What portion of content would you like to see more/less of in the Monthly Development Streams?

Perusing the Reddit as I do so frequent, you do find that quite often the posts come up once in a while regarding doubts of the game's progress due to the appearance of a focus on asset presentation during the dev. streams. Now personally, I have enjoyed most of the Dev updates - there were definitely some dry periods before Christmas however they MORE than made up for it, and you can understand in hindsight why!

There have been two recent reddit posts that came to mind. One post was a more emotional approach and was pointing out more the elements that appear to be missing from the development streams, but had more criticism of the timeline of the game, recruitment process etc. and unsurprisingly OP got some flak back from the community.

A similar post around the same time was posted, and while they did echo some similar sentiments, i.e. I would like to see less art and more of the design/technical aspects in the Dev updates, their softer approach albeit less critical did merit a warmer response.

It got me thinking more about how we perceive the feedback on the social platforms as they will come in all shapes and sizes and I decided to take the key element of both these topics:

If you had to choose what elements we got to see more of in the Development Streams, what would they be?

Steven did actually mention in the last stream while showing off the roads (if i recall correctly) - that we should mention if we would like to see more of this kind of content.

So this is me saying, Steven, Intrepid team- I like seeing the Art Assets and the world we will be living in you are all doing a fantastic job, but if you have the resources and means available to show off more of the design/technical elements in exchange for some assets - not limited to node interactions, Caravans, Naval features, archetype interactions with secondary classes, not necessarily anything specific but just anything outside of the Asset World - then I would very much be pleased if you incorporated more of this into your Monthly Development Streams!

My question to the community - could you air your opinions on if you are:

- Fully satisfied with the current balance of content shown during the monthly streams.
- Overall happy but would like to see more of x or y.
- We have too much of this, I would like to see more of x, y, z

Just a disclaimer - little to no other studios would be showing anything at all during Alpha so I consider myself grateful we get to see as much as we do! But if there is flexibility in what can be shown, then this is where I would garner public opinion on

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

maouw

Hooray!
Yes I enjoyed the technical demonstration of the road system - that kindof stuff really makes me excited for the possibilities of a node's Zone of Influence (ZoI).
I assume the circles were representations of the ZoI's?
It makes me curious to know if this kind of tool is going to be extended to trigger outskirt buildings/farms to spawn along the road? Or NPC's begin using the roads? fences along developed roads?
Do we have plans for players to be able to construct things alongside a road?

I've also previously enjoyed the tech demos of things like the Node simulations, Sky lighting (although this too was more on the cosmetic side of the game)

Would be keen to also see evidence of data collection systems being set up - especially tools that can pivot to monitor average group performance, average gear level of the group, team composition, etc. the kind of tools that Intrepid intends to use to monitor balancing of their classes - so they have ways to understand what starts dominating the meta and why it is dominating.
Especially would like to see how these tools differentiate 8v8 balancing from 1v1 balancing.

I'm a bit worried that Ashes is showing off EVERY available mount - they're always lovely to see, but it would be nice to be surprised by some of the mounts players discover in the game on release.

AidanKD

maouw wrote: »

Hooray!

Thank you for your input! To answer some of your questions:

- The circles were indeed representations of the Zone of Influence. It was an example of how to differentiate between the effects of different tiers. You can think of it like Venn Diagrams, but also not - in the sense that where two zones of influence may cross over, the higher tier will be what will determine what is available in that area.

- Other things I imagine are predictable other elements that are affected by a Zone of Influence changing would be Quests, Dungeons, World Bosses, Creatures, Gatherable resources - literally just about everything you can think of! Give each asset in the world a flag. Only appear at this location if ZoI = 2. Increase level by x if ZoI = 3. Spawn an additional Named rare mob with timer in this location if ZoI = 5. Dungeon appears if ZoI = 6. Lots of conditions to set but once they are done, you can then automate the world from that point.

I like your thoughts on data gathering in terms of balance. I am not personally sure how much of that we will realistically see, but it would be a great question for the Monthly Dev Stream to ask how they intend to tackle successfully balancing the classes/content and if they have any tools that they can indeed show off.

RE: the mounts, Steven actually iterated in the latest stream that they will be deliberately showing off less in-game achievable items so that there will still be a sense of discovery left for game release! That's why it's kind of good that we are only really seeing purchasable mounts etc more so than in-game achievable in my opinion.

Nerror

I'm down for more tech-stuff for sure.

I'd be even more down for any game-system breakdowns, where they choose a topic and go on a deep dive into it for 10-15 minutes. It's doesn't have to be set in stone either. They can talk of possible variants and pitfalls and such that need to be tested in A2. Basically take a few pages out of the Big Design Document and let Steven go nuts on the topic at at hand.

AidanKD

Nerror wrote: »

I'm down for more tech-stuff for sure.

I'd be even more down for any game-system breakdowns, where they choose a topic and go on a deep dive into it for 10-15 minutes. It's doesn't have to be set in stone either. They can talk of possible variants and pitfalls and such that need to be tested in A2. Basically take a few pages out of the Big Design Document and let Steven go nuts on the topic at at hand.

Hear hear to Steven getting more into the technical breakdowns. He has become much more experienced and technical with his delivery of explaining certain elements - happy for Margaret to take a breather and let Steven take the reigns!

