Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Seaons should take more than a week. One month = a whole year in game
ArchivedUser
Guest
<strong>Firstly, I LOVE that there are changing seasons. Amazing.
But I recently found out that the seasons last a week each, then start over... a whole year in game goes by in one month.
I think that's honestly way too fast.
I feel like a season should last AT LEAST one month in game.</strong>
But I recently found out that the seasons last a week each, then start over... a whole year in game goes by in one month.
I think that's honestly way too fast.
I feel like a season should last AT LEAST one month in game.</strong>
0
Comments
1 month sounds about right.
However, I think 1 month is far too long. Just think about it:
You want to craft that damn legendary item, but need an ingredient that only grows during one season (the season that just passed).
The market is empty and now you have to wait 3 <strong>MONTHS</strong> in order to get it.
Ain't nobody got time for that!
IMHO: 2 weeks sound better.
if they add transitions time then i can't see one week per season work.
maybe more like:
Winter(1 week) -> transition week winter to spring(1 week)-> Spring(1 week) -> transition week spring to summer (1 week) -> Summer (1 week) -> transitions week summer to fall (1 week) -> Fall (1 week) -> transition week fall to winter (1 week) -> repeat
this would mean 2 months until the seasons starts over again. Or bumping up the weeks to 2 weeks each, would mean 4 months for all seasons to occur
the transition time would maybe make it possible to profit from 2 seasons at once, but only for half their effectiveness. like in the transition form winter to spring, some lakes and rivers are still frozen and available access to some areas while some spring spots already allow gatherers to harvest herbs and flowers
if they add transitions time then i can’t see one week per season work.
maybe more like:
Winter(1 week) -> transition week winter to spring(1 week)-> Spring(1 week) -> transition week spring to summer -> Summer (1 week) -> transitions week summer to fall (1 week) -> Fall (1 week) -> transition week fall to winter (1 week) -> repeat
this would mean 2 months until the seasons starts over again. Or bumping up the weeks to 2 weeks each, would mean 4 months for all seasons to occur
</blockquote>
There won't be a visible transition.
Seasons will change during the server maintanance.
So that would rule out seasonal transition periods.
But yes I agree 1 week is too short IMO.
If people run out, they adapt and survive like we have always done
They stockpile....They ration.....they manage.
I might prefer having more than four seasons, though.
I'd even be willing to try out an extra season or two just for the experience and the affect on play. Maybe "Scorch" is a real dry time between summer and fall. Maybe "Drench"(monsoon) would be a good season after spring....
Hmmm.... maybe 4 is plenty. Seems redundant.
</blockquote>
but that would in a way regulate prices. If things are not always accessible, things keep their value. On the other hand if things are nearly always available, prices could go south. So for the economy aspect, longer seasons would be more valuable.
But something different come to my mind. Do we know how big the world is we play in? is it a continent, or the whole world?
IF, that's a big IF, they implement a realistic season system that would mean in the northern and southern hemisphere the seasons would always be the opposite. so seasons would still shift in say a month, but the season you want is next month available in the other hemisphere. This could play into the caravan system, bringing goods from one season to another season, which in turn plays into the meaningful conflict they put as a core pillar. Do i stay in my region and wait for the season shift, do i go south/north, do i organize a caravan, will that caravan be a target for other players and so on.
Perhaps as the OP suggested a month or even a meager 2 weeks of season time. If you are a casual player I can see where a year of game time goes by and they may have missed a season, or that it would seem like every time they logged on it's a different season. It would be a little disconcerting.
I was also thinking about those who want to do farming, in which a season (week) might be overwhelming. Of course, having not tried being in this world, it is hard to say how I would really feel about seasons passing at that rate.
For example you have to kill - let's say 3x camels for a certain task, and they only spawn in the summer season, does that mean you'd have to wait 3 months to finish this task?
1 week sounds reasonable, also it's a fantasy game, just imagine it's how things work on that planet.
