Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
About the time between seasons...
ArchivedUser
Guest
---
There have been some concerns in the past as to how long a season should be. Currently, as it stands, we know the plan is for seasons to rotate once a week. A season offers content changes, and things like needing to switch to different crops for the season—which was the reason for the timeframe I was given when I'd asked Steven personally about it. He also said they'd playtest it to see how it goes. We've been given examples such as caravan routes switching up and events happening differently due to the season the world is currently in.
My long-standing concern with the seasons has been that they aren't long enough at one week. You'd only just be able to get used to a season being there before it's gone. I believe from an immersion standpoint it's too short. The point I want to make when it comes to immersion is that a week doesn't allow for a season to really feel "lived in" from a player perspective, it would feel very transitory. If there's a winter-unique pathway and you can only travel along it for seven days before it's gone, it doesn't feel like a true "season" so much as a week-long event. The other aspect of this is that the seasons will probably lose their appeal much more quickly. One can't exactly feel like the concept of "spring coming after winter" is particularly meaningful if you hardly felt winter was there to begin with.
From a gameplay-based standpoint, this also might be a concern for the more casual player, who may only be able to play a couple times a week—or even the more dedicated player who doesn't have a lot of time on their hands in a particular timeframe. Logging in right after the beginning of a season, once after that, and then it switching to a new season would likely feel very jarring and like they'd missed out on a lot of content—Which seems harsh for just a week's worth of time. It's something only the frequent players would really capitalize on, if you need to factor in different crops, mobs, caravan routes, and so-on. The switch to new content and challenges also won't feel meaningful if it's so briefly there, a player can just think "Well, I'll wait a few weeks and it'll be back." Or, if a specific season inconveniences them: "I'll just ignore it for a few days and it'll be back to normal.".
Effectively, you end up with a situation in which you can only say "Winter's coming" for a few days, and then it's immediately "Spring's coming.".
---
My personal suggestion would be to consider longer timeframes for the seasonal switches, such as a month-per-season.
This might look like:
- Spring — January, May, September
- Summer — February, June, October
- Autumn — March, July, November
- Winter — April, August, December
From a farming aspect, this also means that crops would fluctuate meaningfully. There may not be as much of Crop A in the winter, but there might be plenty of Crop B. This would shift multiple times a year, and could be something both farmers and traders plan for. A couple weeks isn't likely long enough for that to be felt in the same way.
Ultimately, I do think Ashes may benefit more from having a lengthier time period between season switches and that considering it may be worthwhile. Let me know what you think!
0
Comments
- MEANINGFUL IMPACT: This isn't so much a new point, on it's own, but I want to expand on it. SO MUCH of ashes is set up so wonderfully to reward and encourage player agency. So many of us can effect change in our game world, by doing so many different things! However, all change takes time. If a new season every week is any indicator of the pace at which such changes will occur, then I fear the standard it sets for the rest of the game. Node sieges have been talked about as happening on monthly cycles. Node development has been talked about as a long ongoing process requiring commitment and dedication of it's population. The economy, gear maintenance, trade routes - ALL of these things are subject to change both on short term notice, AND longterm effects. PVP is going to be the fast paced energetic force for change in the world. It will be frenetic, sporadic, and will carve out the fate of entire cities... Seasons, therefore, could be emphasized and given a more meaningful presence by providing a slower and more uncontrolled set of variables to contrast the staccato of player interactions. The OP said it best: "winter is coming" has lessened meaning when spring is less than five or six 2/3 hour game play sessions away for even the most committed working player.
- IMMERSION: I want to lead with the following statement - I understand that change is the lifeblood of the dynamic nature of Ashes of Creation. I understand that players in northern regions who are forced to contend with wintry conditions for inhumane lengths of the year would hate to have to contend with those conditions for those same lengths during their escape into the truly magnificent locales that the talented and passionate environment artists at Intrepid are creating for us. That being said, I have to ask ONE question: "What is the in-game lore to explain a winter that lasts the span of one week?" If whatever 'Calamity' forced our ancestors off of Verra also has forced the planet's weather and very seasons to fluctuate to such a severe degree, then awesome! If magic/corruption/the Calamity is the cause, then we as players do not need to concern ourselves with how quickly flora and fauna grow, live, and die... our characters simply need to adapt. However, if the sole reason for the seasons of Verra lasting a singular week, each, is a desire to institute more dynamic gameplay - a reason which, while valid, fails to uphold the illusion of Verra as a living world where every character's actions have meaning, and all actions have the potential to effect change. If, every week, entire dungeons and paths are wiped out of the world; If, every week, new creatures are spawning/not spawning; content is locking/unlocking; If, every week, the face of Verra is being so dramatically changed, How can the little changes that I work to cause feel the same? Everything I do becomes overshadowed by a global event that will be gone before I have the time to SIGNIFICANTLY capitalize on it.
