Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

sangz

Testers
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    sangz got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Might passive skill progression be a barrier to entry post-launch?   
    I have friends who like the idea of Crowfall but are very much turned off to the game because of passive skill training. Their reasoning is slightly different:
     
    Passive skill training is less rewarding for hardcore players. If I'm a hardcore player who wants to play 6 hours a day, there is little to no reward to progress your character for playing a lot. 
  2. Like
    sangz got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Soft Launch in 2017 realistic?   
    I was there during Wildstar's earliest testing phases all the way through release and you are absolutely right they did have too many people telling them everything was fine, but they also failed to listen and make changes based on actual gameplay. That's the thing - anyone can say anything, whether they like a game or hate game, but what they actually do is 1000x more important. I could go into several examples of failure from wildstar, but I'm actually not sure whether or not my NDA is still valid so I'll refrain. Long story short, there were people telling them everything was fine, but there were also clear examples and feedback on certain issues that Carbine failed to act on. I'm fairly certain a lot of it had to do with pressure to release before ESO (which they failed to do) and ArchAge.
  3. Like
    sangz got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Soft Launch in 2017 realistic?   
    Like others in this thread, I firmly dislike the idea of soft launch for all the reasons mentioned: it can leave players with a bad taste in their mouth you will never recover from and forces anyone who wants to hardcore to get started early. 
     
    That being, I think a lot depends on how "soft" of a launch are you expecting. ACE could hypothetically soft launch a game with only (1) Eternal kingdoms (2) one maybe two campaign worlds and (3) Crafting/player economy.
     
    Would that be enough? I don't know. Personally, I value quality over quantity and I'd rather see less high-quality stuff than more of the total game in a poorly made state
  4. Like
    sangz got a reaction from Urahara in Soft Launch in 2017 realistic?   
    I was there during Wildstar's earliest testing phases all the way through release and you are absolutely right they did have too many people telling them everything was fine, but they also failed to listen and make changes based on actual gameplay. That's the thing - anyone can say anything, whether they like a game or hate game, but what they actually do is 1000x more important. I could go into several examples of failure from wildstar, but I'm actually not sure whether or not my NDA is still valid so I'll refrain. Long story short, there were people telling them everything was fine, but there were also clear examples and feedback on certain issues that Carbine failed to act on. I'm fairly certain a lot of it had to do with pressure to release before ESO (which they failed to do) and ArchAge.
  5. Like
    sangz got a reaction from pang in Soft Launch in 2017 realistic?   
    I was there during Wildstar's earliest testing phases all the way through release and you are absolutely right they did have too many people telling them everything was fine, but they also failed to listen and make changes based on actual gameplay. That's the thing - anyone can say anything, whether they like a game or hate game, but what they actually do is 1000x more important. I could go into several examples of failure from wildstar, but I'm actually not sure whether or not my NDA is still valid so I'll refrain. Long story short, there were people telling them everything was fine, but there were also clear examples and feedback on certain issues that Carbine failed to act on. I'm fairly certain a lot of it had to do with pressure to release before ESO (which they failed to do) and ArchAge.
  6. Like
    sangz got a reaction from Leiloni in Soft Launch in 2017 realistic?   
    Like others in this thread, I firmly dislike the idea of soft launch for all the reasons mentioned: it can leave players with a bad taste in their mouth you will never recover from and forces anyone who wants to hardcore to get started early. 
     
    That being, I think a lot depends on how "soft" of a launch are you expecting. ACE could hypothetically soft launch a game with only (1) Eternal kingdoms (2) one maybe two campaign worlds and (3) Crafting/player economy.
     
