Best Of
Re: Is no one else disappointed that "Persistent Alpha" AKA 24/7 Alpha 2 access isn't until May 2025?
patrick68794 wrote: »patrick68794 wrote: »One thing I simply do not get is people who are upset about this.
You are complaining about an ALPHA. You are not meant to play the game, you are meant to TEST it and provide feedback. Having Alpha be persistent immediately, or next year in May, should make absolutely 0 difference to you, AS A TESTER. It does however make a huge difference to devs, you know, because at this stage of the game, they matter a lot more than you.
If they cannot provide you with something that was promised during this stage, then it's totally normal, for anyone who has a slight clue about development process. Expecting them to meet deadlines, while they're still very much in the middle of developing the game and it's systems, is beyond baffling to me.
If I were Steven, I would never, ever again put a deadline on anything, ever, just because of crybabies online who complain when they cannot meet said deadlines. And for a long time, he didn't want to say when Alpha 2 will happen, because he wanted to avoid situations like these.
Be happy that you get an Alpha 2 this year, because they could've easily pushed it back to May, and maybe then you would've got persistent alpha, except then you would cry about the delay.
I'd be totally supporting the argument if we were talking about a launch, but this is an Alpha. Things change, some deadlines cannot be met due to various reasons.
No, nobody lied to you. Yes, there is a reason they had to push it back.
People that have paid money are absolutely allowed to be upset here. It doesn't matter that we've paid to "test" instead of "play" either. We've invested money into the project and if deadlines are missed then feedback should be provided.
Investors pushing game devs to crunch to fit in their unrealistic timeline expectations?
Now where have I seen this before, and what have gamers always said about those people pushing dev teams to crunch out games despite it harming the overall product?
Nothing that can be said here, that’s for sure.
That isn't what I'm saying. Don't put words in other people's mouths. Also don't reply to something you don't actually understand.
I took the words straight from your post. If you don’t see your own entitlement in it, that’s a You problem
Caeryl
1
Re: What is the definition of "Flavor" in reference to the secondary augment system?
ThevoicestHeVoIcEs wrote: »Thanks, but I feel most of us know that. At this point we are just expressing concern about gameplay differences between "extended" classes.Augments provide significant changes to Active Skills when applied.
Secondary Archetype does not provide brand new Active Skills.
I dunno why Weapon Skills would need to open Active Skills. Weapons Skills should work as intended - providing, you know, Weapon Skills.
There are quite a few other ways to acquire Augments besides just the Secondary Archetype.
Atm I see no evidence that augments are going to provide "significant" changes to the base class playstyle. Some passive effects on your attacks (elemental damage or heals) or changes to how a skill operates (teleport from A to B instead of a physical charge on fighter) are not "significant" nor a serious change to the fighter playstyle.
Here's hoping we are wrong.
I guess I should ask.
Tell me which of these, if any, counts as a significant change to a Tank's Charge skill if augmented with 'Teleport'.
1) Tank teleports, allowing them to ignore collision until they reach their intended target, and then apply the pushback to that target only even if there were targets in front.
2) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, but can reactivate the Charge skill to Teleport back to their original location after striking the target
3) Tank teleports, ignoring collision, can reactivate to teleport back, and when they do so, the target at that location is teleported back to that location with them if a valid target for this type of relocation
I'm 'simple to please' so to me, these are all significant enough and how much we get should be balance related.
Azherae
3
Re: Money spent on game already BY YOU!
Answer should be what you’ve put in compared to your perceived value. Put it into perspective. Need a baseline. I’d use the $15 per month ($180 per year) for that as a minimum expenditure for a released game like WoW. Using subscription model since it’s more comparable to AoC (no box price and not free to play). If you are spending more in the other games you play via their cash shop, then factor that too. I do not use the cash shop in other games, and I generally stay clear of pay-to-win games. Probably best to use yearly comparisons since AoC is years and years from launch.
