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!

How long do you want major patches to be?

MarzzoMarzzo Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
How long would you like major content patches to be? For example. The latest patch just released and we have a new raid, new dungeons, new content etc. How long would you like for it to stay?

Personally I like a 4-6 months between major patches so that my progress feels relevant during alonger time.

What do you think, how long between major patches (Not expansions etc, just new major pve/pvp content.
«1

Comments

  • I just want the world to always have interesting stuff to do. So content updates not happening only when people feel they've done everything and waiting for more to do - waiting for the 'next expansion'.
  • MeowsedMeowsed Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    As short as possible? Content patches don't last a long time because players need more time to get through all of the content. Rather it just takes a long time to make new content that isn't garbage. I can't imagine a world in which players ask for content patches to slow down.

    Btw, artificial grinds for various rewards, cosmetic or otherwise, do not count as content. From my experience there is only a week's worth (10-20 hours) of normal-difficulty content in most content patches. Hard raids that take time to prog through last another few weeks. And then people just spend 2+ months grinding old content for gear or cosmetics, or doing everything again on alts, until the next patch hits. So even for people who are looking to experience everything on multiple classes, I think a content patch would only last for 1-2 months if you took out all of the needless grinding.

    And I don't think any MMO developers (Intrepid included) are capable of putting out a decently-sized content patch every month. So I think you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone who wants slower content releases in AoC, even if Intrepid rushes out content as fast as possible.

    People might want higher-quality content, which takes longer to make, but they'll never ask for less content.
    Mega troll frmr1cq9w89im2.jpg
  • CorpierCorpier Member
    edited March 2020
    It depends. Some MMOs have major patches coincide with game changing alterations to mechanics like buffing/nerfing cycles, meta shifts, or increases in level cap. If all major patches in Ashes are going to bring is new content, then I would love for major patches to be as frequent as possible while keeping up quality. However, if every major patch is going to be a mad scramble to regain the relative power players had in a previous patch, then I would prefer not to be grinding to the new level cap, changing class, or regearing every couple of months.
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    DLC expansions (post-launch releases) are planned on a quarterly basis.[1]

    DLC will not cost anything more than the normal subscription.[2][3]
    Because of the modularity of a lot of the systems that we're working on, it's not too hard to iterate and implement new things... We're planning on going on a quarterly/ monthly cycle to continue to push out new content.[4] – Jeffrey Bard

    The quarterly cycle for the big content is good for us and then, as you said, those modular components to our mechanisms in the game allow for us to introduce smaller content patches that can be seen in real time in the world.[4] – Steven Sharif

    We don't intend to a wordsmith around future charge for DLC content. As a subscription model, that's part of the agreement between us as a Studio and you guys: That there will be regularly scheduled updates and chapters; and that subscription is what allows you to access that content.[5] – Steven Sharif
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    For me, the idea situation with is to have the quarterly content additions that they are planning, but have the bulk of the content for each patch on a rotating system.

    If one patch focuses on group content, with a small amount of crafting, raid, PvP and naval combat, then the next patch should focus on PvP, with a small amount of the rest, then raid with a small amount of the rest, then crafting with a small amount of the rest etc.
  • DamoklesDamokles Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Do you know the Living World mechanic in GW2? That.
    roaaztC.gif
  • IshkaIshka Member
    The longest possible in my case, but if I need to specify, it would be like 8 or 10 months, if the content is plentiful, to be sure to make everything (that is possible to do of course). I like to experience everything I can before going to the next part of it.
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    @Ishka You realize that content will be different server to server? That depending on the choices made, some servers may never see certain content appear, and even on your particular server you may never gain access to certain events, dungeons, and raids due to pure distance from your "home base", node politics, and people just blocking others from content by killing anyone who approaches their node? People with the completionist or themepark linear mentality are going to have a rough go of it is my prediction.
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • IshkaIshka Member
    edited March 2020
    @unknownsystemerror Yeah I know, thanks for the reminder, I already had that kind of thoughts long ago lol, it's not like I am able to"clear a game" even with nowadays MMOs anyway xD, it's just that I like going in this way and in this particular case : what the server has to offer me.

    In any cases, I think I will like AOC, and obviously it won't be like other mmos, I will just adapt my way of playing according to how I want to interact with the server's content & progression. If I was stuck in the "themepark" mentality (the way I understand themepark at least). I would not be here °°
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    Every 10 months pay 20-40 dollars or so to get the next upgrade in order for your account to be accessible.

