Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
If it came down to it: The 1 Thing You'd Choose to Cut from Development, for Time's Sake?
Tyranthraxus
Member
You develop a core, then you reach out. However, there's some reaches that just don't seem like they're really worth the extra wait, beyond the core systems.
That said, if you *HAD* to cut something that was beyond the Core systems to ensure we don't launch any later than 2024, what would you choose?
Yours truly has been thinking on it lately, and I'd have to choose Naval systems/content. That could really be a whole expansion, in-and-of itself. A lot of people are excited about it - but (just as an example!) let's say all the Node and PvE and PvP systems are completed first.... Would you really be willing to wait another year or two for the completion of a side-system like Naval content beyond sailing/exploration and a few naval NPC challenges?
I know we *might* launch sooner than 2024 - but this question is just for the sake of inquiry; Someone should ask! That said, are there systems you'd be willing to see put out in expansion material, if it meant saving us from a 2025 or 2026 launch?
That said, if you *HAD* to cut something that was beyond the Core systems to ensure we don't launch any later than 2024, what would you choose?
Yours truly has been thinking on it lately, and I'd have to choose Naval systems/content. That could really be a whole expansion, in-and-of itself. A lot of people are excited about it - but (just as an example!) let's say all the Node and PvE and PvP systems are completed first.... Would you really be willing to wait another year or two for the completion of a side-system like Naval content beyond sailing/exploration and a few naval NPC challenges?
I know we *might* launch sooner than 2024 - but this question is just for the sake of inquiry; Someone should ask! That said, are there systems you'd be willing to see put out in expansion material, if it meant saving us from a 2025 or 2026 launch?
0
Comments
I would go with 20 solid classes (that might share a handful of skills), with distinct animations and ability functions.
I would give access to 3 weapons at most per class (maybe 4 or 5 to some classes) so that players can costumize their build.
I would do this instead of designing the 8x8 and every class can use every weapon.
I have brought this up many times and the devs seem confident to pull off the 8x8. I hope they managed to do so and give us the best class/weapon mmo experience yet, but previous attempts from other mmos show that the meta is narrow and the majority of options people come up with are weak.
The game needs it imo, but it needs it to b e good - and that has the potential to be the largest aspect of the game outside of the combat system.
If it were delayed in order to get the rest of the game released, and then added in as soon as it was ready, I'd be fine with that.
If we are talking about actually cutting something from the game and not ever adding it in, I would say any notion of an arena system. It simply isn't needed for the game Intrepid want Ashes to be, and the idea of the military node mayor being decided in an arena seems kind of tacked on as an afterthought.
Dropping the notion of an arena means no need for leaderboards, matchmaking, but most importantly, no need for the champion system - which will likely be a significant system used by an insignificant number of people (the ratio of players that use it would likely make top end raid content in other MMO's look positively popular by comparison).
I'm not arguing for either of these things to happen, but if for some reason it was up to me, and I had to make a decision based on what I currently know, that is what I would do.
Something like NW is doing 🤮
It would allow them to define the base archetypes strongly, see how they play out over a long time, then have a clearer vision of how far they can push the secondary archetypes as a later expansion.
(Plus, imagine if they have a World Event that unlocks Secondary Archetypes for everyone. AMAZING)
What a good idea
as a style of BDO´s awakening ?.
As someone who is a big fan of multiclassing/secondary archetypes, I would be behind this. If it were up to me, I'd launch it as a World Event like you mentioned and not even tell the players the reward. Let them find out on their own.
I think Naval combat has it's merits as an expansion feeling item in any other game, but the layout of the playable area in Ashes is split in two by a sea. It was clearly made with naval trade and combat in mind as part of it's core. If you made naval an expansion, half the playable area would need to be sealed off, otherwise there would be insanely lucrative naval trade without as big a risk of naval pvp. The economy would be wonky. And even if you limited the territory to one continent, now everyone caravans by boat to major ports, distorting the nodes and economies even more. Plus this map size would be simply too small with just the one continent. You could remove naval caravans themselves I suppose but I feel too many of their promised assets were geared towards it to make sense to push off to an expansion date.
Tl;dr: Naval is too much a core part of their economic plan relative to their planned geography. The underdark has none of these problems and complexities.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Nah, they want to enjoy some PvP while in-game.
The underrealm is basically just a tile set and some level design. There really isn't much more to it than that. It isn't necessary, but it also isn't hard.
Naval combat is a tile set (or several tile sets), vehicles, and a second combat system with it's own gear, crafting and classes (this is my reason for putting it at the top of my list of game features that I would hold back -- it is in itself an undertaking as large as some AAA games).
The point about the economy needing access to both continents is valid, but the underrealm could be the answer there.
Perhaps there are a dozen or more tunnels between the continents, making trade between them fairly easy, and ships not really necessary. Then perhaps those tunnels collapse for "reasons", cutting off that easy trade, and creating the need for ships where before there was no need.
I like this idea. would be really cool and an ambush in the darkness would be an awesome experience with the blooms, particles and flares disrupting the darkness. I doubt the under realm would be pitch black but in my head the Mage's old orb skill would be very useful if the darkness compounds or if the Mage's orb skill returns.
