I would assume the reason we know little about the Tulnar, bard and summoner are because they are less straight forward.
All we know about all other classes and races are generic things that are the same in every game, book and movie, so it isn't surprising that we know what we do about them, and don't know what we don't know about the rest.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2019
Well... also, the Tulnar are a stretch goal, so, there should be no surprise there's not much info about them, yet.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I still don't see the point.
People keep asking for more information. There was some indication they want information that may not be 100%. (See quote at end)
That seems counter intuitive to marketing and open development.
Why show a bunch of maybes? It makes them look like they don't have a good concept when it changes, gets scrapped, or otherwise goes against what most players expect (rightfully or not).
Well, that is the stance of closed development - why show a bunch of maybes?
Shortly after Maggie came on board, she announced that IS is moving more towards closed development.
I think, though, that she was hoping at the time that she and Toast could provide a more steady stream of new MMORPG info each month - like articles about classes and crafting and... Nodes.
Personally, I'd be happy even with more advanced info each month about the Castle Siege class kits, but we can't even get that. Delay on Nodes 3 to wait for a tech demo using in-game footage of the actual MMORPG map is fine, but a 5 month delay on a Divine Nodes article is problematic. That's just waiting on Steven's approval.
Ashes was supposed to release before 2020. Revamping network code should not cause such a huge a delay in creating models for Dwarfs, Elves and Orcs that they aren't available yet. I don't agree that we should need to wait for Alpha or Beta to see those models in action - or to have them available in Apoc.
And, that's an example of something that doesn't have to be at 100%. Even if we don't get to play with the models yet, if IS were being transparent, we should be able to see working models of the base races now.
(I guess we have about 6 weeks to still be "before 2020", but...)
The dev team apparently feels that showing us models of mobs and allowing us to play as Humans in the BR is enough transparency for now.
While I think it's awesome that we are able to play with some of the game assets now - more than I can say for several other MMORPGs at this stage of development - the MMORPG has been fairly stuck at the same point for about a year (in terms of transparency - we aren't really experience much that is new, besides the fix to the networking code and some relatively minor tweaks to gameplay).
What Steven has learned of the past couple of years is the difference in perspective of what players want for transparency and the perspective of how much transparency is healthy from a dev/production perspective.
There was way too much unrealistic hype when Steven first announced this game and he only accepted that back in Feb 2019.
Learning curve.
Development of this game is going to be considerably slower and significantly less transparent than we originally thought. It's not as easy as Steven originally thought.
We just need to adjust our expectations accordingly.
6
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I still don't see the point.
People keep asking for more information. There was some indication they want information that may not be 100%. (See quote at end)
That seems counter intuitive to marketing and open development.
Why show a bunch of maybes? It makes them look like they don't have a good concept when it changes, gets scrapped, or otherwise goes against what most players expect (rightfully or not).
Well, that is the stance of closed development - why show a bunch of maybes?
Shortly after Maggie came on board, she announced that IS is moving more towards closed development.
I think, though, that she was hoping at the time that she and Toast could provide a more steady stream of new MMORPG info each month - like articles about classes and crafting and... Nodes.
Personally, I'd be happy even with more advanced info each month about the Castle Siege class kits, but we can't even get that. Delay on Nodes 3 to wait for a tech demo using in-game footage of the actual MMORPG map is fine, but a 5 month delay on a Divine Nodes article is problematic. That's just waiting on Steven's approval.
Ashes was supposed to release before 2020. Revamping network code should not cause such a huge a delay in creating models for Dwarfs, Elves and Orcs that they aren't available yet. I don't agree that we should need to wait for Alpha or Beta to see those models in action - or to have them available in Apoc.
And, that's an example of something that doesn't have to be at 100%. Even if we don't get to play with the models yet, if IS were being transparent, we should be able to see working models of the base races now.
(I guess we have about 6 weeks to still be "before 2020", but...)
The dev team apparently feels that showing us models of mobs and allowing us to play as Humans in the BR is enough transparency for now.
While I think it's awesome that we are able to play with some of the game assets now - more than I can say for several other MMORPGs at this stage of development - the MMORPG has been fairly stuck at the same point for about a year (in terms of transparency - we aren't really experience much that is new, besides the fix to the networking code and some relatively minor tweaks to gameplay).
What Steven has learned of the past couple of years is the difference in perspective of what players want for transparency and the perspective of how much transparency is healthy from a dev/production perspective.
There was way too much unrealistic hype when Steven first announced this game and he only accepted that back in Feb 2019.
Learning curve.
Development of this game is going to be considerably slower and significantly less transparent than we originally thought. It's not as easy as Steven originally thought.
We just need to adjust our expectations accordingly.