    Would that be enough? I don't know. Personally, I value quality over quantity and I'd rather see less high-quality stuff than more of the total game in a poorly made state
  7. Like
    sangz got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Fri, Nov 18 – Sun, Nov 20 - Bugs, anomalies and tech issues FEEDBACK   
    I got the same bug while playing Ranger where my UI got stuck saying my ability still had 2s left on cooldown. Fortunately, I was still able to activate the ability so this looks to primarily be isolated to the UI.
  8. Like
    sangz got a reaction from BaSkA in YACRT (Yet Another Combat Rant Topic)   
    That is terrible reasoning to make design decisions. An mmo is a product, a very complicated one, but a product nonetheless. All decisions, such as combat, should be made to meet the needs, goals, and expectations of your customers. If your customers primary desire is fast, responsive combat, you build it. Period. Do you think people play WoW because the combat is the best looking, the highest skill level or offers the most customization? No, absolutely not. The reason why people still play is because despite WoW's combat not topping any single category, its combat is of extremely high quality across the board and it is unmatched in providing ways for players to experience it's combat (content). 
  9. Like
    sangz got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Founders' Update: 'Big World' development - Official discussion thread   
    I'm actually really looking forward to this. I think we're going to be able to provide a lot more feedback than we have before with some of the the big picture stuff in place. 
  10. Like
    sangz got a reaction from corvax in Founders' Update: 'Big World' development - Official discussion thread   
    I'm actually really looking forward to this. I think we're going to be able to provide a lot more feedback than we have before with some of the the big picture stuff in place. 
  11. Like
    sangz got a reaction from Rikutatis in New World - New Amazon Game Studios Sandbox mmorpg   
    I am personally very excited to see the product Amazon comes up with. Just because there are multiple survival sandbox mmos in development doesn't necessarily mean its a bad idea to develop one. None of them have really captured market share. Furthermore, let's not rush to judgement of a game when all we've seen of it is concept art and our our description of the game is from a 1 minute trailer, a paragraph of text and 5 bullet points on a website. 
     
     
    That is exactly my problem with pretty much every crowdfunded MMO in development today, including Crowfall. All these games constantly increase scope with stretch goals for new features, cosmetics or fancy trinkets to try to get more money from backers. All this does is waste time and money trying to build crazy stupid stuff instead of actually delivering a high quality core product which was advertised. Today, the entire mmo market is completely ass backwards from the rest of the software industry where delivering a minimum viable product as quickly as possible that meets the needs of your primary users is paramount. 
     
    Star Citizen may be crazy ambitious but that doesn't mean it's going to be any good, its development thus far has been less than ideal. (Read this article for more insight into the troubled development of Star Citizen). 
     
    I backed Crowfall based for three primary features (1) eternal heroes + dying worlds (2) eternal kingdoms and (3) player driven economy. That's what I paid for. Take a look at the original Kickstarter page, not one of those stretch goals mean anything to getting those three things delivered to me. VR support, combat-enabled pets, and cosmetic trinkets? Please.
     
    Crowfall's minimum viable product should be to develop ONE campaign with good combat + eternal kingdoms + player driven economy. Make all that really good and I will be satisfied. I don't even need siege units and destructible environments right away. All of that stuff with more campaigns etc can be added into the game afterwards. 
     
    So to get back to the point, does New World sound amazingly original? Not quite. And yes, there are a lot of players in the market. But ultimately we don't know enough about the game yet to rush to judgement. Finally, the inability of crowdfunded games to deliver a minimum viable product is why I will consistently be optimistic about any mmo development efforts from a triple-a studio with adequate resources until they give me a reason think otherwise.  
  12. Like
    sangz got a reaction from JamesGoblin in YACRT (Yet Another Combat Rant Topic)   
    That is terrible reasoning to make design decisions. An mmo is a product, a very complicated one, but a product nonetheless. All decisions, such as combat, should be made to meet the needs, goals, and expectations of your customers. If your customers primary desire is fast, responsive combat, you build it. Period. Do you think people play WoW because the combat is the best looking, the highest skill level or offers the most customization? No, absolutely not. The reason why people still play is because despite WoW's combat not topping any single category, its combat is of extremely high quality across the board and it is unmatched in providing ways for players to experience it's combat (content). 
  13. Like
    sangz reacted to vucar in YACRT (Yet Another Combat Rant Topic)   
    I'm probably getting trolled here but alright, i'll bite.
     
     
    Thank God this is a movie, and not a game. How it looks should always trump how it feels.
     
    Oh wait, its the opposite.
     
     
    Time for some logic
     
    A target that can always move is harder to track than a target that frequently cannot move. 
    Split body combat involves combat where targets can always move and is harder to track.
    Rooted motion combat involves combat where the target frequently cannot move and is easier to track.
    Things that are harder to track take more skill to hit.
    It takes more skill to fight in split body than rooted combat.
     
     
    Currently, mosh-pit mob melees are how the vast majority of lone individuals get cut down. Rooted combat reduces mobility while fighting, while split body combat improves mobility while fighting and gives people a chance to "squirrel" and avoid getting zerged. 
     
