Best Of
Re: Is no one else disappointed that "Persistent Alpha" AKA 24/7 Alpha 2 access isn't until May 2025?
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.
Caeryl
2
Re: [EU] Nephilim [PVX] [18+] [Semi Hardcore] [Competitive] [Close Knit Community]
Awesome guild still recruiting for Alpha 2 head over to the discord for more info!
https://discord.gg/nephilim
https://discord.gg/nephilim
Re: [EU] Nephilim [PVX] [18+] [Semi Hardcore] [Competitive] [Close Knit Community]
Bump, great community. Wel informed and factual. Looking forward to jump into A2 with this group.
Faltana
2
Re: Fixing the Class system
I think you belive that ROLE is the same as Playstyle/tactics and that Augments will 'preserve the role' what your indicating is that playstyle and tactics will be unaltered.
No what I think is that people are underestimating the impact the (currently expected) augments will make despite being seemingly small. I am quite aware that the Role is not the same as the playstyle. The Core function of augmented skills will remain the same, Steven said as much, but he also said that augments are meant to "blur the lines a bit" between the Archetypes to allow for some adjustments regarding the Rock-Paper-Scissor System (A Mage can account for their weakness against Rangers and Rogues by augmenting their skills with Tank aspects), this allows for situational, new options during fights, but at that core the Mage is still that: A mage.
You present and speak of Flavor changes AS IF they were Radical changes because you over interpret the tactical effects of an extra damage proc or buff getting applied ontop of a skill.
I'm just saying what I think will be Intrepids approach to augments and its effects. And correct me if I am wrong: We have nothing PROVING neither me nor you wrong. It's an open question and I don't share the worry that augments will be little more than cosmetics.
So I don't think we are talking past each other, we simply don't agree on what we will get because information is not conclusive on the matter. Which is why I think that there is no "fixing the class system" when nobody can really know whether there is something to fix to begin with.
I am asking for and brainstorming playstyle varients for the classes in the light of radical changes and with the intent to create a simple description of that playstyle which synthesises both archetypes. This is healtheir then trying to design augments for an individual skill. See ny Class Fantasy thread for examples, I'd like to produce a description for all 64 classes.
Fair enough, but this is over at your thread and I was primarily concerend with OPs prompt here to "fix" something that we don't even know the workings of. Additionally, I don't think we need short descriptions for every class, which is while I will not grace/taint your thread either.
Kilion
5
Re: Removing Waypoints During Questing: A More Immersive Exploration?
I could also see specifically having no quest markers for unique quests, but full task instructions and 3d markers for Commissions and repeatable side quests.
That way you could make the big quests where you need to keep track of where you have to go and what you need to do long and rewarding, while the handheld quests grant very low rewards and mostly serve as incentive to go out and kill things.
Might sound obvious, but most games have no distinction in the amount of handholding, or worse, inconsistent handholding, guaranteeing that players will get impatient with the low-handholding story quests.
If it's a consistent design philosophy, players know the effort and reward associated with unique versus repeatable quests.
That way you could make the big quests where you need to keep track of where you have to go and what you need to do long and rewarding, while the handheld quests grant very low rewards and mostly serve as incentive to go out and kill things.
Might sound obvious, but most games have no distinction in the amount of handholding, or worse, inconsistent handholding, guaranteeing that players will get impatient with the low-handholding story quests.
If it's a consistent design philosophy, players know the effort and reward associated with unique versus repeatable quests.
Re: Fixing the Class system
You lost me.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "only change it 10%".
If a Mage Teleport applied to my Fighter's Rush allows me to blink past a Wall that would otherwise impede me, that significantly changes my tactics. A quantifier like 10% seems to be meaningless.
I'd definitely prefer some other Mage-like stuff to place on my other Active Skills, than a Teleport.
I dunno how a Teleport Augment is supposed to help augment my Battle Cry.
Your being willfully ignorant if you can't understand this.
And your example is emblematic of lazy thinking. You have to postulate a SPECIFC enemy countermeasure produced by 1 opposing archetype for limited time under which a teleport augmented Blitz would seemingly play ANY different then the base Blitz. To call this reaching is an understatement.
No player worth their salt would call that a meaningful change to tactics let alone playstyle because once you think about it for more then a second you remember the barrier is still present and your now trapped and cut off from team mates so in even in your hypothetical 90% of the time you ain't gonna teleport through said wall because you have no escape path. Your still a Fighter with a gap closer which is gonna feel exactly the same as every other fighter, that's what 10% change is, something you don't even need to relearn or alter your play around.
I'm no fan of that example from Steven either, but if we just discount the difference between two skills that both gap close but differently, then we might as well just downgrade all expectations of all the combat.
See, this is some kind of logic that I cant dress as deserved because then peoples feelings can get hurt.
Here you have people telling you that the promised "play as you want" wont provide meaningful variety, and that the meta will be narrow and they want to discuss new ways forward.
Your response is "leave it as it is and dont discount it even though it looks that way. And dont discuss things that are not tested yet. It's not valid feedbackEven. Though. It looks. That way."
Why let the system fail and then lead to delays?
Re: Fixing the Class system
Basically I would rather see 1 good solid augment that radically changes playstyle, then 4 bland flavor choices which don't change playstyle and tactics. One augment which changes your kit 40% is better then 4 choices with each change it only 10%.
Agreed, with an emphasis for Cleric and Tank. Augments must significantly transform the base archetype or the core of the 8-man team is going to get boring.
CROW3
2