    1 "new town+ castle"
    New hunting zones
    New bossess
    One new World Boss
    Some classes should get new abilities
    Changes to abilities when necessary
    Higher lv cap
    Higher gear sets
    1 new feature
    New char creation options + 2 appearance change coupons.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Moderator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I personally don't like set release schedules for big updates because it puts unnecessary pressure on the devs to get the content out by that date. The reality is that no matter how quickly the devs work, the players will always finish content faster than it can be made.
    volunteer_moderator.gif
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I'm hoping most content comes from the variety of systems in the game and they are able to push updates to these systems as they are ready. I feel like this will at least be needed in the beginning as they probably wont be able to get as much in as they want at launch.

    It sounds like there will be some kind of "story quest" to help players get acquainted with the world and get people invested but not sure all that will be tied to this. Assuming they will use this to introduce players to big new features/content, I'd like it if they gave us updates about every ~2-3 years with the exception of the first one. I'd hope these updates wont be that big and more of a fancy way to advertise an new feature. I don't think we should start on our first major update until they have taken the time to fix everything and fill out all the systems we have at launch.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    I personally don't like set release schedules for big updates because it puts unnecessary pressure on the devs to get the content out by that date. The reality is that no matter how quickly the devs work, the players will always finish content faster than it can be made.

    This is where I think GGG do a fantastic job with PoE.

    They aim for a 3 month release schedule for major updates (but also have expansions in the mix) but don't put a hard date on it until they are certain they can hit it.

    This way the developers have a fairly general window of when the release should be, and while there is always preasure in any job to get a peoduct out, they keep a good amount of flexibility for qhen issues arise.
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Not so much concerned with the duration, but more the commitment to schedule.
    Set a schedule and stick to it. If say 6 monthly, then not 6, then 8 then 5 months. Keep it 6.

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    akabear wrote: »
    Not so much concerned with the duration, but more the commitment to schedule.
    Set a schedule and stick to it. If say 6 monthly, then not 6, then 8 then 5 months. Keep it 6.

    I completely and totally disagree qith this in literally every sense.

    Release content when - and ONLY when - it's ready.

    If it's ready in 6 months, release it. If it needs 2 more months, then wait. If it's ready a month early, release it early.

    I completely fail to see why players would ever put sticking to a schedule above releasing content when it's ready. It makes absolutely no sense at all.
  • T ElfT Elf Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Are you talking patch notes or expansions?

    Patch notes - major or minor ones as often as needed and as extensive as possible. I remember the notes from Mythic for DAoC were frequent and very detailed and I loved it.

    If you are speaking of new content as often as Intrepid feels comfortable and not rushed.
    eZC6mjP.gif
    Formerly T-Elf

  • If they can produce high quality content on a quarterly schedule, I’ll be all for it. I wouldn’t have any issue with new pieces of content coming out every week if it were possible to maintain that quality. For big things like raids, dungeons, and new explorable areas, I’d expect quarterly to be reasonable.

    As far as balance passes go. I think there should be consistent minor tweaks with maintenances that are totally unconnected to content updates. No one wants to wait three months for a blatantly overpowered gear setups to be toned down, nor does anyone want blatantly underpowered classes to stay that way for months. Well, out of spite maybe, but not out of concern for healthy gameplay.
  • akabear wrote: »
    Not so much concerned with the duration, but more the commitment to schedule.
    Set a schedule and stick to it. If say 6 monthly, then not 6, then 8 then 5 months. Keep it 6.

    “Sticking to the schedule” is how content comes out shallow, buggy, and incomplete

    Big no
  • MakinojiMakinoji Member, Warrior of Old, Kickstarter
    I love how ESO does their content releases quarterly (every 4 months) and 1 quarter is a major expansion.

    I also feel since AOC will have a dynamic world they could probably get away with longer time periods of releasing stuff but with how impatient gamers are we'll need smaller updates probably every 3 months or so.
    Things like natural disasters cutting off parts of the world or a long winter or drought would be fun to deal with for a short period.
  • CorpierCorpier Member
    edited March 2020
    Makinoji wrote: »
    I love how ESO does their content releases quarterly (every 4 months) and 1 quarter is a major expansion.

    I also feel since AOC will have a dynamic world they could probably get away with longer time periods of releasing stuff but with how impatient gamers are we'll need smaller updates probably every 3 months or so.
    Things like natural disasters cutting off parts of the world or a long winter or drought would be fun to deal with for a short period.