    Actually the opposite is true. Read above
     
     
     
    They are not needed for balancing of power or skills.
     
    See: any and all competitive action games that do not have root motion but still balance different powers.
     
    If i'm just getting trolled here, well, then, i guess you win and this can serve as an elementary school-level FAQ for why split-body combat>>rooted combat.
  14. Like
    sangz reacted to vucar in YACRT (Yet Another Combat Rant Topic)   
    Money and resources have nothing to do with this at all.
     
    ACE already solved the problem the OP is talking about and then ruined it again
     
    Back in May when they did split-body animations, this improved combat significantly in its flow. Graphically it wasn't the prettiest but functionally it was far superior.
     
    Then a bunch of terribads complained they couldn't keep up, and it "looked funny", and it was "too fast", and so ACE in their infinite wisdom reverted back to rooted combat for some ungodly reason.
  15. Like
    sangz got a reaction from JamesGoblin in New World - New Amazon Game Studios Sandbox mmorpg   
    I am personally very excited to see the product Amazon comes up with. Just because there are multiple survival sandbox mmos in development doesn't necessarily mean its a bad idea to develop one. None of them have really captured market share. Furthermore, let's not rush to judgement of a game when all we've seen of it is concept art and our our description of the game is from a 1 minute trailer, a paragraph of text and 5 bullet points on a website. 
     
     
    That is exactly my problem with pretty much every crowdfunded MMO in development today, including Crowfall. All these games constantly increase scope with stretch goals for new features, cosmetics or fancy trinkets to try to get more money from backers. All this does is waste time and money trying to build crazy stupid stuff instead of actually delivering a high quality core product which was advertised. Today, the entire mmo market is completely ass backwards from the rest of the software industry where delivering a minimum viable product as quickly as possible that meets the needs of your primary users is paramount. 
     
    Star Citizen may be crazy ambitious but that doesn't mean it's going to be any good, its development thus far has been less than ideal. (Read this article for more insight into the troubled development of Star Citizen). 
     
    I backed Crowfall based for three primary features (1) eternal heroes + dying worlds (2) eternal kingdoms and (3) player driven economy. That's what I paid for. Take a look at the original Kickstarter page, not one of those stretch goals mean anything to getting those three things delivered to me. VR support, combat-enabled pets, and cosmetic trinkets? Please.
     
    Crowfall's minimum viable product should be to develop ONE campaign with good combat + eternal kingdoms + player driven economy. Make all that really good and I will be satisfied. I don't even need siege units and destructible environments right away. All of that stuff with more campaigns etc can be added into the game afterwards. 
     
    So to get back to the point, does New World sound amazingly original? Not quite. And yes, there are a lot of players in the market. But ultimately we don't know enough about the game yet to rush to judgement. Finally, the inability of crowdfunded games to deliver a minimum viable product is why I will consistently be optimistic about any mmo development efforts from a triple-a studio with adequate resources until they give me a reason think otherwise.  
  16. Like
    sangz got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Founders' Update: Soft launch strategy   
    I think this is the right call. I would really shy away from calling it a soft launch or any other time of launch. Just call it what it is...Open Beta or just Beta. 
  17. Like
    sangz got a reaction from Tinnis in Where are all the testers?   
    This. The weekday afternoon tests exclude a lot of North American players with jobs so you are mostly left with an EU playerbase. My guess is that group is somewhat large as its more likely working adults have extra cash on-hand to back a video game that is in development than say your average college or even high-school gamer. 
     
    Also as mentioned, when you have 3-5 tests a week it just becomes too repetitive to play during every testing window. There just isn't enough of the game built yet to where I would have fun playing 5+ hours in a given week. That's not a knock against ACE, that's just the reality of the current state of the game. As more content gets added, the number of testers in game will increase, it always does. 
  18. Like
    sangz reacted to Hiigara85 in PC Gamer exclusive: Under siege   
    This is exactly why NDA's exist, people on this forum get that it's pre-alpha, but many others *WILL* judge a book by it's pre-alpha trailer cover.  
     