This person gets it. Like I said, if they need to cut back on transparency they are more than welcome to do so! But they need to come out and tell us that so we have the right expectations. What we have right now is not open development.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So yes, open development means showing aspects of the game that could change.
They did that, people got upset.
And people are wrong if they get upset over changes in a game that's under development. However, I don't recall any such instances where they showed something, then changed it and people got upset over it. Can you please give me some examples?
Intrepid released a target date for alpha and missed it, people were not happy.
Intrepid gave us a time frame for when they planned on releasing Nodes 3 and missed it, people were not happy.
People are not happy if the time frame for them getting information ends up changing - just imagine how upset they will be if that information itself changes.
Intrepid have no obligation to release information on the game itself, and there is no precedent for them to do so. It is not a factor of open development, even if some random guy on the internet (hey, that's you!) thinks it is.
We know more about Ashes now than anybody knew about WoW in 2002.
Like it or not, the only issue here is your expectations.
Those are whack examples because not one of them is an example of a game aspect that was announced and then changed which caused the public to get upset. So you lied in your initial claim that said: "They did that, people got upset". Earlier you claimed that they showed something which they then had to change and people got upset over it... and you failed to give an example of it because it never happened. Missing a deadline and changing aspects of a game that is still under development is not the same thing.
And people didn't even get that upset over them missing deadlines. Nodes 3 actually became a funny meme... I think everyone, Stephen included, understood that deadlines are not as easy to meet. But that has nothing to do with changing aspects of the game while under development.
It is not just my expectation. Please tell me exactly how the stream of information we have right now is open development. I understand that they don't live up to my definition of open development. But they don't even live up to your definition of open development. What steady stream of updates about stuff that they're working have we received? Mentioning that they are working on destruction on and off for the past few months is not open development. Have they given us a line of content that shows us exactly what the team is working on? No, we receive monthly cash cosmetics art instead.
Ashes was supposed to release before 2020. Revamping network code should not cause such a huge a delay in creating models for Dwarfs, Elves and Orcs that they aren't available yet. I don't agree that we should need to wait for Alpha or Beta to see those models in action - or to have them available in Apoc.
And, that's an example of something that doesn't have to be at 100%. Even if we don't get to play with the models yet, if IS were being transparent, we should be able to see working models of the base races now.
(I guess we have about 6 weeks to still be "before 2020", but...)
I'd like to see other races too.
Thing is, releasing a clip showing off a few races is a really good way to get various MMO "news" outlets to put out a good write up about your game - and the timing of the buzz that is generated from those articles is the only factor that should be taken in to consideration when deciding when to show those races off.
What Steven has learned of the past couple of years is the difference in perspective of what players want for transparency and the perspective of how much transparency is healthy from a dev/production perspective.
There was way too much unrealistic hype when Steven first announced this game and he only accepted that back in Feb 2019.
Learning curve.
Development of this game is going to be considerably slower and significantly less transparent than we originally thought. It's not as easy as Steven originally thought.
We just need to adjust our expectations accordingly.
This part I agree 100% with.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This person gets it. Like I said, if they need to cut back on transparency they are more than welcome to do so! But they need to come out and tell us that so we have the right expectations. What we have right now is not open development.
VarkunMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Information such as races classes will be put together in a nice article that will be pushed out as we near Alpha 1 purely as a marketing tool to push sales of Alpha 2 access and to build hype. Just makes good sense to do so, a nice steady stream of information once they have a firm idea when Alpha 1 will launch.
From a personal point of view I am fine with whatever intrepid do with either closed or open development, I am here for the long haul and the game we will get at the end of it however long that maybe.
Close your eyes spread your arms and always trust your cape.
I think the problem here is your expectations on just how much they should be showing.You say the past few months they have been just talking about cosmetics, But between news articles on the site, live streams, and a creative letter, They've been talking about whatever is currently being worked on. When we had the br on the horizon, they were showing combat animations, shore line physics, and character looks. Then they followed it up with projects further out. Like racial housing, or new animated and rigged kickstarter things. Now we've been getting destruction. Samples, different houses and skins, armor variations, and more. Even some looks into the biome that the forest map is from/inspired by. (Couldn't find the areas in the br)
Those are whack examples because not one of them is an example of a game aspect that was announced and then changed which caused the public to get upset.
There are other examples.
There are people that are upset over the change to nodes being destroyed instead of deleveled when they lose a siege is a fairly recent example. There are far fewer posts on these forums about that though, as people know that starting a thread like that will end up similar to this one.
Thing is, if you're developing a product and people get upset with you when you share a timeline and fail to meet it, the FIRST thing you do is stop sharing anything with people.