All in all, I recognize that this is perhaps a MASSIVE ask, but since this thread now exists, I KNOW I am not alone in my concerns over it. I will be happy no matter what the decision, and I will continue to support the amazing and inspiring work the Intrepid team is producing. That being said, even lengthening the seasons to a period of not one, but just two weeks would produce significantly more broad and distinctive effects within the global economy/gameplay flow/and production of goods, as well as lend itself to a more varied rhythm of gameplay!Edit: I'll just add for clarification—I think that it's important to give feedback on something, even if they're just initial reactions. They can be important, just as they might be something to brush aside and not consider. I walked into this knowing very well it could fall into either camp.
Thank you for giving your feedback though! Like I said I want people to share their thoughts. Is there anything in particular about a one-week cycle that you like the most? I'd be interesting in hearing what you think about it too.
By all means, I encourage dissent in this thread. I encourage people to disgree with eachother. The only important thing to remember is that no one (not you, not me, no one "for," and no one "against") at all, knows "better/best."
Without the playtest data that Intrepid, themselves, have publicly stated they are looking at that pertains to this feature, no one of us could make any truly informed decision about the optimal seasonal length, at all. The only thing we can do is go on the record, here on the forums, and provide feedback for Intrepid to consider when weighing the pros or cons of lengthening the seasonal shifts.
And, as a final note, as far as I can tell, Voidshadow's use of the word "Everyone" was meant to apply to the collection of members whom have discussed and commented on their opinions regarding the topic of this thread, rather than the community at large, seeing as such a claim would be bold and baseless without any sort of metric to back it.
TLDR: If you feel differently about the points raised thus far, I implore you to talk with us and explain your point of view so that we can all come to a greater understanding of what we, as a community, want out of the Seasonal Cycle in Ashes of Creation.
Intrepid has already stated they will be playtesting this feature, and since they have repeatedly stated that they wish to be transparent and engage with the community, it does no one any good to keep their opinions silent.
I invite/implore any and ALL dissenters to make their feelings known so that we can have an open and honest discussion about how we'd all like to see the game we've come to love watch grow... well, grow.
That being said, if they are going to plan in-game and rl holidays around the schedule, it'll have to be divisible into 52 (number of weeks in a year) by a multiple of 4 (number of seasons) that way they can have the same cycle every year. This would leave 1 week as the only multiple unfortunately. However, with a little work, they could move the holidays around a little here and there or make a season a month.
It boils down to short but reliable and easy vs month long (long) seasons vs something in the middle that'd require management but would probably give the best pacing for the game.
Regardless of product type, a product that is designed and produced by actual professionals in their field - without the hindrance of the general public and it's whims - will almost always be far superior to a product designed by people that are taking in to account the differing, often conflicting opinions of the masses.
The thing that attracts me to Ashes the most is the notion that Steven and Intrepid have their vision, and the opinions of us - the unwashed masses - won't factor in to it too much.
That said, we all still have opinions, and are free to post them.
Intrepid won't change their mind on something based solely on a post, so posting opinions can't hurt the game.
So with that said, my opinions...
For me, there are three major considerations to take in to account with season implementation. There is the effect they have on the economy, there is the effect they have on in game events, and then there is their implementation in relation to each areas location in Verra.
For economy, if there are going to be some products that can only be produced in a given season, month long seasons are not feasible. That would see the game be without that product for three months at a time. On the other hand, if at most there are products that can only be produced in two seasons, or that are unable to be produced in a single season, then month long seasons are fine.
As to events, it is a serious pet hate of mine for games to celebrate seasons (or have season themed celebrations) when the in game calendar is telling us it is a different season to the one being celebrated. This will be even more pronounced in a game like Ashes with in game seasons not just having a visual impact, but also with systems that will change based on seasons.
I remember posting on the EQNext forums about exactly how long an in game day should last. Using the known Norrathian calendar, and it's four year cycle, I calculated exactly how long each day needed to be - down to the second - in order for the in game calendar and it's events like Christmas and Halloween to best match up with our calendar.
Lastly, location. I don't want to see the whole of Verra covered in snow in winter. This would actually be stupid in my opinion - as in reality only about 10% of the world has seasonal snow like this.
I'd like to see alpine regions covered in snow three months of the year, but tropical regions shouldn't even have a winter or summer.
To really drive home the immersion factor, I'd like to see Intrepid have an equatorial region in Verra that only has a wet and dry season, with the seasons above and below this region having opposite seasons - so while it is summer in the north it is winter in the south. I've seen games try and explain away having single seasons at a time over the whole game world, but other than "because magic", all explanations I've seen actually explain away any basis for seasons to exist at all.
As a bonus, if there is a north and south with differing seasons, and if there are products that can only be grown in a given season, the additional seasonal trade routes that opens up would be awesome.
After all of that, I guess I don't have a preferred length of season as yet, as there are other things I'd like to be taken in to consideration in regards to seasons more than just how long the last.
I think it should be close to real time events.
Here's a list of things I'm referencing.