    Their money is worth the same as ours, even if their opinions aren't.
  19. Like
    sangz reacted to Scree in PC Gamer exclusive: Under siege   
    Look, the trailer was garbage for a few reasons. You don't put out a video, knowing full well its not representative of the final product in any way, this early on. This notion of "any press is good press" is not a valid comment. Perhaps we are surrounded by Trump seemingly doing well with that concept, but the reality is normally the opposite.
     
    I think Blair is correct that tailoring a customized game experience to capture a movie for the purposes of a press release is a giant waste of time.
     
    People who are in this forum likely understand the concepts surrounding the current stage of development, but external viewers will see that video and go onto something else. As someone else mentioned this game needs to be dumping details of archetypes, promotion classes, crafting, etc. It doesn't matter if it changes.  If the only press or new stuff we see is poorly made socksty videos like this, this game is doomed at attracting new backers.
     
    Please focus on something other than marketing your pre-alpha content. Focus on showing us what else Crowfall is planning on. For god sake, please do the opposite of whatever it is you were planning on doing for marketing. Its not working.
  20. Like
    sangz got a reaction from Hemmel in How are you enjoying combat in it's current state?   
    I'll chime back in on this topic and say I think some perspective is needed. 
     
    I'm not saying I'm some kind of genius, but as someone who has alpha/beta tested a significant number of MMORPGs of all types before as well as designs software products as my profession, discussions like the one we are having in this thread are extremely common, especially at this relatively early point in the development cycle.
     
    It's extremely important to separate subjective feedback from objective feedback. Objectively speaking if asked on the current state of combat, it is very clearly donkey balls. No one in their right mind would pay $60 for the combat currently in the game and no amount of arguing can dispute that. 
     
    Pressing forward is the question of what is the current state of combat reflective of the product developmental timeline, epic and sprint schedules? This is entirely impossible to answer objectively because we simply do not know what ACE's timelines, epics and sprints will be (in any detail at least). Therefore, the only way to answer this question is with some guesstimation.
     
    Combat is relatively ok under the assumption that this is Pre-Alpha and that there will still be an extended Alpha and Beta phases. That being said, if the current rumblings of Crowfall going to a relatively open beta by the end of the year are true, I would be extremely worried. Any type of open beta for an MMORPG is usually the period where a majority of gamers, gaming communities, and guilds make up their mind about a game. In my honest opinion, I would be very concerned if Crowfall went to a more open beta by the end of the year. There are still a lot of systems that need to be added to the game and the big one currently in the game (combat) still needs a significant amount of work. 
     
    What I hope this illustrates is that arguing about the current state of combat while trying to make caveats on the current state of development is entirely subjective without fully knowing ACE's plans definitively. If you are more inclined to think positively then you will lean towards the inclination that there is still a significant amount of time to make changes. If you are inclined to think more negatively, then you tend to be concerned. Either line of thinking is acceptable and does not invalidate the other since we simply do not have all the information. 
     

     
    All of this being said, I highly recommend not trying to provide feedback with such caveats. As someone who designs software products professionally, I never ask our testers what they think of our product with caveats and therefore I try not provide feedback with caveats nor would I encourage anyone here to do so. The problem with applying caveats to your feedback is several-fold.
     
    First, you potentially limit the feedback you give/receive when trying to apply a caveat or assumption. For example, if I ask you what you think of the combat and you tell me its tollerable with the caveat that its still Alpha, then perhaps I don't get as valuable feedback related to the areas you think need the most improvement. Or perhaps a tester doesn't think outside the current iteration enough and I miss out on receiving feedback on potentially cool new features and abilities that can be added later. Or perhaps you don't tell me something was initially confusing because you think its your first time with the product and you can learn it over time.
     
    Secondly, a caveat is a form of bias and its best not to introduce such a bias when, as I've already explained, we simply don't have enough information to apply caveats.
     
    Finally, the truth is we will never have enough information to accurately apply caveats. The tester's mission should be to provide honest feedback and let the product team apply caveats to the feedback once they receive it. This is the way it should happen and does happen all the time in product development.
     
    I'll close this crazy post by saying one aspect of Crowfall that I think has hurt the game more than helped it is not having any NDA since originally announced. Not having an NDA sounds great to the public who likes to see things early and for the marketing and sales folks who can use more materials for promotions, but truthfully it also puts a lot of stress on the product team. The earlier in a development process a product is, the more caveats and unknowns it has — which makes the lack of an NDA potentially more harmful when things are in such a state of flux and un-polish. 
  21. Like
    sangz got a reaction from Mourne in How are you enjoying combat in it's current state?   
    I'll chime back in on this topic and say I think some perspective is needed. 
     