    I strongly disagree. ESO's schedule is awful. Those developers rush out unpolished content that "fixes" what isn't broken and fail to fix bugs until they become "features". That game's pvp is a laggy mess and their pve raid scene is a clusterfuck of bugged instances and crashes that gets worse every patch. I played that game off and on for about 5 years, got like 1,400 champion points, completed all the veteran hard mode trials and dungeons, and got emperor three times before I quit. I played enough that I can confidently say that game has been going downhill due to lack of polish, lack of performance, and lack of server stability for a long time.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited March 2020
    Corpier wrote: »
    Makinoji wrote: »
    I love how ESO does their content releases quarterly (every 4 months) and 1 quarter is a major expansion.

    I also feel since AOC will have a dynamic world they could probably get away with longer time periods of releasing stuff but with how impatient gamers are we'll need smaller updates probably every 3 months or so.
    Things like natural disasters cutting off parts of the world or a long winter or drought would be fun to deal with for a short period.

    I strongly disagree. ESO's schedule is awful. Those developers rush out unpolished content that "fixes" what isn't broken and fail to fix bugs until they become "features". That game's pvp is a laggy mess and their pve raid scene is a clusterfuck of bugged instances and crashes that gets worse every patch. I played that game off and on for about 5 years, got like 1,400 champion points, completed all the veteran hard mode trials and dungeons, and got emperor three times before I quit. I played enough that I can confidently say that game has been going downhill due to lack of polish, lack of performance, and lack of server stability for a long time.

    This. I stopped playing for a while.
    I got back in a week ago and found two new updates.

    I played a bit on the new content and I was sooooooooo bored with it.
    Nothing challenging, just more story quests on a new corner of the map.

    I was so bored I didnt even bother to play the new instances to farm an item I need.
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Caeryl wrote: »
    akabear wrote: »
    Not so much concerned with the duration, but more the commitment to schedule.
    Set a schedule and stick to it. If say 6 monthly, then not 6, then 8 then 5 months. Keep it 6.

    “Sticking to the schedule” is how content comes out shallow, buggy, and incomplete

    Big no
    Sticking to schedule is not how content comes out shallow, buggy, and incomplete.

    Failure to scope out a deliverable and create a working plan, manage it while being sufficiently agile to adapt when things do not fall into place as predicted is one of many reasons not to be able to deliver on time.

    Failure to plan, is planing to fail.

    Don`t get me wrong, I am all for quality content and do not like to see rushed work like anybody else.

    But from reading many documented failures or delays from other projects, they were, for the most part, inadequately planned and/or managed. There was an in ability to adequately define and quantify scope, sometimes unrealistic scope, or allowing for scope creep, not adequately anticipating review time, setting a task too great to be achieved with insufficient resourcing within the time set, or just out right inadequate resource allocation are just a few symptoms that lead to a project requiring more time.

    Balance this against the harder quantifiable of customer gratification by timely new content vs quality only achieved by more time.

    Plan well, manage the tasks, get adequately resourced and set a realistic time and there should be less reason to not be able to deliver.
  • xlangatangxxlangatangx Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Sticking to schedule is not how content comes out shallow, buggy, and incomplete.
    Yes it is. It most definitely is. By definition, publishing anything before completion is EXACTLY how content comes out incomplete.

    You are making a ton of assumptions with one simple comment. You have no idea what IS is planning. What happens if they want to work on a 2-month update, followed by a year long expansion, followed by a 3 month update? What does your release-schedule look like then?
    Failure to scope out a deliverable and create a working plan, manage it while being sufficiently agile to adapt when things do not fall into place as predicted is one of many reasons not to be able to deliver on time.
    Ok, hold up. You want to both be agile AND stick to a rigid schedule? Make up your mind.
    But from reading many documented failures or delays from other projects, they were, for the most part, inadequately planned and/or managed. There was an inability to adequately define and quantify scope, sometimes unrealistic scope, or allowing for scope creep, not adequately anticipating review time, setting a task too great to be achieved with insufficient resourcing within the time set, or just out right inadequate resource allocation are just a few symptoms that lead to a project requiring more time.
    Ludicrous. Sounds like someone who is taking business management classes and wants to apply their learnings in a public outlet... This logic works for internal measurements. Let's say a company wants to understand WHY a project is taking longer than their arbitrary deadline. They can review previous project deadlines and timestamps to counteraction against what is failing or bottlenecking the project.