I think the problem here is your expectations on just how much they should be showing.You say the past few months they have been just talking about cosmetics, But between news articles on the site, live streams, and a creative letter, They've been talking about whatever is currently being worked on. When we had the br on the horizon, they were showing combat animations, shore line physics, and character looks. Then they followed it up with projects further out. Like racial housing, or new animated and rigged kickstarter things. Now we've been getting destruction. Samples, different houses and skins, armor variations, and more. Even some looks into the biome that the forest map is from/inspired by. (Couldn't find the areas in the br)
Here is every blog post that actually revealed something since the last ‘Know Your Nodes’ blogpost on May 23rd:
11/7/2019 - Cursed Charger design (a backer item)
10/11/2019 - Forest of Erithria map (more BR content that almost no one plays)
9/19/2019 - Tidebreaker design (a backer item)
8/9/2019 - Horse design
7/30/2019 - Short Story (Rocky Beginnings)
7/16/2019 Creative Director’s Letter (which basically only contained one new and interesting thing - a 5 minute video on the Mayoral Caravan System)
6/27/2019 - Developer Diaries Animation
6/22/2019 - Short Story (A Fell Venture)
5/28/2019 - Developer Diaries Weapon Modeling
The two backer items barely qualify as meaningful content because they are paid cosmetics which Intrepid is full of before the game released. This is especially concerning when almost every skin they have showcased the design process of is a paid cosmetic.
The Forest of Erithria map is just a map for a BR that almost no one wants, plays or likes. I understand they’ll use some of the same assets in the MMORPG, but still... when the BR flops as bad as it has why invest more resources into it?
The short stories can barely be considered meaningful content that showcases what they’ve been working on. It shows close to nothing about the development of the game.
This leaves us with the horse design video, the creative director’s letter (which basically only revealed a little bit of information the mayoral caravan system), and the two developer diaries on animation and weapon modeling.
That is almost 6 months where all we’ve received that is of meaning towards actual MMO development is those 4 things mentioned above. That’s not much at all for an open development game.
I know there’s also the monthly live-streams, which I appreciate because we get to see the team and have them talk a bit, but those also barely reveal any new information.
That’s why I made this post. Intrepid stated that they want to have open and transparent development, but in nearly 6 months we’ve barely received any meaningful progress shown.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Those are whack examples because not one of them is an example of a game aspect that was announced and then changed which caused the public to get upset.
There are other examples.
There are people that are upset over the change to nodes being destroyed instead of deleveled when they lose a siege is a fairly recent example. There are far fewer posts on these forums about that though, as people know that starting a thread like that will end up similar to this one.
Thing is, if you're developing a product and people get upset with you when you share a timeline and fail to meet it, the FIRST thing you do is stop sharing anything with people.
Shortly after Maggie came on board, she announced that IS is moving more towards closed development.
As I said, shift your expectations.
Barely anyone got upset over that. Of course some people didn’t like it, but that’s just the nature of people... they have opinions.
You’re acting like the whole community was out with pitch forks blaming Intrepid for screwing up the game. That is not a good example at all.
Please give actual examples of released content that were under development that Intrepid then changed and there was uproar form the community because of the change. Examples of actual push back not a couple joe shmoes that don’t like change because there will always be people who don’t like something no matter what Intrepid puts out.
And please stop bringing up the failed timeline because that wasn’t your initial point and it’s not the same thing. Initially you said Intrepid released content that they then changed and people got upset over the change. So please give an example of not and not of them failing to uphold a timeline. I’m starting to think you don’t know what you’re talking about and are just saying things to make a point that doesn’t exist.
That being said I'd love to have more info that I can get all my friends interested in. But those awesome tidbits aren't the main focus right now. And I'm just impatient.
Barely anyone got upset over that. Of course some people didn’t like it, but that’s just the nature of people... they have opinions.
I know three people that have said they won't play Ashes because of that change. I'm sure I'll bring two of them back, but no chance on the third.
Thing is, their reasoning is sound. They have the idea built up in their head of developing a network of supply and production. They planned to base themselves in a node and having players bring them what materials they needed from surrounding nodes.
With this change, it means that this whole system is able to be bought down with one loss in an aspect of the game they literally don't care about.
As I said, they haven't posted here because there is no point in doing that. However, just because you haven't seen people upset over a specitic change, doesn't mean there aren't still plenty of people that are.
That’s why I made this post. Intrepid stated that they want to have open and transparent development, but in nearly 6 months we’ve barely received any meaningful progress shown.
6 months... what happened a little longer than six months ago?
Barely anyone got upset over that. Of course some people didn’t like it, but that’s just the nature of people... they have opinions.
I know three people that have said they won't play Ashes because of that change. I'm sure I'll bring two of them back, but no chance on the third.
Thing is, their reasoning is sound. They have the idea built up in their head of developing a network of supply and production. They planned to base themselves in a node and having players bring them what materials they needed from surrounding nodes.