    I'm not saying I'm some kind of genius, but as someone who has alpha/beta tested a significant number of MMORPGs of all types before as well as designs software products as my profession, discussions like the one we are having in this thread are extremely common, especially at this relatively early point in the development cycle.
     
    It's extremely important to separate subjective feedback from objective feedback. Objectively speaking if asked on the current state of combat, it is very clearly donkey balls. No one in their right mind would pay $60 for the combat currently in the game and no amount of arguing can dispute that. 
     
    Pressing forward is the question of what is the current state of combat reflective of the product developmental timeline, epic and sprint schedules? This is entirely impossible to answer objectively because we simply do not know what ACE's timelines, epics and sprints will be (in any detail at least). Therefore, the only way to answer this question is with some guesstimation.
     
    Combat is relatively ok under the assumption that this is Pre-Alpha and that there will still be an extended Alpha and Beta phases. That being said, if the current rumblings of Crowfall going to a relatively open beta by the end of the year are true, I would be extremely worried. Any type of open beta for an MMORPG is usually the period where a majority of gamers, gaming communities, and guilds make up their mind about a game. In my honest opinion, I would be very concerned if Crowfall went to a more open beta by the end of the year. There are still a lot of systems that need to be added to the game and the big one currently in the game (combat) still needs a significant amount of work. 
     
    What I hope this illustrates is that arguing about the current state of combat while trying to make caveats on the current state of development is entirely subjective without fully knowing ACE's plans definitively. If you are more inclined to think positively then you will lean towards the inclination that there is still a significant amount of time to make changes. If you are inclined to think more negatively, then you tend to be concerned. Either line of thinking is acceptable and does not invalidate the other since we simply do not have all the information. 
     

     
    All of this being said, I highly recommend not trying to provide feedback with such caveats. As someone who designs software products professionally, I never ask our testers what they think of our product with caveats and therefore I try not provide feedback with caveats nor would I encourage anyone here to do so. The problem with applying caveats to your feedback is several-fold.
     
    First, you potentially limit the feedback you give/receive when trying to apply a caveat or assumption. For example, if I ask you what you think of the combat and you tell me its tollerable with the caveat that its still Alpha, then perhaps I don't get as valuable feedback related to the areas you think need the most improvement. Or perhaps a tester doesn't think outside the current iteration enough and I miss out on receiving feedback on potentially cool new features and abilities that can be added later. Or perhaps you don't tell me something was initially confusing because you think its your first time with the product and you can learn it over time.
     
    Secondly, a caveat is a form of bias and its best not to introduce such a bias when, as I've already explained, we simply don't have enough information to apply caveats.
     
    Finally, the truth is we will never have enough information to accurately apply caveats. The tester's mission should be to provide honest feedback and let the product team apply caveats to the feedback once they receive it. This is the way it should happen and does happen all the time in product development.
     
    I'll close this crazy post by saying one aspect of Crowfall that I think has hurt the game more than helped it is not having any NDA since originally announced. Not having an NDA sounds great to the public who likes to see things early and for the marketing and sales folks who can use more materials for promotions, but truthfully it also puts a lot of stress on the product team. The earlier in a development process a product is, the more caveats and unknowns it has — which makes the lack of an NDA potentially more harmful when things are in such a state of flux and un-polish. 
  22. Like
    sangz got a reaction from Aguise in How are you enjoying combat in it's current state?   
    I'll chime back in on this topic and say I think some perspective is needed. 
     
    I'm not saying I'm some kind of genius, but as someone who has alpha/beta tested a significant number of MMORPGs of all types before as well as designs software products as my profession, discussions like the one we are having in this thread are extremely common, especially at this relatively early point in the development cycle.
     
    It's extremely important to separate subjective feedback from objective feedback. Objectively speaking if asked on the current state of combat, it is very clearly donkey balls. No one in their right mind would pay $60 for the combat currently in the game and no amount of arguing can dispute that. 
     
    Pressing forward is the question of what is the current state of combat reflective of the product developmental timeline, epic and sprint schedules? This is entirely impossible to answer objectively because we simply do not know what ACE's timelines, epics and sprints will be (in any detail at least). Therefore, the only way to answer this question is with some guesstimation.
     