I paid the $250 for the Voyager pack in July 2022. $90 of that is for future game time and $100 is credit (embers) for the shop which would count more like purchasing a gift certificate. $60 covers Alpha 2, Beta 1 and Beta 2. The Alpha 2 will be persistent starting in May 2025 and runs through launch. Overall I’ve predicted 10 years development (estimated that in 2021 based on seeing the Alpha 1 version of the game). That puts my prediction for Launch as 3Q 2031. The time between Alpha 1 and Alpha 2 makes me more confident in my original estimate.
If you were to consider the Alpha 2 to be a fraction of a released game, say 1/4th, then the value proposition for the cost of that would be $180/4 = $45 per year. So say we have 7 years to go from the start of persistent Alpha 2 (and I still see May 2025 as their target rather than a firm date, so we’ll be generous), then total value through launch is $315. So it’s $60 paid versus $315 value.
The other $190 has no difference in value other than the principle of time value of money (how much I could have earned on that $190 over 7 years) or the value of the game being zero because it fails to launch (which is the risk of a pre-order rather than a regular purchase). For me, the $100 embers is probably a loss or no real net benefit unless gifting embers is permissible. So I could deduct that from the $315 value, which would make it $215 net gain (benefit) over 7 years, or $30 and some change each year.
Also, value is subjective. I’m basing this on entertainment value versus my time and money. The monthly cost over seven years amounts to $3.75 per month for around 30-40 hours per month, more or less depending on available time and whether I am getting something out of the experience. The price of most other entertainment activities are significantly higher. AoC Alpha 2 would cost around 10 cents an hour for me (could cost a lot less for others who have more game time and don’t have other entertainment outlets). Now something could happen where the company shuts down or I totally lose interest in the game. Again, that’s the known risk of a pre-order of a game in this state of development. At the same time, if you view the value of Alpha 2 being more than 1/4th of a released game, then price to benefit becomes even more favorable.
I paid the $250 for the Voyager pack in July 2022. $90 of that is for future game time and $100 is credit (embers) for the shop which would count more like purchasing a gift certificate. $60 covers Alpha 2, Beta 1 and Beta 2. The Alpha 2 will be persistent starting in May 2025 and runs through launch. Overall I’ve predicted 10 years development (estimated that in 2021 based on seeing the Alpha 1 version of the game). That puts my prediction for Launch as 3Q 2031. The time between Alpha 1 and Alpha 2 makes me more confident in my original estimate.
If you were to consider the Alpha 2 to be a fraction of a released game, say 1/4th, then the value proposition for the cost of that would be $180/4 = $45 per year. So say we have 7 years to go from the start of persistent Alpha 2 (and I still see May 2025 as their target rather than a firm date, so we’ll be generous), then total value through launch is $315. So it’s $60 paid versus $315 value.
The other $190 has no difference in value other than the principle of time value of money (how much I could have earned on that $190 over 7 years) or the value of the game being zero because it fails to launch (which is the risk of a pre-order rather than a regular purchase). For me, the $100 embers is probably a loss or no real net benefit unless gifting embers is permissible. So I could deduct that from the $315 value, which would make it $215 net gain (benefit) over 7 years, or $30 and some change each year.
Also, value is subjective. I’m basing this on entertainment value versus my time and money. The monthly cost over seven years amounts to $3.75 per month for around 30-40 hours per month, more or less depending on available time and whether I am getting something out of the experience. The price of most other entertainment activities are significantly higher. AoC Alpha 2 would cost around 10 cents an hour for me (could cost a lot less for others who have more game time and don’t have other entertainment outlets). Now something could happen where the company shuts down or I totally lose interest in the game. Again, that’s the known risk of a pre-order of a game in this state of development. At the same time, if you view the value of Alpha 2 being more than 1/4th of a released game, then price to benefit becomes even more favorable.
Re: Rethinking Resource Systems: Enhancing Class Identity in AoC with Diverse Energy Mechanics
Arya_Yeshe wrote: »I don't even know why this subject came up, since when anyone has to rethink anything and have a Bible long thread of open statements?
I don't have the patience for this anymore, this doesn't help at all
Thank you for your contribution
Totally get that this thread seems long-winded—it’s not everyone’s favorite pastime to debate the finer points of game mechanics. But hey, sometimes it's about more than just posting a drive-by comment.
It’s funny, though, because these discussions are what help shape better gameplay. Not everyone has to write an essay, but a bit more than “this doesn’t help” could really add to the conversation!