Economy-
I completely agree, and three months without something might be very severe and they might have to design around it, such as alternating when things are available or something being able to be made for multiple seasons (2 or 3). The economy in this is definitely a huge concern, and as you said—waiting multiple months for something to hit the market again is just so severe it would need to be thought out extremely well. You have a very strong point there.
Location + Seasons in general-
Steven has mentioned that certain areas won't have much seasonal change at all because—as you said—not all of the world has seasonal changes like that, and that certain events can impact the weather and make them "stay" as something in a region.
So we might get perma-winter in an area because of an event, or we might get perma-summer in an area because of the results of an event. The example given was that a winter dragon might spawn and if the players don't defeat it it will make it stay winter. Depending on how wide-spanning that effect is, we might end up with a lengthy time of there being winter in a part of the world anyway—which was a point I was trying to think on some with my original post. "If we can screw around with the weather to potentially make an area stay perma-winter if we lose, would a longer season—if it was planned for—be out of character? Would it ruin the game?"
Events-
We do know that there seem to be IRL holidays that match up to IRL times planned.
I completely agree about the "pet hate" of seasonal events/holidays just not matching up at all, and I think the one-season-a-week thing makes it impossible for them to match up without some finagling of some sort. We're either going to be rolling through multiple seasons during a Winter Holidays event (such as holiday decorations being up for an entire rotation of Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter), or they'll have to do something to make it stay the season they intend during the event.
As to concerns of items not being able to be grown for months... well that's how the market works. You could grow strawberries in spring and summer and they'd sell cheap then you could dry them and sell them over the winter for a premium. Or at least I hope that is an option, because if they go through the effort of having seasonal fruits then I really hope they have quality degradation. Things should need to be preserved to be sold in off-seasons. Maybe have migratory animals that only show up during certain seasons and require the meat to be preserved to sell during their migration period.
On top of this, I hope that each zone has a temperature category. This way perhaps we can continue to grow many crops in warmer areas during fall and winter. Plus we've seen a greenhouse skin so maybe they'll add those as a functional building for farming. The only thing that should change is price... and that is a really good thing. This is how you have an economy. You have people that specialize in certain product, including off-season production. Supply goes down, price goes up... same inverted.
I really would love to see a temperate climate producing exotic fruits and shipping them to colder areas for big money. I'd also love to see colder areas breeding animals and shipping animal pelts to those warmer areas. All in all I think having different temperature zones would be the best thing. This way some zones could farm longer and others could specialize in things found in the extreme cold/hot.
Item preservation was what I was considering as well with it. The ideal scenario is that there'd be plenty of [insert spring/summer crop here] during Winter, it might just be priced up a bit. Not to mention, some areas may be able to make the stuff all year round. A hotter climate might always be able to make summer crops. A colder climate might always be able to make autumn crops. The idea wouldn't be "bankrupt the market of all of this crop during the off-seasons". Worst case scenario, someone might have to travel to a different part of the map to get fruit that can't be grown in their climate if their local market doesn't have it. And think of how much that'd sell for if they brought a lot of it back!
I think adding more phases to the seasons might complicate things a bit—like you said it requires a lot of extra work. It'd make the transitions feel nicer and less sudden, but it means that they'd have to consider twice the amount of phases. And even if it's just aesthetic changes, that is quite the amount of work. We do also have to factor in that not every place in the world will be feeling the effects of the seasons much, so the increments for a lot of areas might be totally ignored aside from the extremes of things like Cold/Not-As-Cold or Dry/Wet.
It would definitely be nice to see stuff like the ice having just melted and everything is brown and gray before the leaves/grass start growing—or there being frost on the ground in some places in a Fall-Winter transition period. But I think in that respect gameplay and design elements that don't stress the level design team might have to trump immersion.
I do like the general idea of it, though!
+Three months of Summer.
Yeah so.. regardless of how long a year is in-game you'll be spending a quarter of RL year in each season. Whether a season is 1 week, 2 weeks, a month, 3 months, etc only affects how long an in-game year is. Guess what, whether a year lasts a month, 2 months, or 4 months if a crop takes 1 month in-game time to grow... it'll still take 1 month.
So if a year is a month and a season is a week (rl) a month could be a day (ugh this pacing is way too fast) it'll take a crop an hour to grow.
Now if a year is 2 months, a season 2 weeks, and a month could be 2 days (still a little fast imo) a crop could take 2 hours to grow.
Now if a year is 4 months, a season a month, and a month could be half a week. It could take the same crop 6 hours to grow.
See, when the pacing is set you can set everything else around that. Increase a season, make seasonal produce take longer. Make it take longer for animals to reproduce and grow to adulthood. Everything can be set to the in-game clock. This controls the market and the economy.
But yes, I would love month long seasons myself.
Lots of interesting ideas/viewpoints overall, though! It's really interesting to see what different thoughts people have on it with what we know so far—hopefully when we learn more we can get a better idea of what it is that they have planned for is when it comes to seasons overall.
A good point.
All in all, both Intrepid and the testers will have a better sense of the seasons once we get stuck into alpha and beta. I am positive that Intrepid will make the right decision after it has been tested with the community,