With this change, it means that this whole system is able to be bought down with one loss in an aspect of the game they literally don't care about.
As I said, they haven't posted here because there is no point in doing that. However, just because you haven't seen people upset over a specitic change, doesn't mean there aren't still plenty of people that are.
That’s why I made this post. Intrepid stated that they want to have open and transparent development, but in nearly 6 months we’ve barely received any meaningful progress shown.
6 months... what happened a little longer than six months ago?
Shortly after Maggie came on board, she announced that IS is moving more towards closed development.
You have said several times that if Intrepid said they were moving to a more closed development you'd be fine with that - they said it a while ago.
Three people means nothing. Please give examples of things that Intrepid announced and then changed and people got upset over it. Stop dodging this question because you made a bold claim stating that Intrepid has tried it and it didn't work which is why they won't release more. And I call BS on your claim. One instance and three of your buddies getting upset is not proof enough. The community as a whole was very understanding when the change was announced and there was no massive uproar like you make it out to be.
I don't actually know what happened 6 months ago. What are you referring to?
I also don't remember Margaret saying that. Just because someone said that on the forums doesn't mean you get to quote it over and over again and claim it as truth. Please show me where she actually said it and I'll believe it.
The two backer items barely qualify as meaningful content because they are paid cosmetics which Intrepid is full of before the game released. This is especially concerning when almost every skin they have showcased the design process of is a paid cosmetic.
How does it barely qualify? It's not like they were just like, "here you go we finished" we got a look at the concept, zbrush work, asset saving and manipulation, articulation points for animation, or in other words, see them actually work.
The Forest of Erithria map is just a map for a BR that almost no one wants, plays or likes. I understand they’ll use some of the same assets in the MMORPG, but still... when the BR flops as bad as it has why invest more resources into it?
They've stated repeatedly that this map was a work from the MMO. You could argue to what degree ( which is why i put either inspired by or pulled from), but to simply state it's just a map on the BR is basically saying either they are lying, or that you somehow know more about their game than they do. And some of the same assets? I get so tired of hearing the hate on the BR. Take a walk through the thing and what do you see, town layouts, small hamlets, forts, the first castles, building destruction, and various small assets (barrels, boxes, stalls) Why on earth would you think any of these would not be for the MMO, either in the same, or an edited form?
I know there’s also the monthly live-streams, which I appreciate because we get to see the team and have them talk a bit, but those also barely reveal any new information.
They have been the biggest source of new info, leaks, clarifications, and current progress. They've shown different departments work on various projects that they are actually working on. Armors, environments, buildings, (in the last two i believe we saw our first glimpses of 2 of the racial building motifs), and new animations or creatures. As i said before, they showcase what's about to come up. right now we are marching toward Castle sieges, and look what they show, siege weapons, early destruction, placeholder ui for capture points, and more. And after castle siege is out and available, i bet they'll start teasing and showing the first systems of horde mode, or the alpha 1, or maybe a mixture of both (depending on if it pans out how Steven said it might on one of the play streams)
As much as i like the DCN, i can't disagree with them more on Intrepid needing to pick either zero coms or showing off everything. Most MMO's show next to nothing in development, and when they do show things off, they are in their final phase and aren't going to be changed. WoW, SWTOR, Guild Wars, i didnt find out things of substance about them till maybe a month or or two before release. And Intrepid has chosen a path that has let me see more of the dev path than any other game i've ever been apart of pre launch. Ithink they should keep going, and do whatever they feel is in the best interest of the game.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I also don't remember Margaret saying that. Just because someone said that on the forums doesn't mean you get to quote it over and over again and claim it as truth. Please show me where she actually said it and I'll believe it.
I'll have to scroll through Discord to find those quotes. I got too much stuff to do before I fly to Portland for the weekend to attend Kumoricon 2019.
I'll try to get you the quotes before Thanksgiving.
1
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I also don't remember Margaret saying that. Just because someone said that on the forums doesn't mean you get to quote it over and over again and claim it as truth. Please show me where she actually said it and I'll believe it.
I'll have to scroll through Discord to find those quotes. I got too much stuff to do before I fly to Portland for the weekend to attend Kumoricon 2019.
I'll try to get you the quotes before Thanksgiving.
I don't actually know what happened 6 months ago. What are you referring to?
See, I have an issue here.
You admit you don't know what was happening in the community 6 months ago, yet you hold on to your opinion in the face of others telling you otherwise.
You know for a fact that there was more communication in the past, you have been told that it was stated that they were moving towards a more closed development future, and you admit you weren't following things very closely 6 months ago.
Reasonable people would say "ok, thanks, I'll go off and look in to it to see what else I've missed!".
But not you.
