this is probably the thread for a short-form.
"Not being able to even guess why someone/a small group is in an area."
I think that line doesn't make sense on its own, but in this case, if the only reason a player has, to be in an area, is to look for someone else (not someone specific, just 'another person') to kill for the sake of killing them, I don't think one can call it 'meaningful conflict'.
The next step normally is 'well maybe they are defending the territory and have a good reason to keep everyone out'. Ok, sure, that implies a reason why they do that, though. I don't have a problem with being fought or hunted while walking through a Py'Rai forest if I think they're protecting their trees or something.
I think this is actually somewhat a designer's responsibility. If your MMORPG is supposed to attract a bunch of players who just want to fight other players on the road, it's your job as a Dev to put a reason behind that in the world a decent portion of the time.
Most games I've played 'ignore' this or make it a loose enough connection, resulting in a higher population of players who are not there to play an MMORPG, they're there to play a combat sim where they can snowball or ego-check people who did, and the only win-condition for those is 'when the other player acknowledges defeat/the hierarchy'.
I don't like playing games with too many people who get mad at you for not giving up. Fortunately this works out for those players!
The attackers get more pvp (supposedly what they came there for, right?). BHs have another reason to exist. Nodes can range in their riskiness. PvPers attract pvp onto themselves w/o being corrupted. Victims get defenders in the form of BHs, or even just other pvpers who were near and saw a shout in chat about someone who keeps flagging up on people (I've seen this countless times in L2).
And if these attacks were over the content itself - the attackers would immediately remove the buff, because the pvp was meaningful, or at the very least the pvxness of the encounter was upheld.
I agree with you here.
I've played games where myself and my guild had the goal of trying to get our rival guilds to leave the game - but only because that is what the games design dictated to be the optimal path.
After a period of being somewhat successful, our server was comparatively empty and so we started complaining about the low population (that we obviously had a hand in causing).
On the other hand, in EQ2 (and other similar games), the design of the game encourages you to support your servers population. You want to encourage people to stay, you want to help them get quests done, improve their abilities etc. You are better off and have more fun if there are more players in the game playing the game at the same level as you are.
I don't know if Intrepid have taken in to account what kind of behavior their game design will encourage players to engage in, but I can't see it being anything other than self-destructive.
Damn, this almost echoes exactly what I was talking about 2 years ago, when I talked about "meaningful PvP". I thought I was reading my own post for a second lol.
The game needs to create that sort of a "feeling" of conflict between the two sides (in case of games with factions), or conflict and danger in general. If a game doesn't do that, then PvP encounters will just feel like "griefing", especially if there is no apparent reason to kill someone. Obviously it's a different story for mass PvP encounters, like world bosses, sieges, etc. - because you sort of do get that feeling, especially with sieges, which specifically are designed with this in mind.
I did focus more on what kinds of players engage in this "griefing" if you will, but looking back at it now, I think many people missed the point I was trying to make (and I didn't do a very good job myself of actually making it).
I did also mention Steven, because he's someone who comes from games that had this exact type of design, and I raised my concerns about it, because there's a very high chance he's going to influence design in such a way, where we get that exact same type of behavior from players (either intentionally or unintentionally).
This sort of behavior is directly a result of game's design, which just encourages these players to thrive, or rather, it doesn't discourage that sort of behavior.
I'm honestly not even sure about Ashes at all at this point, if EVERYTHING will be about conflict.
Why does there need to be conflict in every single piece of content? When we talk about conflict, it's always going to be PvP conflict in this game. All it does is create a very toxic environment to be in.
You know all the "guild politics", "betrayals and backstabbing", "spies", which goes along with the hardcore nature of the game, is just a recipe for this sort of thing to thrive.
im nto sure what research is this, because pretty much every game makes you lose time when you die or it's game over. if most players were against this, games would stop being like that. what players dont like is being worse off than how they were before their death (but also debatable, depending on what worse means).
also, it doesnt matter if the game will only attracta minority of gamers, since pretty much 99.99% of games only attract a minority of gamers...you cant possibly have all 3 billion gamers in one game. nto gonna happen.