Neatche

The archetype, class augments system, how mages as a secondary archetype gives 4 choices, or how cleric gets 2, or how a "sneak augments" from rogue could help a bard/mage? The rules that define this system has been somewhat contradictory.

We need to see solid class theory soon.
Are you able to really make 64 different augments? Or will it be tank / fighter augments are equal?

This do not ruin "the discovery" off snowy mountaintops or deep dungeons.

By outlining how the class system really can make 64+ single augments for classes, let alone what other augments system there is. Please make it solid and simple.

AidanKD

Neatche wrote: »

We need to see solid class theory soon.
Are you able to really make 64 different augments? Or will it be tank / fighter augments are equal?

From what I understand of Augments, I think you should not expect classes to be drastically different to each other. Think of it like so:

- There will be in fact, Eight classes. Each of these 8 classes will have 8 variations to their playstyle. The abilities will be the same, but you will get variations/changes to the abilities.

- We have had examples typically of a charge changing to a teleport. Or perhaps a ranged attack gaining status effects like a root or slow. A spell which can with the Cleric secondary archetype morphs to have more healing elements.

So I think what I want to know is how they can make a primary class feel different enough from the other secondary archetypes. But I agree that we are all eagerly awaiting some more examples of ability augments.

Perhaps Steven/Intrepid could just give a few more examples of actual augments they have settled on which have not been discussed, or maybe some examples of the weapon skills we can expect?

Marcet

less mounts, more towns and metropolis to see how they are being designed

daveywavey

I like seeing it all. I like the artwork, I like the models, I like the system processes, I like the engineering bits.

I just want to see my Bard skills!!!

Sunboy

Q&A are my faves.

AidanKD

Sunboy wrote: »

Q&A are my faves.

I have to remind myself that a bad question to me can be a good question for someone else when I sometimes question some of the questions from the pool that make it through

SkylarckTheBotanist

I like the current processes for the monthly demos.
It gives a surface level view of various things the teams are working on.
But I also would enjoy getting a bit more in the weeds of the technical work in the background.
I am most excited to hear about artisan system though.

daveywavey

Sunboy wrote: »

Q&A are my faves.

Yeah, it'd be cool to have a separate mid-monthly hour's stream JUST for Q&A. Then they can show what they like in the normal one.

Nerror

I've been going through all the dev streams in chronological order (gotten to January 2021) and one trend I have noticed is that the Q&A parts have become shorter and shorter over time. They used to be the longest segment. Now they feel more tacked on at the end, subject to cutting if they've gone too much over time.

AidanKD

Nerror wrote: »

I've been going through all the dev streams in chronological order (gotten to January 2021) and one trend I have noticed is that the Q&A parts have become shorter and shorter over time. They used to be the longest segment. Now they feel more tacked on at the end, subject to cutting if they've gone too much over time.

Given you have been thorough, which elements of the stream do you feel have taken more of the time in recent streams compared to the old Streams?

I know there are some cases where it's nice to have a bit of realism from Steven and Margaret and they'll get into telling a story from the past. Part of me likes the human side of it, however the other side of me knows we only get the one monthly update and time really is such a finicky thing!

I watch alot of Jahlon on his channel Paradox Gaming Network and I agree with the sentiment that going into the Development Streams with a little more structure would not be an unwelcome thing, not to take away from my enjoyment of the streams, but there is definitely a level higher we can go!

MybroViajero

Memes lives matter!!! ✊

Free up the content of memes!!!! 🙌

Nerror

It has gotten a LOT more structured over time actually. @MargaretKrohn joining the team and the dev streams has helped a ton with that.

I haven't paid enough attention to time spent on each segment to really answer that @AidanKD but design and art definitely take up the bulk of the time now.

I don't personally think they need more structure as such, but I would like them to perhaps reprioritize the segments a little. Unless they have major art updates like the new races or the move to UE5, I would like them to deprioritize Art and focus more on design, like what I suggested with a deep-dive into a specific game system for 10-15 minutes, and definitely more Q&A time. If the dev stream is there for informing and attracting the players, letting their questions be the primary segment seems like a no-brainer.

One thing that has bothered me a little in some of their dev streams has been when they are in the office, and their friday potluck starts near the end of the stream. I get a clear impression that they basically just can't wait to end the stream to go eat. Well, it's mostly Steven. I understand the desire obviously, but it invariably hurts the last segment, the Q&A, which is the most important to many viewers. I wish they could fix that somehow. Reschedule something, or just be better at ignoring the potluck.

AidanKD

I think that my interpretation of Structure may have been a poor choice of words as the implication was pretty similar to what you had mentioned with the re-prioritisation, though that was why I raised the thread in the first place! @Nerror

I like the idea of a deep dive, depending on what's being subbed out as I believe they won't increase the duration of the streams as it can be a lengthy endeavour. But of course everything can be adjusted and tweaked, the consensus seems to be that so long as Q&A isn't a victim, then more time there and less showing off Assets as a whole and more of the technical backend/decisions would be a welcome plus.

I hadn't noticed the potluck actually, just by chance perhaps but I feel the solution is feed our presenters pre-stream

Sunboy

daveywavey wrote: »

Sunboy wrote: »

Q&A are my faves.

Yeah, it'd be cool to have a separate mid-monthly hour's stream JUST for Q&A. Then they can show what they like in the normal one.

Excellent idea! Do it Steven! We know some questions can’t be answered right now but just say so and move along then. Do IT! ❤️

Child Item