Yet, after hearing the counter arguments, I can understand why you wouldn't necessarily want to have an overlong season.
I think a fair medium would be 2 weeks. Long enough to get in engaged in that season's particular content, whether it's crafting or adventuring, and still have the next season in clear sight.
3 weeks for Winter: autumn->winter, full winter ,winter->spring
3 weeks for Spring: winter->spring, full spring, spring->summer
3 weeks for Summer: spring->summer, full summer, summer->autumn
3 weeks for Autumn: summer->autumn, full autumn, autumn->winter
3 weeks for Winter: autumn->winter, full winter ,winter->spring
3 weeks for Spring: winter->spring, full spring, spring->summer
3 weeks for Summer: spring->summer, full summer, summer->autumn
3 weeks for Autumn: summer->autumn, full autumn, autumn->winter
</blockquote>
Really like this as well.
3 weeks for Winter: autumn->winter, full winter ,winter->spring
3 weeks for Spring: winter->spring, full spring, spring->summer
3 weeks for Summer: spring->summer, full summer, summer->autumn
3 weeks for Autumn: summer->autumn, full autumn, autumn->winter
</blockquote>
I like this as well :)
We are talking about non renewable ressources in the first place, if the forest is gone, it's gone. If the herbpatch is gone, it's gone probably until next years season.
I think you don't imagine the whole picture and just get hung up on the timeframe itself, but not the surrounding mechanics involved.
Agreed. Seasons should be lasting enough that you feel it's impact. Not just 'Lol I get Winterherb next week for my snowball build!' ... I like the idea of monthly cycles at minimum if not normal season cycles. A month gives time meaning, rather than just 'Oh, I'll just log for a week so I can farm snow again.' ... I dunno.
Agree.
As for the timeframe specifics, I think that while one week is too short, I would have to agree with either the three week time period per season, or even shorten that to two weeks per season. Either way would add a lot more aspects of play.
Once a few "year" of seasons have run through, then the markets will likely have the plentiful materials during the "on season" and less to sparse on the "off seasons".
This brings a great dynamic to the market and for strategic play and planning potential providing a resource gathering, releasing to market and economic goals and strategy as well.
I, for one, back the longer seasons to bring a real dynamic to the markets and a sense of planning and accomplishment in game!
I already said it, but they have an actual finetuning mechanic which they could adjust on a week by week basis. It's called non replenishable ressources.
You know, with one week, or maaaybe two there could still be an actuall exploring part in gathering ressources like herbs,pelts and whatnot but with three and more? Just thinking about how pumped full the world must be to give us enough ressources to at least get by makes me shiver. We are possibly talking about 10.000 players give or take. Everyday necessities would need to grow and be available in amazingly high numbers to get us through 3months of no supply ability.
Sure we could talk about a 2nd harvest spawn, but first, that doesn't always make sense for ressources. Second how will it work so there again is a reasonable amount/it's meaningful.
It's all there from the go? well, again that's just a huge cluster.
A batch just gives higher numbers? We are turning away from high numbers, it makes a stack of something meaningful. (at least that's what it feels like, gathering limitations, caravansystem and so on)
If you didn't pick stuff in the first week, will it just not spawn again and leave you to dry out naturaly? That's a lot of stress and would force people to gather. It doesn't feel like something they would want.
Reasources are just a small part of the picture, actual content will be locked away additionaly to everything else that's going on, possibly entrances to dungeons, pathways and who knows what else. We have only heard bits and pieces about the implications of impactful seasons.
We haven't even started to talk about the benefits and drawbacks from a real life perspective and timeconstraints, missing out an ingame-year or one season due to circumstances is a huge difference.
I'm not necesserily against longer seasons. Especially the transition idea is quite intriguing (althou I think it's to much bother and is just weird to be the same length as the season itself. With the technical limitations of having to wait for the weekly maintenance we would again be at 3 weeks per season, transition included), but it appears like people haven't put enough thought into the magnitude that longer season bring.