    Combat is relatively ok under the assumption that this is Pre-Alpha and that there will still be an extended Alpha and Beta phases. That being said, if the current rumblings of Crowfall going to a relatively open beta by the end of the year are true, I would be extremely worried. Any type of open beta for an MMORPG is usually the period where a majority of gamers, gaming communities, and guilds make up their mind about a game. In my honest opinion, I would be very concerned if Crowfall went to a more open beta by the end of the year. There are still a lot of systems that need to be added to the game and the big one currently in the game (combat) still needs a significant amount of work. 
     
    What I hope this illustrates is that arguing about the current state of combat while trying to make caveats on the current state of development is entirely subjective without fully knowing ACE's plans definitively. If you are more inclined to think positively then you will lean towards the inclination that there is still a significant amount of time to make changes. If you are inclined to think more negatively, then you tend to be concerned. Either line of thinking is acceptable and does not invalidate the other since we simply do not have all the information. 
     

     
    All of this being said, I highly recommend not trying to provide feedback with such caveats. As someone who designs software products professionally, I never ask our testers what they think of our product with caveats and therefore I try not provide feedback with caveats nor would I encourage anyone here to do so. The problem with applying caveats to your feedback is several-fold.
     
    First, you potentially limit the feedback you give/receive when trying to apply a caveat or assumption. For example, if I ask you what you think of the combat and you tell me its tollerable with the caveat that its still Alpha, then perhaps I don't get as valuable feedback related to the areas you think need the most improvement. Or perhaps a tester doesn't think outside the current iteration enough and I miss out on receiving feedback on potentially cool new features and abilities that can be added later. Or perhaps you don't tell me something was initially confusing because you think its your first time with the product and you can learn it over time.
     
    Secondly, a caveat is a form of bias and its best not to introduce such a bias when, as I've already explained, we simply don't have enough information to apply caveats.
     
    Finally, the truth is we will never have enough information to accurately apply caveats. The tester's mission should be to provide honest feedback and let the product team apply caveats to the feedback once they receive it. This is the way it should happen and does happen all the time in product development.
     
    I'll close this crazy post by saying one aspect of Crowfall that I think has hurt the game more than helped it is not having any NDA since originally announced. Not having an NDA sounds great to the public who likes to see things early and for the marketing and sales folks who can use more materials for promotions, but truthfully it also puts a lot of stress on the product team. The earlier in a development process a product is, the more caveats and unknowns it has — which makes the lack of an NDA potentially more harmful when things are in such a state of flux and un-polish. 
  23. Like
    sangz got a reaction from Remlap in How are you enjoying combat in it's current state?   
    I'll chime back in on this topic and say I think some perspective is needed. 
     
    I'm not saying I'm some kind of genius, but as someone who has alpha/beta tested a significant number of MMORPGs of all types before as well as designs software products as my profession, discussions like the one we are having in this thread are extremely common, especially at this relatively early point in the development cycle.
     
    It's extremely important to separate subjective feedback from objective feedback. Objectively speaking if asked on the current state of combat, it is very clearly donkey balls. No one in their right mind would pay $60 for the combat currently in the game and no amount of arguing can dispute that. 
     
    Pressing forward is the question of what is the current state of combat reflective of the product developmental timeline, epic and sprint schedules? This is entirely impossible to answer objectively because we simply do not know what ACE's timelines, epics and sprints will be (in any detail at least). Therefore, the only way to answer this question is with some guesstimation.
     
    Combat is relatively ok under the assumption that this is Pre-Alpha and that there will still be an extended Alpha and Beta phases. That being said, if the current rumblings of Crowfall going to a relatively open beta by the end of the year are true, I would be extremely worried. Any type of open beta for an MMORPG is usually the period where a majority of gamers, gaming communities, and guilds make up their mind about a game. In my honest opinion, I would be very concerned if Crowfall went to a more open beta by the end of the year. There are still a lot of systems that need to be added to the game and the big one currently in the game (combat) still needs a significant amount of work. 
     
    What I hope this illustrates is that arguing about the current state of combat while trying to make caveats on the current state of development is entirely subjective without fully knowing ACE's plans definitively. If you are more inclined to think positively then you will lean towards the inclination that there is still a significant amount of time to make changes. If you are inclined to think more negatively, then you tend to be concerned. Either line of thinking is acceptable and does not invalidate the other since we simply do not have all the information. 
     