First of all I would like to say I like parts of this idea a lot. I think underground caravans to the other continents could add some exciting high challenge rating caravan gameplay. These underground highways should probably be significantly challenging to traverse as they offer a resource free way to traverse to the other continents assuming ships and mounts take wear and tear as a mat drain. The fact that they would be caravan hot spots and on foot highways in a more relatively enclosed space makes them a high intensity pseudo pvp zone.
However I think this poses a meaningful challenge from a systems design perspective to make it an enjoyable and repeatable experience and that is my main disagreement with your argument. I think this would take a lot more time to get right than it would appear at a glance especially since its a problem that needs solving caravans going in which is a separate set of design considerations on it's own.
My minor disagreement with some of your reasoning is that the two content pieces are a lot more comparable than I think you gave it credit for. The Underdark is not just a simple matter of tilesets. There is a lot of systems design to think about due to the relatively confined space. Yes it will be wide and open, but there is finite space and therefore the PvP and PvX designs need a bit more careful consideration and tweaking.
Additionally all the unique asset designs for the underdark must be considered if we want a high quality immersive experience. You can reuse a lot of overworld assets, but the underdark needs a fair amount of unique assets for successful immersion. Ship content demands a fair amount of unique assets as well. I don't think either of us know enough to gauge how much of a difference between the two piles of work that would be.
Additionally there is more system design work added when you consider crafting, gatherable materials and zone placement of those materials relative to mobs, terrain, and choke points. Each region in Verra is planned to have something to contribute and have an impact on the economy. Ships will probably use already planned mats, whereas the underdark presents a separate set of inputs and recipes dependent on said unique inputs. You made a decent point regarding the separate gear, materials and equipment in terms of the system design. So it's a similar struggle but from the opposite end of the design equation. Again hard for either of us to tell how much of a difference those work piles are.
Naval combat considerations to make it meaningful and fun are about equal to the underdark caravan, dungeon design, and zone design considerations in terms of time. Again such a logistical estimation is a hard call but I have a sneaking suspicion they are about the same.
Your point about the different classes has some merit, but to my knowledge there is less balance consideration here relative to player vs payer interactions. It's more so about the overarching PvX aspect of player vs enemy ship. It looked more like a crafting class than an actual player vs player, in the more traditional sense, class. So definitely some system design here along with boarding the ship scenarios that need to be fine tuned. I think this is the strongest part of your argument given the fact that the nodes seige design is the only meaningful design challenge equivalent and I believe that would be easier to test and tweak than the naval professions especially since they will eventually need to get skilled at doing this whereas PvX professions use a more mixed skill set. They'd need the right person on the team for it to be 'easy' where as seiges are little more able to use brute forced manhours and has known systems design needs. But you could say the same for most of the crafting and economic problems both content will face.
Overall I think you are probably right that Naval will take more time than the underdark, but I don't think the Underdark is trivial either. If we include your underdark continental routes my wild shot in the underdark estimate is at least a year maybe a year and a half of additional dev time (for the entire underdark, not just your highways.) Naval maybe 1.5-2.5 years. Depends on staffing and what successful hires they make.
That being said I really like your over all idea and think it could be considered as an expansion in it's own right. It could really add to the level capped content experience. High risk with a fine tuned set of parameters and prevasive paranoia and tension to create an addictively engaging experience. Where as naval combat is a slightly less prevasively intense experience, with slightly less risk to sail due to much more open space, but can be its own fine tuned explosive experience when it does happen. They are such different moods and gameplay feelings I don't think there would be an issue in it making one vs the other more 'empty'. Balancing it relative to naval caravans economic incentives could be a challenge, but I think it'd be a conquerable one with enough time and a strong systems dev. Something that suits expansion type content quite well.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Seems like a part of the game that could easily be added in a later patch instead of being a launch feature.
I think people would be a lot more forgiving if the underealm (excluding tulnar) got pushed back six months after release than naval for sure.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Maybe the monster coin thing. I don't really see what it brings. Sounds... weird to me.
What a fantastic question.
I have no interest in playing Tulnar, but as they have to exist (kickstarter stretch goal May 2017) then they have to be present from the start otherwise they are disadvantaged compared to other races, which means the under realm needs to be present from the start too.
Naval combat could be an update. Great suggestions above on using the under realm to connect the continents, although we would still need a solution for small islands and their caravan needs.
Many dungeons could be an update (dungeons accessed when certain nodes reach a certain level). Dungeons could rotate through a schedule so that they aren't available every month.
Start with a limited selection of dungeons and add more over time.
Seasons and weather could be an update.
Secondary Archetypes are a lot of effort to get right. I don't think delaying them for an update will help because they will need hundreds of thousands of hours of play data over many iterations. They will need to test the heck out of them prior to release and keep tweaking them after release for years to come.
@daveywavey "Delay the Bard" - Ouch, that hurts dude!
I think they need all primary and secondary archetypes in place as soon as possible to start test iterations with.
Religions could be in a simplified form. Only one religion until the Religion update comes out?
Arenas - I wouldn't miss these, they can be an update. Hardcore PvP-ers can still focus their efforts on Caravans, Castle Sieges and Node Sieges.
Monster coins need to be present from release as they are part of some of the packs. Otherwise someone will say 'The game is released, I bought this pack and I can't use the monster coin'.
Parlor games - Part of a RP update? Include a wider variety of food and drink at the same time, with associated buffs and de-buffs.
I agree. What kind of monster would suggest such a thing!?
*clutches his pearls with great irony