I would love to find you things people have been outraged over (Stuffertons, contents of early backer packs containing similar things to Kickstarter exclusive things etc), but I can't we don't have access to the old forums.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Found this while scrolling through discord archives.
If Castle Siege is about a year delayed, looks like we're pushing into 2021 for MMORPG release.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2019
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2019
01/28/2019
9:15 AM] MargaretKrohn: I have a whole bunch of cool articles, sneak peeks etc planned all the way up until May.
(Most of it got approved. Some things are getting moved around due to adjustments on the dev end, but I should have a more finalized Content Roadmap [this is an internal calendar I use to schedule and plan] this week.)
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't actually know what happened 6 months ago. What are you referring to?
See, I have an issue here.
You admit you don't know what was happening in the community 6 months ago, yet you hold on to your opinion in the face of others telling you otherwise.
You know for a fact that there was more communication in the past, you have been told that it was stated that they were moving towards a more closed development future, and you admit you weren't following things very closely 6 months ago.
Reasonable people would say "ok, thanks, I'll go off and look in to it to see what else I've missed!".
But not you.
I would love to find you things people have been outraged over (Stuffertons, contents of early backer packs containing similar things to Kickstarter exclusive things etc), but I can't we don't have access to the old forums.
You cannot be serious. The reason I said I don't know what happened 6 months ago is because I don't think anything of importance happened. 6 months ago we had the last 'Know Your Nodes' blogpost. I've been keeping up with AoC regularly since Kickstarter and watched and read every piece of content Intrepid put out there. Don't be acting smug and talk down to me like that. Tell me what actually happened that was so important.
Stuffertons was a design that people didn't like (which is reasonable) and summer packages containing things similar to Kickstarter EXCLUSIVE packages is indeed not ok because Intrepid stated that those would be Kickstarter EXCLUSIVE. But that doesn't matter at all, because you still have failed to give me a solid example of something that was under development and Intrepid released information about it and then changed it, which according to you resulted in a huge uproar from the community. Neither Stuffertons, nor the backer mishap are examples of Intrepid changing design choices. So I'm still waiting for you to give some good examples of that.
It's been like 6 comments back and forth now man and you still fail to support your claim with evidence. You really don't know what you're talking about.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2019
The current "issue" with the internal roadmap is that Steven is the stopgap.
From what I can gather, the Divine Nodes article has been written months ago, but it's still pending Steven's approval.
Nodes 3 should just be a demo, but that is over two years delayed.
Their transparency is what it is. I dunno that it matters much what they say it's going to be. We can all evaluate how transparent they have actually been during the last year and adjust our expectations.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I understand. And timelined roadmaps can be dangerous. They could still give us a roadmap of the things they are working on and things that they are planning to work on without giving actual dates. That way we know what to expect. And if things change and they need to update the roadmap they can do so, but that's what open development looks like. What we have right now is just simply not very open.
I still don't see where Margaret says that they are giving up on open development and going towards closed development.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2019
That's what not sharing an external roadmap means when we were previously given external roadmaps: the development info is now more closed than it was previously.
Notice that Margaret does not say, "The thing with releasing timelined roadmaps..." She doesn't indicate that the things that change are just dates.
She states that she doesn't want to share a roadmap externally because "things" change; not because dates change. So, we should not be expecting them to share an external roadmap.
From the Ashes dev perspective, they are doing an adequate job with being transparent. They are sharing MMORPG progress with us during the monthly dev livestreams and also posting dev diaries, like the Mayoral Caravan System.
We know that the Divine Nodes article is on the horizon, we just don't know how many more months we will have to wait for Steven to approve it.
How transparent they are is subjective.
The devs think they are being adequately transparent. Many players probably think the devs aren't being adequately transparent.
The podcast for which I am a co-host, The Ashen Forge has moved from bi-weekly to once a month - we basically try to have a show the evening of the dev stream.
The From the Ashes podcast, as of last week, stated that they are going dark indefinitely until there is more info - they aren't even willing to commit to once a month.
At this point, what matters is what they actually show us; not what they tell us.
I've said this many times before. IS should've switched to a close development after they didn't meet the before 2020 goal. That way they could focus 100% on what they needed to do and spit out updates when it was convenient for them.
It's been like 6 comments back and forth now man and you still fail to support your claim with evidence. You really don't know what you're talking about.
I can't show you posts from forums that no longer exist. You claim to have been around, yet don't remember the complaints about various things back then...
That said, I don't need to show any evidence.
You have seen the results of Intrepid shifting to a more closed development scheme and you have been provided with a statement from Intrepid that they see no point in releasing information that is still subject to change.
I assume you are able to connect these two things together.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I am of an opinion that if you are going to monetize your game, APOC in this example you are leaving door open to a full critique
1. APOC since it has been monetized should be considered as a finished product and representative of the MMO development
In this category it fails, it has been a year since the original APOC release and not much content was added to the game except the new snow map and microtransactions.