    I'm no genius (obviously), but I have managed enough projects to know how silly your paragraph is. You NEVER know the full scope of something NEW, something that has never been done before. Sure you can get a general idea, but sometimes things don't work as you want them to. Sometimes scope changes (I'm sure you can think of a handful of reasons why this would happen post-project launch). Sometimes you pivot and take a completely different approach. Attaching yourself to a PUBLICLY released schedule is not a good approach or business model. Be reasonable. If you want a good example as to why... Look at the most recent announcement by Margaret.

    Saying something like "Every 6 months IS should release an update like clockwork" is absurd. Deadlines are nice to have. It is good to set a finish line and have a goal to measure towards. But every release and every project that IS works on will have different date ranges to complete adequately. Publishing a public "Every X months we will release content" is not sustainable.
  • MarzzoMarzzo Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    DLC expansions (post-launch releases) are planned on a quarterly basis.[1]

    DLC will not cost anything more than the normal subscription.[2][3]
    Because of the modularity of a lot of the systems that we're working on, it's not too hard to iterate and implement new things... We're planning on going on a quarterly/ monthly cycle to continue to push out new content.[4] – Jeffrey Bard

    The quarterly cycle for the big content is good for us and then, as you said, those modular components to our mechanisms in the game allow for us to introduce smaller content patches that can be seen in real time in the world.[4] – Steven Sharif

    We don't intend to a wordsmith around future charge for DLC content. As a subscription model, that's part of the agreement between us as a Studio and you guys: That there will be regularly scheduled updates and chapters; and that subscription is what allows you to access that content.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Wanted to know how long people wanted patches to be. To give insight to IS :)
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    akabear wrote: »
    Failure to plan, is planing to fail.
    You have misused this mantra here.

    Correct planning should include giving yourself more time to finish a project if it turns out that the project in question needs it. If you give yourself a deadline for a project before that project has even started (which is what a set deadline is doing), then you have failed to plan for that project.

    If an MMO developer were to set a hard schedule of content releases, they would need to have at least 2 patches worth of content finished and stored away ready to release on schedule. So in suggesting IS should do this, what you are really suggesting is that they should hold on to new content for 6 months before releasing it to us.
    akabear wrote: »
    Plan well, manage the tasks, get adequately resourced and set a realistic time and there should be less reason to not be able to deliver.
    Less reason is not no reason.

    Setting a hard deadline can only be successful if there is no reason to not be able to deliver, and that can never happen in the software industry.

    Due to that, a hard deadline is not a good idea.

  • DamoklesDamokles Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    No plan withstands contact with the enemy!
    roaaztC.gif
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited March 2020
    Damokles wrote: »
    No plan withstands contact with the enemy!

    Very true
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • sunfrogsunfrog Member, Founder, Kickstarter
    I want it to feel like I download a patch, but not so long that it takes forever to DL.
    (I don't understand this question)
    fNX2ISa.png


  • MakinojiMakinoji Member, Warrior of Old, Kickstarter
    Corpier wrote: »
    Makinoji wrote: »
    I love how ESO does their content releases quarterly (every 4 months) and 1 quarter is a major expansion.

    I also feel since AOC will have a dynamic world they could probably get away with longer time periods of releasing stuff but with how impatient gamers are we'll need smaller updates probably every 3 months or so.
    Things like natural disasters cutting off parts of the world or a long winter or drought would be fun to deal with for a short period.

    I strongly disagree. ESO's schedule is awful. Those developers rush out unpolished content that "fixes" what isn't broken and fail to fix bugs until they become "features". That game's pvp is a laggy mess and their pve raid scene is a clusterfuck of bugged instances and crashes that gets worse every patch. I played that game off and on for about 5 years, got like 1,400 champion points, completed all the veteran hard mode trials and dungeons, and got emperor three times before I quit. I played enough that I can confidently say that game has been going downhill due to lack of polish, lack of performance, and lack of server stability for a long time.

    This. I stopped playing for a while.
    I got back in a week ago and found two new updates.

    I played a bit on the new content and I was sooooooooo bored with it.
    Nothing challenging, just more story quests on a new corner of the map.

    I was so bored I didnt even bother to play the new instances to farm an item I need.

    I have to say you both missed the message.
    Also if IS builds their game right from the start they will avoid these issues.
    If you had any knowledge of the development of ESO you'd know that the engine as well as the coding was garbage and is part if not all the reason the game has to be continually patched over and over for the same problems.

    Also with both of your logics, you should be afraid of how poorly IS handled their BR but you only see what you want I guess.
Sign In or Register to comment.