as long as scott haslargecreative control over update changes for the western audience, i am on board.
I think the climate has changed for this type of thing, honestly. A LOT has happened in the industry since the old Bartle sheep/wolves thing. I use as evidence that the most popular game in the world by a significant margin is a purely PvP game that illicits frustration levels that match (and potentially exceed) the frustration of original EQ. PvP used to be a fringe activity was viewed by the mainstream players as a "distraction" from the game, rather than the game itself, but looking at how people play games now and what they are interested in, that's the largely the view of the last generation of gamers (i.e. my generation and most of the people on this board). I suspect that the core target audience you want in your game will be more willing to deal with PvP adversity and respond to it as if its part of the game, rather than a mere distraction. IMO, this should help, rather than hurt ArcheAge.I'm reserving opinion on their 1.0 changes until I get a chance to see them in action. We haven't yet seen how much of it is being driven by Play2crush types driving people from the game completely (which, if that happens, also obliterates the fun of even being a play2crush'er, as you have no one left to crush), vs other factors.
You've (or rather XL Games) has already "WoWd" things up with dailies.haha -- We definitely don't want to WoW anything up. We like AA because it's a pretty greatcomplementto the themepark PvE MMOs. It's not one of them, and I don't think it should ever be one. It includes some of those elements, but those elements aren't the focus.
Trade is one of the sandboxy gameplay systems. Ties into the economic and crafting games, and PvP. Kind of like what some of us might recall as Caravans from other game ideas in the past. Creating stuff for trade, taking it from one place to the other (overland via walking, mules, carts, carriages, airships - Overseas via boats, merchant boats, etc), staying safe while doing so, getting rewards for it.
It sinks commodities generated by the crafting/farming game, provides PvP targets, and earns money. It's a skill of its own to raise. ("Commerce.")
I'm reserving opinion on their 1.0 changes until I get a chance to see them in action. We haven't yet seen how much of it is being driven by Play2crush types driving people from the game completely (which, if that happens, also obliterates the fun of even being a play2crush'er, as you have no one left to crush), vs other factors.
Even if those all stood exactly as is, there's still plenty of unique gameplay systems.
I can absolutely understand emotional reaction to changes, but I'd rather see and play it myself then figure out how to think about it.
It seems like the 1.0 class changes addressed the stunlock issue you brought up - the AAS folks were fine with the class changes. But this reminds me of another issue I didn't mention, AAS also flipped out that as part of putting in dailies XL Games created a non-PvP area on the North Continent, which from an outside perspective, does seem a bit weird for a PvP game when that continent was supposed to be all pvp, all the time, IIRC. Which I think supports your point about dealing with PvP adversity ;-)I think the climate has changed for this type of thing, honestly. A LOT has happened in the industry since the old Bartle sheep/wolves thing. I use as evidence that the most popular game in the world by a significant margin is a purely PvP game that illicits frustration levels that match (and potentially exceed) the frustration of original EQ. PvP used to be a fringe activity was viewed by the mainstream players as a "distraction" from the game, rather than the game itself, but looking at how people play games now and what they are interested in, that's the largely the view of the last generation of gamers (i.e. my generation and most of the people on this board). I suspect that the core target audience you want in your game will be more willing to deal with PvP adversity and respond to it as if its part of the game, rather than a mere distraction. IMO, this should help, rather than hurt ArcheAge.
That's my theory at least.
Yeah I can live with cosmetics, though I don't really like them.Amen Tad to your last comment. I'm ok with Cash Shop for aesthetic purposes such as skins (LoL) or appearance slots (EQII) but not as means for primary funding. It can be an icing and a way for their company just to get some extra cash on the side but I am all for the FTP crap to go away.
I also agree with your dailies comment. I have not played AA either but your comments are spot on for any MMO now and in the future.
If history if any indication the answer to that is no. Anything is possible though.as long as scott haslargecreative control over update changes for the western audience, i am on board.
One thing to keep in mind is that ArcheAge Source is a pretty small community, with an accordingly narrow perspective. As I mentioned above, this game (as it currently exists) is catering to two distinct crowds. The SWG crowd (i don't want to farm for epics, go play that game somewhere else, I want to pimp my house and raise sheeps, cattles and pigs, oh my) and the PRX type crowd (FOR SPARTA!) The systems that are currently in the game are for those players. That said, the TARGET audience of this game, is literally everyone. You can see it in the update. XL obviously doesn't consider this game a PvP only game. They consider this game a world where you can do as much stuff as they can possibly cram into the development cycle.The ArcheAge Source linked above aren't complaining about the class balance changes - indeed they seem overall supportive of the 1.0 class changes. The complaints are pretty specific: (1) dailies suck, (2) trading has been over-simplified, in particular they complain about not being able to do long trade routes to the other continent and (3) not related to 1.0 crafters complain about the post CBT4.0 RNG crafting (preferring the CBT4.0 crafting).