2. The rate we are getting new payed cosmetics is faster than we are getting info about the game
3. The info about the game, namely core mechanics should have been locked years ago with minor tweaks.
I mean just look at the newly announced Diablo 4 with probably 2-3 more years of develoment ahead minimum. We know far more about that game than AOC, hell we know more about WoW Shadowlands than AOC.
In conclusion, Intrepid is no longer transparent and their monetazation mechanics are predatory were this any pre-alpha game not of an MMORPG genre.
Comments
All we know about all other classes and races are generic things that are the same in every game, book and movie, so it isn't surprising that we know what we do about them, and don't know what we don't know about the rest.
Shortly after Maggie came on board, she announced that IS is moving more towards closed development.
I think, though, that she was hoping at the time that she and Toast could provide a more steady stream of new MMORPG info each month - like articles about classes and crafting and... Nodes.
Personally, I'd be happy even with more advanced info each month about the Castle Siege class kits, but we can't even get that. Delay on Nodes 3 to wait for a tech demo using in-game footage of the actual MMORPG map is fine, but a 5 month delay on a Divine Nodes article is problematic. That's just waiting on Steven's approval.
Ashes was supposed to release before 2020. Revamping network code should not cause such a huge a delay in creating models for Dwarfs, Elves and Orcs that they aren't available yet. I don't agree that we should need to wait for Alpha or Beta to see those models in action - or to have them available in Apoc.
And, that's an example of something that doesn't have to be at 100%. Even if we don't get to play with the models yet, if IS were being transparent, we should be able to see working models of the base races now.
(I guess we have about 6 weeks to still be "before 2020", but...)
The dev team apparently feels that showing us models of mobs and allowing us to play as Humans in the BR is enough transparency for now.
While I think it's awesome that we are able to play with some of the game assets now - more than I can say for several other MMORPGs at this stage of development - the MMORPG has been fairly stuck at the same point for about a year (in terms of transparency - we aren't really experience much that is new, besides the fix to the networking code and some relatively minor tweaks to gameplay).
What Steven has learned of the past couple of years is the difference in perspective of what players want for transparency and the perspective of how much transparency is healthy from a dev/production perspective.
There was way too much unrealistic hype when Steven first announced this game and he only accepted that back in Feb 2019.
Learning curve.
Development of this game is going to be considerably slower and significantly less transparent than we originally thought. It's not as easy as Steven originally thought.
We just need to adjust our expectations accordingly.
This person gets it. Like I said, if they need to cut back on transparency they are more than welcome to do so! But they need to come out and tell us that so we have the right expectations. What we have right now is not open development.
Those are whack examples because not one of them is an example of a game aspect that was announced and then changed which caused the public to get upset. So you lied in your initial claim that said: "They did that, people got upset". Earlier you claimed that they showed something which they then had to change and people got upset over it... and you failed to give an example of it because it never happened. Missing a deadline and changing aspects of a game that is still under development is not the same thing.
And people didn't even get that upset over them missing deadlines. Nodes 3 actually became a funny meme... I think everyone, Stephen included, understood that deadlines are not as easy to meet. But that has nothing to do with changing aspects of the game while under development.
It is not just my expectation. Please tell me exactly how the stream of information we have right now is open development. I understand that they don't live up to my definition of open development. But they don't even live up to your definition of open development. What steady stream of updates about stuff that they're working have we received? Mentioning that they are working on destruction on and off for the past few months is not open development. Have they given us a line of content that shows us exactly what the team is working on? No, we receive monthly cash cosmetics art instead.
Edit: word
Thing is, releasing a clip showing off a few races is a really good way to get various MMO "news" outlets to put out a good write up about your game - and the timing of the buzz that is generated from those articles is the only factor that should be taken in to consideration when deciding when to show those races off. This part I agree 100% with.
Wow!
@Dygz and I just solved this entire thread.
From a personal point of view I am fine with whatever intrepid do with either closed or open development, I am here for the long haul and the game we will get at the end of it however long that maybe.
There are people that are upset over the change to nodes being destroyed instead of deleveled when they lose a siege is a fairly recent example. There are far fewer posts on these forums about that though, as people know that starting a thread like that will end up similar to this one.
Thing is, if you're developing a product and people get upset with you when you share a timeline and fail to meet it, the FIRST thing you do is stop sharing anything with people.
That is what Intrepid have done.
As I said, shift your expectations.
