[Megathread] Amazon's New World MMO

[Pretorian]

I wouldn't mind it if Fast Travel was cheaper honestly
Or if they give us mounts

Fast Travel is much cheaper if your faction controls that specific territory... looks like they really want to promote faction wars which is not a bad thing at all

I also have no doubt they will introduce mounts at some point, after most of the people have explored all the territories.
Initially I was a bit put off by the no-mounts but it does add to the immersion and also scales down rushing through content.

A lot of people won't like it because the rush to max level is a thing but I personally can't wait for the launch! I can't remember the last time I was so excited about a game... at least 10 years have passed.

[Fencers]

That is pure nonsense. With that logic League of legends PvP is completely optional since you can just fight mobs and never fight back players.
Actually ANY game ever released has optional PvP since you can just never shoot/fight back

That's largely correct.

- - - Updated - - -

So to you, attacking someone is the only thing that makes it PvP?

Engaging with other players is what is PVP is- Player vs. Player.

[Maljinwo]

Fast Travel is much cheaper if your faction controls that specific territory... looks like they really want to promote faction wars which is not a bad thing at all

I also have no doubt they will introduce mounts at some point, after most of the people have explored all the territories.

I hope the dominant faction doesn't steamroll everything.

When I Played the beta I joined the Syndicate and they already had 3 territories. The other factions were nowhere to be seen

[Dudenoso]

That's largely correct.

- - - Updated - - -

Engaging with other players is what is PVP is- Player vs. Player.

After reading a couple of pages of this thread, I must ask: are you a troll? Or maybe you got some sort of cognitive issues?

Which part of "X will randomly engage with me and if I don't like it I can just die" screams 'optional' content? It's like stretching the concept to the extreme boundary of what would be used by anyone sane and calling it a technical win.

It has some parallels to saying that violence is optional in the real world while there are pacifists who never threw a punch getting killed. If there are big enough consequences for something regardless of your choices, it is not optional unless you stretch the meaning of 'optional' in such a way that everything in the universe is optional.

[Lex Icon]

seems they done goofed the release already =/

as EU getting a morning launch and character names are global for some moronic reason.
so while european players are in school/working americans and other regions are going to jump on EU servers to claim names. like i'd love to know the thought process behind this.

[Hollycakes]

seems they done goofed the release already =/

as EU getting a morning launch and character names are global for some moronic reason.
so while european players are in school/working americans and other regions are going to jump on EU servers to claim names. like i'd love to know the thought process behind this.

I was thinking the same thing about here in the states.
Going to have to jump on as soon as I can to get a name during the day.
I think it's like 11 am here? I'll have to look again.

[Lex Icon]

I was thinking the same thing about here in the states.
Going to have to jump on as soon as I can to get a name during the day.
I think it's like 11 am here? I'll have to look again.

11 pm i think. we don't have that 12 hour format where i live so not entirely sure.

[Hollycakes]

Got this email:

Good news!
At 8:00 AM PDT Monday, September 27th, New World will be made available for download.
Your credit card will be billed for your pre-order at that time, and a Steam key will be delivered to you via email.
New World servers will open for play on Tuesday, September 28th.
Thank you for your order, and we can't wait to see you in Aeternum.

Plus found this:
The New World release time for each region is as follows:
8am PDT for US West / 8am EDT for US East / 8am CEST for EU / 8am BRT for South America / 9pm AEST for Australia.

[Fencers]

After reading a couple of pages of this thread, I must ask: are you a troll? Or maybe you got some sort of cognitive issues?

Which part of "X will randomly engage with me and if I don't like it I can just die" screams 'optional' content? It's like stretching the concept to the extreme boundary of what would be used by anyone sane and calling it a technical win.

It has some parallels to saying that violence is optional in the real world while there are pacifists who never threw a punch getting killed. If there are big enough consequences for something regardless of your choices, it is not optional unless you stretch the meaning of 'optional' in such a way that everything in the universe is optional.

I am aware it is an unpopular position, but I am of the opinion game audiences, in general, are not sophisticated in their thinking about game mechanics.

PVP existing; even being emphasized is not a mandatory game mechanism. It's very likely not the way most play the game, naturally and undoubtedly. Let's be realistic. That was not my position.

If talking about game mechanisms; then those mechanisms can only operate in one way. Their operation is the only thing we are talking about. 'When I press this button, this happens', et cetera. It's an absolute. How we feel about pressing that button is a separate and entirely different matter.

Every time games are not talked about in this manner is a mistake.

[Katchii]

That's largely correct.

That's ridiculous.

Engaging with other players is what is PVP is- Player vs. Player.

So someone engaging with you in PvP, but you not attacking them, and you just heal yourself or run away, or choosing to just die rather than fight back.....means you're not in PvP?

You and I have VERY different definitions of what constitutes PvP.

[Hollycakes]

I was trying to refrain but lol
It's a weird claim.
Also a bit insulting to say we aren't as sophisticated with mechanics as you so we don't get it.
When everyone here and even the developers have stated otherwise.
50v50 war battles also say hi.
The game was clearly modeled around pvp interactions, whether you want to rewrite what that is or not.
You can't just break it down to some philosophical expression about what button pressing means to you and why something isn't inherently pvp.

[Fencers]

That's ridiculous.

It is true. I knew a guy who played League of Legends for years only with bots. He never played a PVP game of League. I showed him how to jungle with Udyr and he enjoyed creating games with bots farming the jungle and pushing towers. I supposed he played it akin to a strategy game.

League of Legends is a game we can fairly say is heavily predicated on PVP. Yet he never engaged with any PVP. For years. He still hasn't.

A game mechanism existing or even being strongly emphasized does not mean it is inherently mandatory. If you are not engaging other players in combat, how are you engaging in PVP?