     
    All of this being said, I highly recommend not trying to provide feedback with such caveats. As someone who designs software products professionally, I never ask our testers what they think of our product with caveats and therefore I try not provide feedback with caveats nor would I encourage anyone here to do so. The problem with applying caveats to your feedback is several-fold.
     
    First, you potentially limit the feedback you give/receive when trying to apply a caveat or assumption. For example, if I ask you what you think of the combat and you tell me its tollerable with the caveat that its still Alpha, then perhaps I don't get as valuable feedback related to the areas you think need the most improvement. Or perhaps a tester doesn't think outside the current iteration enough and I miss out on receiving feedback on potentially cool new features and abilities that can be added later. Or perhaps you don't tell me something was initially confusing because you think its your first time with the product and you can learn it over time.
     
    Secondly, a caveat is a form of bias and its best not to introduce such a bias when, as I've already explained, we simply don't have enough information to apply caveats.
     
    Finally, the truth is we will never have enough information to accurately apply caveats. The tester's mission should be to provide honest feedback and let the product team apply caveats to the feedback once they receive it. This is the way it should happen and does happen all the time in product development.
     
    I'll close this crazy post by saying one aspect of Crowfall that I think has hurt the game more than helped it is not having any NDA since originally announced. Not having an NDA sounds great to the public who likes to see things early and for the marketing and sales folks who can use more materials for promotions, but truthfully it also puts a lot of stress on the product team. The earlier in a development process a product is, the more caveats and unknowns it has — which makes the lack of an NDA potentially more harmful when things are in such a state of flux and un-polish. 
  24. Like
    sangz got a reaction from Angelmar in How are you enjoying combat in it's current state?   
    I'll chime back in on this topic and say I think some perspective is needed. 
     
    I'm not saying I'm some kind of genius, but as someone who has alpha/beta tested a significant number of MMORPGs of all types before as well as designs software products as my profession, discussions like the one we are having in this thread are extremely common, especially at this relatively early point in the development cycle.
     
    It's extremely important to separate subjective feedback from objective feedback. Objectively speaking if asked on the current state of combat, it is very clearly donkey balls. No one in their right mind would pay $60 for the combat currently in the game and no amount of arguing can dispute that. 
     
    Pressing forward is the question of what is the current state of combat reflective of the product developmental timeline, epic and sprint schedules? This is entirely impossible to answer objectively because we simply do not know what ACE's timelines, epics and sprints will be (in any detail at least). Therefore, the only way to answer this question is with some guesstimation.
     
    Combat is relatively ok under the assumption that this is Pre-Alpha and that there will still be an extended Alpha and Beta phases. That being said, if the current rumblings of Crowfall going to a relatively open beta by the end of the year are true, I would be extremely worried. Any type of open beta for an MMORPG is usually the period where a majority of gamers, gaming communities, and guilds make up their mind about a game. In my honest opinion, I would be very concerned if Crowfall went to a more open beta by the end of the year. There are still a lot of systems that need to be added to the game and the big one currently in the game (combat) still needs a significant amount of work. 
     
    What I hope this illustrates is that arguing about the current state of combat while trying to make caveats on the current state of development is entirely subjective without fully knowing ACE's plans definitively. If you are more inclined to think positively then you will lean towards the inclination that there is still a significant amount of time to make changes. If you are inclined to think more negatively, then you tend to be concerned. Either line of thinking is acceptable and does not invalidate the other since we simply do not have all the information. 
     

     
    All of this being said, I highly recommend not trying to provide feedback with such caveats. As someone who designs software products professionally, I never ask our testers what they think of our product with caveats and therefore I try not provide feedback with caveats nor would I encourage anyone here to do so. The problem with applying caveats to your feedback is several-fold.
     
    First, you potentially limit the feedback you give/receive when trying to apply a caveat or assumption. For example, if I ask you what you think of the combat and you tell me its tollerable with the caveat that its still Alpha, then perhaps I don't get as valuable feedback related to the areas you think need the most improvement. Or perhaps a tester doesn't think outside the current iteration enough and I miss out on receiving feedback on potentially cool new features and abilities that can be added later. Or perhaps you don't tell me something was initially confusing because you think its your first time with the product and you can learn it over time.
     