Here is every blog post that actually revealed something since the last ‘Know Your Nodes’ blogpost on May 23rd:
11/7/2019 - Cursed Charger design (a backer item)
10/11/2019 - Forest of Erithria map (more BR content that almost no one plays)
9/19/2019 - Tidebreaker design (a backer item)
8/9/2019 - Horse design
7/30/2019 - Short Story (Rocky Beginnings)
7/16/2019 Creative Director’s Letter (which basically only contained one new and interesting thing - a 5 minute video on the Mayoral Caravan System)
6/27/2019 - Developer Diaries Animation
6/22/2019 - Short Story (A Fell Venture)
5/28/2019 - Developer Diaries Weapon Modeling
The two backer items barely qualify as meaningful content because they are paid cosmetics which Intrepid is full of before the game released. This is especially concerning when almost every skin they have showcased the design process of is a paid cosmetic.
The Forest of Erithria map is just a map for a BR that almost no one wants, plays or likes. I understand they’ll use some of the same assets in the MMORPG, but still... when the BR flops as bad as it has why invest more resources into it?
The short stories can barely be considered meaningful content that showcases what they’ve been working on. It shows close to nothing about the development of the game.
This leaves us with the horse design video, the creative director’s letter (which basically only revealed a little bit of information the mayoral caravan system), and the two developer diaries on animation and weapon modeling.
That is almost 6 months where all we’ve received that is of meaning towards actual MMO development is those 4 things mentioned above. That’s not much at all for an open development game.
I know there’s also the monthly live-streams, which I appreciate because we get to see the team and have them talk a bit, but those also barely reveal any new information.
That’s why I made this post. Intrepid stated that they want to have open and transparent development, but in nearly 6 months we’ve barely received any meaningful progress shown.
Barely anyone got upset over that. Of course some people didn’t like it, but that’s just the nature of people... they have opinions.
You’re acting like the whole community was out with pitch forks blaming Intrepid for screwing up the game. That is not a good example at all.
Please give actual examples of released content that were under development that Intrepid then changed and there was uproar form the community because of the change. Examples of actual push back not a couple joe shmoes that don’t like change because there will always be people who don’t like something no matter what Intrepid puts out.
And please stop bringing up the failed timeline because that wasn’t your initial point and it’s not the same thing. Initially you said Intrepid released content that they then changed and people got upset over the change. So please give an example of not and not of them failing to uphold a timeline. I’m starting to think you don’t know what you’re talking about and are just saying things to make a point that doesn’t exist.
Thing is, their reasoning is sound. They have the idea built up in their head of developing a network of supply and production. They planned to base themselves in a node and having players bring them what materials they needed from surrounding nodes.
With this change, it means that this whole system is able to be bought down with one loss in an aspect of the game they literally don't care about.
As I said, they haven't posted here because there is no point in doing that. However, just because you haven't seen people upset over a specitic change, doesn't mean there aren't still plenty of people that are. 6 months... what happened a little longer than six months ago?
Oh yeah! You have said several times that if Intrepid said they were moving to a more closed development you'd be fine with that - they said it a while ago.
Three people means nothing. Please give examples of things that Intrepid announced and then changed and people got upset over it. Stop dodging this question because you made a bold claim stating that Intrepid has tried it and it didn't work which is why they won't release more. And I call BS on your claim. One instance and three of your buddies getting upset is not proof enough. The community as a whole was very understanding when the change was announced and there was no massive uproar like you make it out to be.
I don't actually know what happened 6 months ago. What are you referring to?
I also don't remember Margaret saying that. Just because someone said that on the forums doesn't mean you get to quote it over and over again and claim it as truth. Please show me where she actually said it and I'll believe it.
They've stated repeatedly that this map was a work from the MMO. You could argue to what degree ( which is why i put either inspired by or pulled from), but to simply state it's just a map on the BR is basically saying either they are lying, or that you somehow know more about their game than they do. And some of the same assets? I get so tired of hearing the hate on the BR. Take a walk through the thing and what do you see, town layouts, small hamlets, forts, the first castles, building destruction, and various small assets (barrels, boxes, stalls) Why on earth would you think any of these would not be for the MMO, either in the same, or an edited form?
They have been the biggest source of new info, leaks, clarifications, and current progress. They've shown different departments work on various projects that they are actually working on. Armors, environments, buildings, (in the last two i believe we saw our first glimpses of 2 of the racial building motifs), and new animations or creatures. As i said before, they showcase what's about to come up. right now we are marching toward Castle sieges, and look what they show, siege weapons, early destruction, placeholder ui for capture points, and more. And after castle siege is out and available, i bet they'll start teasing and showing the first systems of horde mode, or the alpha 1, or maybe a mixture of both (depending on if it pans out how Steven said it might on one of the play streams)
As much as i like the DCN, i can't disagree with them more on Intrepid needing to pick either zero coms or showing off everything. Most MMO's show next to nothing in development, and when they do show things off, they are in their final phase and aren't going to be changed. WoW, SWTOR, Guild Wars, i didnt find out things of substance about them till maybe a month or or two before release. And Intrepid has chosen a path that has let me see more of the dev path than any other game i've ever been apart of pre launch. Ithink they should keep going, and do whatever they feel is in the best interest of the game.
