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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
unknownsystemerror wrote: » 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
akabear wrote: » Failure to plan, is planing to fail.
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.
Damokles wrote: » No plan withstands contact with the enemy!
George Black wrote: » 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.
Makinoji wrote: » 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.
Makinoji wrote: » George Black wrote: » 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.
Makinoji wrote: » George Black wrote: » 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.
Ventharien wrote: » I'm curious how they will implement content additions. Since the majority of the content Ashes has will be in some way player driven, how do you place in large content packs without adversely affecting existing content? Like if they decide to add another land mass, which they've given themselves room to do by not curving the world, will it have nodes? and if it does, when people go migrate to the new stuff, how will the "old world" start to feel? And I think anywhere from 7 to 12 months for content is fine, and even longer if it's needed to make the content polished and enjoyable.
noaani wrote: » The third is to add in a system between that second method above, and the full node system. Add in a new landmass with all the content, and give it a new system that functions similarly to the node system in terms of effects on content and player ability to influence and fight over, but don't actually put in any cities or player housing in with it, thus not rendering original areas redundant.