If deep dives aren't your thing, that’s cool. But for those of us who get into it, this kind of feedback is gold. So maybe next time, throw in an idea or two? Could be fun. Cheers for popping in!
Re: Alpha 2 is just a delay.
patrick68794 wrote: »
Those aren't mutually exclusive, just so you're aware.
Nope they ARE exclusive in Alpha, you clearly know nothing about what an Alpha is if you think it is 'Playable'. Please put your ego to the side, listen to what people are sying so you can shed your ignorance and false expectations.
Lodrig
1
Re: Consternation surrounding the 8x8 Class system and how to move forward.
I don't know how that can be the expectation for Ashes when there has never been any confusion that the labels for Classes are mostly thematic for the combo of Primary and Secondary Archetype.A player who is excited to be a Paladin is not going to be satisfied by a Tank that has Cleric themed abilities. Their expectation is that combining Tank and Cleric yields an entirely unique class. The unique and flavorful names given to each of the class combinations reinforces the idea that they will stand out as unique and flavorful classes that have their OWN unique abilities.
The whole point of a Primary Archetype is that it will be the primary aspect of the character's combat role.
In the sense that, by design, Ashes is balanced for an 8-person Group with one of each Primary Archetype.
Thematic is probably a better term than "flavor".
I don't know what you mean by "OWN unique abilities" when the primary aspect of the Class ability will be the Primary Archetype Active SKill modified significantly with an Augment.
If you put yourself in the shoes of someone who hasn't been following the development of the game its really not hard to see how the archetype names could confuse new people coming into the game. "Paladin" has a certain connotation in gaming and when player see that they can play a Paladin they immediately have some expectations about what that means in game.
What I mean by UNIQUE abilities is that instead of a Paladin (Tank/Cleric) only having Tank abilities which are augmented to be Cleric themed, the Paladin might have a new ability which alters its playstyle. For example;
Paladin (Tank/Cleric): You gain the Divine Power resource and may cast Divine Infusion.
While Grit is active each time you take damage from an enemy attack, gain 1 Divine Power. Whenever you spend Courage you heal yourself for an amount based on the total Courage spent.
Adding simple passives like this for each Archetype combo would really help tie them together thematically as well as give players more synergy paths for their augmented skills and abilities.
Rippley
2
Re: Rethinking Resource Systems: Enhancing Class Identity in AoC with Diverse Energy Mechanics
Greatwarlord wrote: »Arya_Yeshe wrote: »Greatwarlord wrote: »Arya_Yeshe wrote: »I don't even know why this subject came up, since when anyone has to rethink anything and have a Bible long thread of open statements?
I don't have the patience for this anymore, this doesn't help at all
Thank you for your contribution
Totally get that this thread seems long-winded—it’s not everyone’s favorite pastime to debate the finer points of game mechanics. But hey, sometimes it's about more than just posting a drive-by comment.
It’s funny, though, because these discussions are what help shape better gameplay. Not everyone has to write an essay, but a bit more than “this doesn’t help” could really add to the conversation!
If deep dives aren't your thing, that’s cool. But for those of us who get into it, this kind of feedback is gold. So maybe next time, throw in an idea or two? Could be fun. Cheers for popping in!
We don't even know if devs will ever read this and take into consideration, why spend the stamina?
Also, in this forum there's a tendency of very long circle jerks, but it's not that I don't like the subject.
My point is, will spending this time and energy contribute at all? I'm not sure
Shouldn't we be encouraging sharing feedback and posting our thoughts and ideas? Isn't that literally one of the core principles of Ashes/Intrepid's whole approach to developing this game in the way they're doing?
I'm not saying I'm right and someone else is wrong, I'm just providing my thoughts and opinions on what I've seen as feedback.
Posting constructive feedback in the literal official forums seems to me to be the absolute most likely place where devs would find and read it, wouldn't you agree? Shouldn't we as a community be open to difference of opinions on subject like this? Isn't this literally what the devs keep re-iterating every community livestream?
Arya just doesn't like reading much, don't worry about it.
Intrepid is glad for you to talk more, not less.
Azherae
4