I'll try to get you the quotes before Thanksgiving.
Thank you. I would really appreciate that.
You admit you don't know what was happening in the community 6 months ago, yet you hold on to your opinion in the face of others telling you otherwise.
You know for a fact that there was more communication in the past, you have been told that it was stated that they were moving towards a more closed development future, and you admit you weren't following things very closely 6 months ago.
Reasonable people would say "ok, thanks, I'll go off and look in to it to see what else I've missed!".
But not you.
I would love to find you things people have been outraged over (Stuffertons, contents of early backer packs containing similar things to Kickstarter exclusive things etc), but I can't we don't have access to the old forums.
Found this while scrolling through discord archives.
If Castle Siege is about a year delayed, looks like we're pushing into 2021 for MMORPG release.
9:15 AM] MargaretKrohn: I have a whole bunch of cool articles, sneak peeks etc planned all the way up until May.
(Most of it got approved. Some things are getting moved around due to adjustments on the dev end, but I should have a more finalized Content Roadmap [this is an internal calendar I use to schedule and plan] this week.)
You cannot be serious. The reason I said I don't know what happened 6 months ago is because I don't think anything of importance happened. 6 months ago we had the last 'Know Your Nodes' blogpost. I've been keeping up with AoC regularly since Kickstarter and watched and read every piece of content Intrepid put out there. Don't be acting smug and talk down to me like that. Tell me what actually happened that was so important.
Stuffertons was a design that people didn't like (which is reasonable) and summer packages containing things similar to Kickstarter EXCLUSIVE packages is indeed not ok because Intrepid stated that those would be Kickstarter EXCLUSIVE. But that doesn't matter at all, because you still have failed to give me a solid example of something that was under development and Intrepid released information about it and then changed it, which according to you resulted in a huge uproar from the community. Neither Stuffertons, nor the backer mishap are examples of Intrepid changing design choices. So I'm still waiting for you to give some good examples of that.
It's been like 6 comments back and forth now man and you still fail to support your claim with evidence. You really don't know what you're talking about.
From what I can gather, the Divine Nodes article has been written months ago, but it's still pending Steven's approval.
Nodes 3 should just be a demo, but that is over two years delayed.
Their transparency is what it is. I dunno that it matters much what they say it's going to be. We can all evaluate how transparent they have actually been during the last year and adjust our expectations.
I understand. And timelined roadmaps can be dangerous. They could still give us a roadmap of the things they are working on and things that they are planning to work on without giving actual dates. That way we know what to expect. And if things change and they need to update the roadmap they can do so, but that's what open development looks like. What we have right now is just simply not very open.
I still don't see where Margaret says that they are giving up on open development and going towards closed development.
Notice that Margaret does not say, "The thing with releasing timelined roadmaps..." She doesn't indicate that the things that change are just dates.
She states that she doesn't want to share a roadmap externally because "things" change; not because dates change. So, we should not be expecting them to share an external roadmap.
From the Ashes dev perspective, they are doing an adequate job with being transparent. They are sharing MMORPG progress with us during the monthly dev livestreams and also posting dev diaries, like the Mayoral Caravan System.
We know that the Divine Nodes article is on the horizon, we just don't know how many more months we will have to wait for Steven to approve it.
How transparent they are is subjective.
The devs think they are being adequately transparent. Many players probably think the devs aren't being adequately transparent.
The podcast for which I am a co-host, The Ashen Forge has moved from bi-weekly to once a month - we basically try to have a show the evening of the dev stream.
The From the Ashes podcast, as of last week, stated that they are going dark indefinitely until there is more info - they aren't even willing to commit to once a month.
At this point, what matters is what they actually show us; not what they tell us.
That said, I don't need to show any evidence.
You have seen the results of Intrepid shifting to a more closed development scheme and you have been provided with a statement from Intrepid that they see no point in releasing information that is still subject to change.
I assume you are able to connect these two things together.
1. APOC since it has been monetized should be considered as a finished product and representative of the MMO development
In this category it fails, it has been a year since the original APOC release and not much content was added to the game except the new snow map and microtransactions.
2. The rate we are getting new payed cosmetics is faster than we are getting info about the game
3. The info about the game, namely core mechanics should have been locked years ago with minor tweaks.
I mean just look at the newly announced Diablo 4 with probably 2-3 more years of develoment ahead minimum. We know far more about that game than AOC, hell we know more about WoW Shadowlands than AOC.
In conclusion, Intrepid is no longer transparent and their monetazation mechanics are predatory were this any pre-alpha game not of an MMORPG genre.