Unique difference

delete5230

I found this intriguing comment made by a YouTube poster.


<quote>
The issue with players changing the world and others players' experiences is that unless you have to time to play the game as a full-time job it is highly likely that someone else will ruin your experience, especially if things like other people destroying your house and things like that are possible. The majority of players don't have 12 hours+ a day to constantly be online and react to all the changes.

This style of mmorpg play has never been done before,
I'm not sure I like the fact where every time I log in, the world has changed !
I'm not sure I like the 12 HOUR GAMERS HAVE SO MUCH POWER !



Honestly, I don't think they can pull this off, not even close. I think their marketing is a lie..... I guess will eventually find out, or like all else the project will be scrubbed......At Times I can be fooled.  If their marketing is that good, and it's not like it should be, I'll give up all faith in video gamming.  




What do you think ? 

Scot

We never used to have this tension between those who put the hours in and those who did not, because we all did. Once MMOs became made not just for soloers but eventually casual solers the rot set in.

We have had posters on here start threads asking why they can't have a "meaningful experience" in their MMO even when they are only on for half an hour a day. This is casuals pushing all game design to be purely for players who approach every game as if it was Angry Birds.

delete5230

Scot said:

We never used to have this tension between those who put the hours in and those who did not, because we all did. Once MMOs became made not just for soloers but eventually casual solers the rot set in.

We have had posters on here start threads asking why they can't have a "meaningful experience" in their MMO even when they are only on for half an hour a day. This is casuals pushing all game design to be purely for players who approach every game as if it was Angry Birds.

Good point,
The half hour players have "equal say" only to stop playing soon after.

It's like the water boy is running the football game from the sidelines. 



Anyone have a picture of a water boy ?.... Come on, we need a picture of a water boy !!

Maybe a pizza delivery guy would do... na, pizza has nothing to do with this subject. Unless their was a crafty poster that can tie one in to this topic... Because I like pizza

Kyleran

While the Ashes team is attempting to do with their dynamic node design is unique in it's approach (and still questionable as we haven't seen much of it in action yet) the concern raised by the commenter isn't anything new.

People who were willing and able to put more time into games based on progression obviously had an advantage, (which they well earned) pretty much as true in real life.

In almost an MMORPG which had territory control, destruction of player created structures or bonuses for certain achievements have been heavily influenced if not dominated by those who spend more time (or often these days, more money as well) working on their goals.

I've played many of them (L1, L2, SB, DAOC, EVE, WAR) and in all those players with more free time dominated and definitely impacted my playing experience, sometimes in very negative ways which resulted in driving me from the game.

I didn't start playing MMORPGS until I was in my 40s and what will work and family I've never had a time when I could devote more than three hours a day (on average) to play, so have always had to (grudgingly) accept this limitation.

The only solution I found is to ally myself with organizations which had players with the time to dominate, when they would have me of course.

I recall many games imposed limits on guild or alliance size so groups often limited to certain criteria, one being available playing time.

In Lineage 2 the dominant guilds on my server would advertise for members willing to put at least 10 to 12 hours a day and surprising to me, they had no shortage of candidates.

Rungar

Scot said:

We never used to have this tension between those who put the hours in and those who did not, because we all did. Once MMOs became made not just for soloers but eventually casual solers the rot set in.

We have had posters on here start threads asking why they can't have a "meaningful experience" in their MMO even when they are only on for half an hour a day. This is casuals pushing all game design to be purely for players who approach every game as if it was Angry Birds.

This is why i think these games have to move away from the level grinding formula and into perk/loudout systems. This lets players get into the game very quickly but on the other side of the equation there is unlimited combinations and a giant amount of content to churn through. 

The person who has unlimited time will still be better no doubt but it doesnt limit those who have less time to focus on meaningful objectives.  

i do not consider 5000xp from grinding mobs to be a meaningful objective. 

Scot

Rungar said:

Scot said:

We never used to have this tension between those who put the hours in and those who did not, because we all did. Once MMOs became made not just for soloers but eventually casual solers the rot set in.

We have had posters on here start threads asking why they can't have a "meaningful experience" in their MMO even when they are only on for half an hour a day. This is casuals pushing all game design to be purely for players who approach every game as if it was Angry Birds.

This is why i think these games have to move away from the level grinding formula and into perk/loudout systems. This lets players get into the game very quickly but on the other side of the equation there is unlimited combinations and a giant amount of content to churn through. 

The person who has unlimited time will still be better no doubt but it doesnt limit those who have less time to focus on meaningful objectives.  

i do not consider 5000xp from grinding mobs to be a meaningful objective. 

I am not married to any particular sort of gameplay in this regard to this principle as long as those who put time in get their rewards that fine.

Scot

tzervo said:

I'd rather have players with more time have the advantage (which is fair) than have artificial time gates and time caps.

Or for that matter winning via the cash shop.

Sovrath

I would say that any game that allows players to change the world would attract players who are open to having the world changed.

This is what makes games like this so exciting. 

Now there's change and there's "change."

I don't know if this game allows for people's houses to be destroyed. I think that could be a hard sell for many if there are no safeguards or anything in place that they can do about it when they are offline.

but having areas change, maybe leadership change and have that affect players? I can only see that as a good thing.

At least for people who are looking for a more robust game world.