Realistically, not many publishers will have "creative control" of anything. This is especially true for regional publishers for an existing title (as opposed to development publishers). Think of it this way. You just spent the last 5 years of your life making a game be as good as you think it can be. You aren't really going to listen to someone from another country that looked at your game for 3 months say "redo the quest system." After all, the dev team has its own shit to do.as long as scott haslargecreative control over update changes for the western audience, i am on board.
I think that's just a matter of a wrong premise. Everyone going into a LoL match obviously expects to drive his enemies before him and hear the lamentation of the women. But LoL by definition in a situation of consensual PVP. However, in an MMO that has more activities then PVP this changes, and there are times you go in with the expectation of farming 100 wool, running a dungeon, camping that mini pet spawn or whatthefuckever. In all those situations people that enjoy consensual pvp are still your sheep, even if they are wolves when looking to gank unsuspecting sheep or seaching for challenging pvp.I think the climate has changed for this type of thing, honestly. A LOT has happened in the industry since the old Bartle sheep/wolves thing. I use as evidence that the most popular game in the world by a significant margin is a purely PvP game that illicits frustration levels that match (and potentially exceed) the frustration of original EQ. PvP used to be a fringe activity was viewed by the mainstream players as a "distraction" from the game, rather than the game itself, but looking at how people play games now and what they are interested in, that's the largely the view of the last generation of gamers (i.e. my generation and most of the people on this board). I suspect that the core target audience you want in your game will be more willing to deal with PvP adversity and respond to it as if its part of the game, rather than a mere distraction. IMO, this should help, rather than hurt ArcheAge.
That's my theory at least.
Yeah, if you were a die hard Lineage 2 fan, you will probably like ArcheAge out of the box.@Oloh All the videos I've seen of this game make me pretty excited for an eventual NA release. I played L2 from CB-C5 and loved every bit of it. Will AA be 'that game' that feels similar in play style?
Really happy to hear that. I've been wanting a game that felt like L2 ever since I stopped playing.Yeah, if you were a die hard Lineage 2 fan, you will probably like ArcheAge out of the box.
--Oloh, 64 Dark Avenger, Bartz (retired)
There are27 million people a daythat play a game that its sole focus is "to drive his enemies before him and hear the lamentation of the women." My point is that there are plenty enough wolves to make a PvP focused game without worrying too much about scaring all the sheep away. The notion (eloquently characterized by Bartle) that wolves feed off sheep and if the sheep leave, the wolves will starve might have been representative of the population at one time, but it is not anymore. As games specialize to accommodate the more particular tastes in the market (which most people agree is happening), making a Game of Wolves, is not a bad idea and, if you believe that MOBAs share significantly in the MMORPG market, then it is actually a no-brainer.I think that's just a matter of a wrong premise. Everyone going into a LoL match obviously expects to drive his enemies before him and hear the lamentation of the women. But LoL by definition in a situation of consensual PVP. However, in an MMO that has more activities then PVP this changes, and there are times you go in with the expectation of farming 100 wool, running a dungeon, camping that mini pet spawn or whatthefuckever. In all those situations people that enjoy consensual pvp are still your sheep, even if they are wolves when looking to gank unsuspecting sheep or searching for challenging pvp.
Speaking as a non-pvper (I quite Emerald Dream when I was unable to complete my blasted lands quest chain because some goon rogue 4 levels above me sat and camped the area for two days and the horde/alliance imbalance suggested that that problem was only going to get worse) the problem isn't PvP per se.There are27 million people a daythat play a game that its sole focus is "to drive his enemies before him and hear the lamentation of the women." My point is that there are plenty enough wolves to make a PvP focused game without worrying too much about scaring all the sheep away. The notion (eloquently characterized by Bartle) that wolves feed off sheep and if the sheep leave, the wolves will starve might have been representative of the population at one time, but it is not anymore. As games specialize to accommodate the more particular tastes in the market (which most people agree is happening), making a Game of Wolves, is not a bad idea and, if you believe that MOBAs share significantly in the MMORPG market, then it is actually a no-brainer.
Well said and good to hear. Color me excited!haha -- We definitely don't want to WoW anything up. We like AA because it's a pretty greatcomplementto the themepark PvE MMOs. It's not one of them, and I don't think it should ever be one. It includes some of those elements, but those elements aren't the focus.
Trade is one of the sandboxy gameplay systems. Ties into the economic and crafting games, and PvP. Kind of like what some of us might recall as Caravans from other game ideas in the past. Creating stuff for trade, taking it from one place to the other (overland via walking, mules, carts, carriages, airships - Overseas via boats, merchant boats, etc), staying safe while doing so, getting rewards for it.