Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
Also if there are long queues players will want to stay online if there are long queues even if they aren't playing. A forced logout for inactive players could help a little at launch.
Can we stop calling expansions DLC? It already got muddied enough with ESO doing that, an expansion is an expansion. If it isn't an Expansion then it is DLC, you don't have DLC in MMO's since the "content" in question is already downloaded whether you are using it or not. It's still not really a good idea for an expansion either because of newer players, it's really just a form of gate keeping at that point so again, no.
I think this is a great idea. It looks like it would be much easier for IS to manage server populations and avoid opening too many new servers too early using this system. The option would probably work even better if some servers still used the first come, first serve waiting line for people that want a server that does not require a high amount of commitment to get through the line.
I see this as a launch day (or up to a month) solution and a solution for expansion crowding. If it does make it easier for IS to avoid opening too many servers, then individual servers will last longer as well.
To me, the difference is in size and scale. An expansion should add new levels, new abilities, new lands, new dungeons, new mechanics, new models, new skins and new animations. A DLC, on the other hand, is much smaller in comparison, and may only include a few of the things above.
Intrepid plan on releasing DLC every 3 months or so (their words). I straight up can not bring myself to call content additions on that scale expansions.
So, DLC it is.
Edit; since most single player games push the content of smaller DLC out with patches these days anyway - whether you have access to that content or not - that definition of DLC is antiquated now anyway.
As I understand it:
The real difference is that DLC should be optional whilst patchs are not. Even when a new optional expansion comes out for a MMO, a mandatory patch comes with it to make sure that the different account states work together. The term DLC should not apply if it is required for the new version of the game to work.
I think @AntVictus is right ESO ruined the lexicon. I would also throw some blame at Destiny for this as well. What is insane to me is that FFXI and FFXIV has been on the consoles for years, and has always used the term patch which has always been correct in the context of how those games update.
I feel like Bethesda and Activision wanted to use terms that their caveman brain console pleb audience would understand. Now it is creeping into respectable games.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
People are not going to go nuts every 3 months and flood the servers for new content. Not gonna happen. They are not going to be releasing enough game-changing content to draw that much attention. It's not like these are major expansions that will bring people in droves. They won't be releasing The Burning Crusade every 3 months.
If Intrepid can't handle a very small bump every few months (and it'll just be a bump) then their technology is garbage and the game will fail the way Shadowbane did. I think there's no reason to be that pessimistic years before we need to worry about it.
Scale up the cloud server solution to accomodate for 20k people, instead of 10k, just for the first 2-3 days at launch.
This means new abilities, spells, gear, monsters, dungeons, raids, potentially even a new tier of node progress. That is a fairly major DLC, and I absolutely can see people coming to the game in very large numbers for it.
Sure, but that likely won’t happen that often. We’ll see temporary spikes during those events I’m sure but they wouldn’t last long.
Indeed, we'll see fairly large DLC - and thus player spikes - yearly imo, and smaller DLC - and thus smaller player spikes - quarterly.
Thing is, if those quarterly smaller DLC happen to fall at a time when other MMO's aren't really doing much, the spikes they cause have the potential to be unpredictably large. This is why I think having a system built in to teh game to deal with these spikes when they happen would be a very good idea for this game.
Why would they want to price out any of their customers?
It would lower the queues on release day.
The theory would be that people want to try out the game, but may not be willing to spend more than one months subscription to do so. Rather than them doing that in the first month when they would be clogging up the servers, causing queues that will turn people away from the game (even if only for a few months), you instead get these people to try out the game a little bit later on.
The key to it would be to communicate well exactly when each subscription type would be available well in advance - it would need to be announced at the same time as the games official launch date is announced.
It's risky though - could backfire hard.
This will be different than any existing statistics for box fee or F2P games.
F2P you can quit day one.
Box fee you have no time/money constraint, just your own personal drive to give it a go when it suits you. Expansions are optional extras.
.
P2P monthly subscription is about commitment, if you're enjoying the experience you can go for a longer subscription period to save some money.
I fully agree, it could.
To me, the key is in communication. Announce what subscriptions will be available on what date, and stick to it no matter what happens.
There may need to be something done in regards to accounts with supporter pack subscriptions, but that is the only real "issue" I can see.
I can see two more issues:
I did think about these.
To the first point, my thoughts are that if a player isn't starting the game on launch say, that is their choice. They cant blame anyone for that other than themselves.
Obviously they will try, but with some luck there will be people such as myself pointing out to then that it is their decision, and no one else's.
To the second point, people who pay (conjecture) $75 for 6 months access should expect nothing more than 6 months access. The closest thing to "VIP" treatment they should get is a slight discount on their subscription in comparison to what they would pay if they paid monthly.
There might still be possibilities available to the developers.
They have already implemented one - giving a number of players a 2 day head start. After two solid days of playing, many of the head-start crew will be looking for a break and more than happy to use their advantage to avoid the chaos of the first several hours of official launch.
Additionally, while it's true that the nature of the Ashes node system should prevent layering or phasing over the majority of the map, the developers might however have the option to implement such mechanics within the starting zones.
Looking at the Vera map, there are 4 initial gateways, each of which split into 2 paths that presumably lead to a starting hub for each of the 8 races. I would speculate that the gates, starting hubs, and most of the land between will form a zone for new players to learn the game, that is independent from the node system. It might be possible for the developers to implement layering or phasing in these specific critical mass areas, without impacting on the development of the rest of Vera.
Tulnar starting area
Points of interest will exist that represent Tulnar npc structures. In the similar fashion that the starting areas around divine gateways will include expeditionary npc settlements not tied to the node structures but serve as initial quest origination points.[22] – Steven Sharif
Tulnar have a starting area that does not involve a divine gateway.[23]
Points of interest exist that represent Tulnar NPC structures in a similar fashion to the starting areas around divine gateways.[22]
Tulnar have the same option of starting at any of the divine gateways as other races.[24]
Tulnar have the same option of starting at any of the divine gateways. Their civilization, though within the underrealm, has also begun to explore the surface.[24] – Steven Sharif
Unlike the other races, the Tulnar won’t be returning to Verra, instead they will be returning to the surface from the Underrealm for the first time in generations.[5]
The Underrealm itself does not have a divine gateway.[25]