And quite honestly, it feels like not even enough thought went into ressources that everyone seems to be rattled about. "A real dynamic"?
3 weeks without any new supplies? That's already mid-length planning level on a standart basis, 80% of the playerbase doesn't even think about the day to day or time of day situation. They are not bothered with profits, and why would they, they just want to get rid of some stuff, or need some stuff. Having everything dragged out to 4xtimes, like people propose, will achieve the opposite, it will get stale and stiff because the" change" is slow and lasts long.
A good dynamic market has short, mid and longterm opportunities, but if it is all naturally longterm, well that will be a bore.
Now, take your time and grasp the full, half known picture we know right now and have an actual conversation about it, not just a short sighted rant.
Deconstruction and recycling.
Humanity has always repurposed and repaired goods.
Specifically because resources were occasionally scarce and hard to come by.
What happens when the billions of the human race doubles ever more and has pulled all available resources out of the gorund ?
We wont be able to magic new resources out of thing air.
We will have to manage with what we have.
Up front, a week seems too short....but three weeks for a season feels too long.
The devs will trial it, and hopefully we'll be able to see in alpha/beta what the actual months system 'feels' like, or how it works, or what issues there might actually be prior to launch.
I do however feel that I have to comment on the last post by Grisu....
You have some fantastic points, such as
<blockquote><div class="d4p-bbp-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/seaons-should-take-more-than-a-week-one-month-a-whole-year-in-game/page/2/#post-27843">Grisu wrote:</a></div><scratches head irritated>
3 weeks without any new supplies? That’s already mid-length planning level on a standart basis, 80% of the playerbase doesn’t even think about the day to day or time of day situation. They are not bothered with profits, and why would they, they just want to get rid of some stuff, or need some stuff. Having everything dragged out to 4xtimes, like people propose, will achieve the opposite, it will get stale and stiff because the” change” is slow and lasts long.
</blockquote>
Yup, people are naturally lazy, and have been conditioned over the last few decades to have shorter and shorter attention spans, we neither want current players to get bored nor new players to be shut out of certain crafting materials or content for too long.
However, and please don't take this the wrong way as it's meant kindly....
<blockquote><div class="d4p-bbp-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/seaons-should-take-more-than-a-week-one-month-a-whole-year-in-game/page/2/#post-27843">Grisu wrote:</a></div><scratches head irritated>
Now, take your time and grasp the full, half known picture we know right now and have an actual conversation about it, not just a short sighted rant.
</blockquote>
... but this didn't come across as kindly as you probably meant it to be.
< In the: lets give them credit that the devs have thought about it and wait until we can give it a go camp, If you need me, I'll be the one on the fence
If the length of time is short, the impact is small, if the length is long the up and down of will be very extreme.
If the season are mid to long then there might be nomadic tendencies for financial driven players. An mass movement of populations between nodes bringing a further dynamic.
Players / Clans that horde materials can play the market on a broader scale if seasons varied across ZoI's.
Players that want things "now" will be at the whim of the market!
<img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/sfUI41HOswIQmtMpUVeFbjq6tVbsrBjtsiNS1lJylp-V5UEeFGnNXKPnRS9Dk9LHFGSlY1FD_owHTis=w1680-h982-rw" alt="" />
Also, Grisu, I should reiterate, what I was trying to state. Too long, a month or more, would have a very large significant impact. I agree with that, it would be much too long of a time frame for that. I believe a 2 week period would seem more appropriate, 1 week feels too quick, 3 weeks a little too long. As for the fine-tuning, I did mean fine tuning the mechanic during the alpha, and beta phases of the game. I should have more clearly stated that.
<img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/sfUI41HOswIQmtMpUVeFbjq6tVbsrBjtsiNS1lJylp-V5UEeFGnNXKPnRS9Dk9LHFGSlY1FD_owHTis=w1680-h982-rw" alt="" />
</blockquote>
I'm leaning more towards 3 weeks to 2 weeks taking into account impact on players.
Your link is broken for me.