What is the effective difference in a bot, timberwolf NPC or player engaging you if you as the player have the same reaction or course? There is none.

If that player had not jumped me in the woods as I was describing earlier but instead a PVE mob; I would have had the exact same response to the higher-level zombies in the area. There was no effective difference. I did not engage or was forced to battle another player.

New World is (or was) a heavily PVP-centric game. I specifically said there was no way in the early alphas to toggle it off as was in the variant the public got to play. I was there for it all. But there was not a system in the game that was compulsory to PVP in till much later (when they added the forts and so on).

It's bad thinking and discussing of video game design to attribute gameplay wrongly. I think this is a wrong conception of game design being used here by saying PVP was (is) mandatory.

So someone engaging with you in PvP, but you not attacking them, and you just heal yourself or run away, or choosing to just die rather than fight back.....means you're not in PvP?

You and I have VERY different definitions of what constitutes PvP.

Correct, and it seems so.

[kaminaris]

It is true. I knew a guy who played League of Legends for years only with bots. He never played a PVP game of League. I showed him how to jungle with Udyr and he enjoyed creating games with bots farming the jungle and pushing towers. I supposed he played it akin to a strategy game.

No that is not what you meant. You meant that LoL with full blown PvP matches while completely ignoring human opponents is according to you "optional" pvp.

Unfortunately that is not opinion, its called simply: being wrong.

Its on the level of mental gymnastics of:
breathing is optional.
eating is optional
drinking is optional

Yes, but you will die. So it's not sane constraints.

Poisonous mushrooms are edible - yes but only once.

So in terms of normal constraints New worlds was MANDATORY pvp mmo. Whatever you like it or not.

[Edge-]

Folks, we're getting off topic here. Let's keep discussion productive and on-topic please.

[Tommy T]

I purposely haven't played much as I want to keep the experience fresh for launch, but having all the crafting skills available really messes with me. Do people focus on their chosen crafts or do you level them all?

So much choice. I am overwhelmed.

[Proskill]

Why syndicate???? Heard its got 'the best gear', whatever that means, but the looks of it suck as theres no transmog in this game. Marauders really look like the only one appealing to me, like a conquistador instead of some fucking van hellsing witch hunter or plague doctor

Sell me on syndicate or change my mind with the marauders, cuz i know choosing THE RIGHT faction in this game will be CRUCIAL

[Gorsameth]

Why syndicate???? Heard its got 'the best gear', whatever that means, but the looks of it suck as theres no transmog in this game. Marauders really look like the only one appealing to me, like a conquistador instead of some fucking van hellsing witch hunter or plague doctor

Sell me on syndicate or change my mind with the marauders, cuz i know choosing THE RIGHT faction in this game will be CRUCIAL

If the right faction is that crucial the obvious answer is to hold off until the dominant faction come forward and then play that.

[Nyel]

I'm really surprised if this game isn't dead by the end of the year. Almost 200 servers at launch? Amazon must be delusional. There was a very short lived hype for the beta everyone could access, but that's about it. Opinions are mixed and - besides for crafting - more negative than positive. Combat is still the same mash 1/2 (LMB/RMB) snooze fest that it used to be, on level 10 you're basically playing and doing the exact same stuff in and out of combat you do at max level and there's still barely any end game content. It's mind boggling that this game is considered an AAA MMORPG launch with so little going for it.

[Nyel]

No matter what, wouldn't it be glorious for a new MMO to launch that successfully? I want to see more successes in the genre, pushing it forward and giving us more to choose from.

I agree with this sentiment, but not with the rush job that New World is - not meaning that the game was rushed, it was cooking for far too long, but the recent version of the game was rushed and that's due to the developers not knowing what they want, trying to implement everything and failing with that in basically every regard besides crafting (which they did really well).

It's just laughable that they indeed think they need so many servers. The most hyped MMORPG of all time, Star Wars: The Old Republic, launched with a similar amount of servers. They were closing half of that by the first months. That was 10 years ago, when MMORPGs were at an all time high, backed by one of the biggest IPs in the world and even that amounf ot servers got axed very quickly. New World has not even 1/100 of the hype that SWTOR had back then. I don't doubt Amazon has some kind of data, I doubt that they're interpreting it right. New World is still very unknown and very niche, its online presence is minimal. Launching with what, 192 servers and closing 180 in the first months will be a horrible sign of missing vitality - and don't fool yourself, New World has zero longevity due to its lack of content. Maybe they can link or merge those servers without actually taking them offline, but still.

I guess we'll see. By the end of October it's pretty clear if this game will be dead by the end of the year.

[Clozer]

I agree with this sentiment, but not with the rush job that New World is - not meaning that the game was rushed, it was cooking for far too long, but the recent version of the game was rushed and that's due to the developers not knowing what they want, trying to implement everything and failing with that in basically every regard besides crafting (which they did really well).

It's just laughable that they indeed think they need so many servers. The most hyped MMORPG of all time, Star Wars: The Old Republic, launched with a similar amount of servers. They were closing half of that by the first months. That was 10 years ago, when MMORPGs were at an all time high, backed by one of the biggest IPs in the world and even that amounf ot servers got axed very quickly. New World has not even 1/100 of the hype that SWTOR had back then. I don't doubt Amazon has some kind of data, I doubt that they're interpreting it right. New World is still very unknown and very niche, its online presence is minimal. Launching with what, 192 servers and closing 180 in the first months will be a horrible sign of missing vitality - and don't fool yourself, New World has zero longevity due to its lack of content. Maybe they can link or merge those servers without actually taking them offline, but still.

They had all the beta numbers. They know this way better than you can guess. That's for sure. Btw people said the exact same thing about classic.