Kyleran

tzervo said:

I'd rather have players with more time have the advantage (which is fair) than have artificial time gates and time caps.

Honestly that's why I enjoyed EVE for so long.  Once I got my skills up to an acceptable level on multiple characters (took 2 or 3 yrs btw) I felt I was on par with most anyone in the game regardless whether they spent more time playing.

Now I realize this was something of an illusion, of course those who spent more time knew how to better play the game, but at least I didn't feel like an artificial constraint like less time in game was holding me back in any significant manner, was all on me at that point.

Mendel

Kyleran said:

tzervo said:

I'd rather have players with more time have the advantage (which is fair) than have artificial time gates and time caps.

Honestly that's why I enjoyed EVE for so long.  Once I got my skills up to an acceptable level on multiple characters (took 2 or 3 yrs btw) I felt I was on par with most anyone in the game regardless whether they spent more time playing.

Now I realize this was something of an illusion, of course those who spent more time knew how to better play the game, but at least I didn't feel like an artificial constraint like less time in game was holding me back in any significant manner, was all on me at that point.

2-3 years until you reach 'competence' is a huge barrier to entry.  I'm simply not in a position where I can afford to subscribe for 2+ years before I can be on relatively equal footing with others.  I think it is a fundamental flaw with the EVE skill system.

Soybean

This is just my 2 cents.

People do what they do. But just the fact some guilds/ clans/ nations/ whatever would expect you to be on at odd hours like in GoT in order to keep a castle or spend an ungodly amount of time on a game really isn't worth it. These games are demanding way too much time out of people. That whole 12 hour shift change thing it sounds so unpleasant. I guess it really depends on how badly people are going to get crippled by these shifts.

If the game is that grindy where you have to be on that long, it sounds like that would make for a ripe market for time savers to sell you. So it won't be here buy this sword at $2,000 but if you don't want to spend 12 hours to make "x" happen buy this boost to speed things up. So it is not quite pay to win, just pay to speed things up a bit. Sort of  like in viking war of clans where you pay to push the timer along.

Personally, I really believe that Steven is promising way too much. He seems to change his mind a lot and it is leading to a lot of disappointment. I don't know why people think that AoC is the be all and end all of gaming when there is so much out there. Then too there were some game that came out by famous developers like Richard Garriott 's Shroud of the Avatar. Holy Mother of God!

That game was not pay to win but come on! They wanted $30,000 for a golden castle and around $7,000 for a player run town. Then skill sets were over complicated by design crossed with the old style of gaming where you felt like you had to kill every monster on the map just to find one quest item. Then make a big ass production of turning the quest in. People spent a lot of money on that game because Richard was famous in the gaming world. The man was coasting on his own success. That game was like the goose who laid the golden turd. Sorry to all of the Richard Garriott fans out there but people paid a lot of money for a stinky game.

I feel you OP. I think there is going to be more here than meets the eye. Sort of like unchained showing off that cool looking dune buggy car and later finding out that it was from an achievement where you have to own every car in the game first >.<

Right now it is a waiting game. Try not to buy too much into the hype. We will see what we get once the dust settles. 

delete5230

Soybean said:

This is just my 2 cents.

People do what they do. But just the fact some guilds/ clans/ nations/ whatever would expect you to be on at odd hours like in GoT in order to keep a castle or spend an ungodly amount of time on a game really isn't worth it. These games are demanding way too much time out of people. That whole 12 hour shift change thing it sounds so unpleasant. I guess it really depends on how badly people are going to get crippled by these shifts.

If the game is that grindy where you have to be on that long, it sounds like that would make for a ripe market for time savers to sell you. So it won't be here buy this sword at $2,000 but if you don't want to spend 12 hours to make "x" happen buy this boost to speed things up. So it is not quite pay to win, just pay to speed things up a bit. Sort of  like in viking war of clans where you pay to push the timer along.

Personally, I really believe that Steven is promising way too much. He seems to change his mind a lot and it is leading to a lot of disappointment. I don't know why people think that AoC is the be all and end all of gaming when there is so much out there. Then too there were some game that came out by famous developers like Richard Garriott 's Shroud of the Avatar. Holy Mother of God!

That game was not pay to win but come on! They wanted $30,000 for a golden castle and around $7,000 for a player run town. Then skill sets were over complicated by design crossed with the old style of gaming where you felt like you had to kill every monster on the map just to find one quest item. Then make a big ass production of turning the quest in. People spent a lot of money on that game because Richard was famous in the gaming world. The man was coasting on his own success. That game was like the goose who laid the golden turd. Sorry to all of the Richard Garriott fans out there but people paid a lot of money for a stinky game.

I feel you OP. I think there is going to be more here than meets the eye. Sort of like unchained showing off that cool looking dune buggy car and later finding out that it was from an achievement where you have to own every car in the game first >.<

Right now it is a waiting game. Try not to buy too much into the hype. We will see what we get once the dust settles. 

I think very level headed response,

You can also think of it like this:
Most mmorpgs are composed of two factors to be a good contributor.
1) Be reliable and active to your group.
2) Be a good player.

However, this game seems to add a new layer of responsibility to remain useful.
 
"Be on all the time" or be rendered useless, and un important in decision making.  


Sure this is all speculation, but it sure seems that way, given the information so far.