    Secondly, a caveat is a form of bias and its best not to introduce such a bias when, as I've already explained, we simply don't have enough information to apply caveats.
     
    Finally, the truth is we will never have enough information to accurately apply caveats. The tester's mission should be to provide honest feedback and let the product team apply caveats to the feedback once they receive it. This is the way it should happen and does happen all the time in product development.
     
    I'll close this crazy post by saying one aspect of Crowfall that I think has hurt the game more than helped it is not having any NDA since originally announced. Not having an NDA sounds great to the public who likes to see things early and for the marketing and sales folks who can use more materials for promotions, but truthfully it also puts a lot of stress on the product team. The earlier in a development process a product is, the more caveats and unknowns it has — which makes the lack of an NDA potentially more harmful when things are in such a state of flux and un-polish. 
  25. Like
    sangz got a reaction from FenrisDDevil in How are you enjoying combat in it's current state?   
    I'll chime back in on this topic and say I think some perspective is needed. 
     
    I'm not saying I'm some kind of genius, but as someone who has alpha/beta tested a significant number of MMORPGs of all types before as well as designs software products as my profession, discussions like the one we are having in this thread are extremely common, especially at this relatively early point in the development cycle.
     
    It's extremely important to separate subjective feedback from objective feedback. Objectively speaking if asked on the current state of combat, it is very clearly donkey balls. No one in their right mind would pay $60 for the combat currently in the game and no amount of arguing can dispute that. 
     
    Pressing forward is the question of what is the current state of combat reflective of the product developmental timeline, epic and sprint schedules? This is entirely impossible to answer objectively because we simply do not know what ACE's timelines, epics and sprints will be (in any detail at least). Therefore, the only way to answer this question is with some guesstimation.
     
    Combat is relatively ok under the assumption that this is Pre-Alpha and that there will still be an extended Alpha and Beta phases. That being said, if the current rumblings of Crowfall going to a relatively open beta by the end of the year are true, I would be extremely worried. Any type of open beta for an MMORPG is usually the period where a majority of gamers, gaming communities, and guilds make up their mind about a game. In my honest opinion, I would be very concerned if Crowfall went to a more open beta by the end of the year. There are still a lot of systems that need to be added to the game and the big one currently in the game (combat) still needs a significant amount of work. 
     
    What I hope this illustrates is that arguing about the current state of combat while trying to make caveats on the current state of development is entirely subjective without fully knowing ACE's plans definitively. If you are more inclined to think positively then you will lean towards the inclination that there is still a significant amount of time to make changes. If you are inclined to think more negatively, then you tend to be concerned. Either line of thinking is acceptable and does not invalidate the other since we simply do not have all the information. 
     

     
    All of this being said, I highly recommend not trying to provide feedback with such caveats. As someone who designs software products professionally, I never ask our testers what they think of our product with caveats and therefore I try not provide feedback with caveats nor would I encourage anyone here to do so. The problem with applying caveats to your feedback is several-fold.
     
    First, you potentially limit the feedback you give/receive when trying to apply a caveat or assumption. For example, if I ask you what you think of the combat and you tell me its tollerable with the caveat that its still Alpha, then perhaps I don't get as valuable feedback related to the areas you think need the most improvement. Or perhaps a tester doesn't think outside the current iteration enough and I miss out on receiving feedback on potentially cool new features and abilities that can be added later. Or perhaps you don't tell me something was initially confusing because you think its your first time with the product and you can learn it over time.
     
    Secondly, a caveat is a form of bias and its best not to introduce such a bias when, as I've already explained, we simply don't have enough information to apply caveats.
     
    Finally, the truth is we will never have enough information to accurately apply caveats. The tester's mission should be to provide honest feedback and let the product team apply caveats to the feedback once they receive it. This is the way it should happen and does happen all the time in product development.
     
    I'll close this crazy post by saying one aspect of Crowfall that I think has hurt the game more than helped it is not having any NDA since originally announced. Not having an NDA sounds great to the public who likes to see things early and for the marketing and sales folks who can use more materials for promotions, but truthfully it also puts a lot of stress on the product team. The earlier in a development process a product is, the more caveats and unknowns it has — which makes the lack of an NDA potentially more harmful when things are in such a state of flux and un-polish. 
×
×
  • Create New...