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

It seems like the people forgot...


Medicaid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Reading through the forums it become quite clear that people feel like they have signed up to currently play a game.

Even though it's been up and running for a while now people seem to need to be reminded that this is still in an early development cycle. We are not "playing" we are "playtesting".

That being said I've started to play a game while reading the forums where anytime I see the words "play" and "game" with more relevant words like "testing" "development phase" 

If u do that a lot of posts seem to make little sense and come across poorly. Then u begin to understand why the dev's might not feel the need to reply alot of these

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Darksun_ said:

Do you think this has something to do with how this development phase has been played during testing?

No. All aspects of the game’s design needs to be tested. This includes stacked factions, hardcore vs casual interactions, and all the like. 

A lot of good data can be determined from the testing environment. Whether or not they choose to seize that opportunity is up to the dev team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting you go right to stacked factions. 

I am more thinking about meta classes and the seemingly unwillingness to test the other classes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Darksun_ said:

I think it's interesting you go right to stacked factions. 

I am more thinking about meta classes and the seemingly unwillingness to test the other classes. 

Class balancing will start when alpha begins, currently expected in feb 2020. It is simply not feasible to spend the time doing work on class/race besides getting basic functionality until after all game systems are in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mystafyi said:

Class balancing will start when alpha begins, currently expected in feb 2020. It is simply not feasible to spend the time doing work on class/race besides getting basic functionality until after all game systems are in place.

Has a lot more to do with the bugs associated with certain classes that has lead to our current meta.  Hopefully there will be a lot of bug fixes with the new content for the dregs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused to the OP's point, so if you use the word "play" or "Game" then they are in the wrong?  I'm going to try and infer that what you are talking about are the players who currently complain about the state, and hold your breath, of the game. While the "game" is being "played" I think its really important for the devs to ask themselves "is this fun". If players are complaining about something not being fun, or about a specific mechanic I would say that is testing and provides invaluable information. Yes this is testing and yes they are in various development phases but it is still a game and it is playable.  I would agree with you if you said something about the comments being more constructive, and that people are reminded that this testing is for devs to gauge "fun", balance, bugs, and play-ability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Medicaid said:

Reading through the forums it become quite clear that people feel like they have signed up to currently play a game.

Even though it's been up and running for a while now people seem to need to be reminded that this is still in an early development cycle. We are not "playing" we are "playtesting".

That being said I've started to play a game while reading the forums where anytime I see the words "play" and "game" with more relevant words like "testing" "development phase" 

If u do that a lot of posts seem to make little sense and come across poorly. Then u begin to understand why the dev's might not feel the need to reply alot of these

I don't blame people for treating the current and past versions as a game. I too have pointed out many times that it isn't, but the devs and the community treat it as such. Having a TEST & LIVE server seems to have confused some, handing out participation trophies for winning a test campaign, doing pre-alpha marketing (war stories), 24/7 servers which are uncommon, along with lack of testing focus itself (just go play and tell us what you think).

While some might have the ability to look into the future, we really have zero clue how anything upcoming will function or play out once in our hands. While I'd like to assume XYZ will make this feel like a more complete game experience, I don't know yet.

All we can do is "playtest" the current version and provide feedback based upon that experience. Not cross our fingers and toes hoping months/years down the line when mystery features, bug fixing, balance passes, and optimization happen that the feedback and response will be different.

ACE has made plenty of changes over the years based on feedback that might not have otherwise happened if people weren't "playing" and just "testing" as that can bring about different experiences.

If people were actually "testing" and not "playing" then development likely would of moved a bit faster. A handful to a couple hundred working together to make the upcoming game the best it can be compared to the same group battling it out trying to be kind of pre-alpha. Not that there can't be a bit of both, but seems fairly obvious the focus has been on playing more then testing for a long time.

Also, "early" might be losing ground as it sounds like we'll have a near complete version come early next year. Polish, bugs, optimization will continue on forever after that, pre/post launch. Even the devs seem to have given up on using pre-alpha.

IMO ACE has done everyone a disservice when it comes to communicating for a good while and much of those "poor" posts/discussions could of likely been unnecessary or quickly resolved if communication wasn't one way.

 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, APE said:

IMO ACE has done everyone a disservice when it comes to communicating for a good while and much of those "poor" posts/discussions could of likely been unnecessary or quickly resolved if communication wasn't one way.

 

Can't argue with that. 

I think OPs point is that not all topics are worth discussion at this point.  Discussing what functions by design and what doesn't function by design makes sense at this juncture, but discussing things like balancing and stub systems that aren't even completely implemented does not make much sense because all of the relevant pieces aren't yet there.  ACE could indeed, and should, get ahead of this for the sake of maintaining all of the testers they have acquired; no one wants to feel ignored for years when they opened their wallet to buy in to the discussion, as we all did.  That said, they also can't react to all posts on the forum where the topic is a moving target that they may have already changed in a more-recent-but-unrealeased build. 

In development, game devs need to walk a line between "we need new players/testers to fund and test development and so need to put something functional together to attract them and hold their interest" and "we are trying to develop a cohesive game with a lot of complicated interlocking systems and working with our testers is paramount to delivering the vision", and I think ACE's communications are more in line with the former than the latter of late.  I'm sure resources are spread thin but I think what they have together is significant enough that they can new attract and keep play testers without obscuring the current state, so they should make more of an effort to make it clear that 1) this is not a functional game yet and 2) to broadcast which systems are in flux and which are test worthy.  I'm pretty sure this will need to entail some label changes and disclaimers in-game to be maximally effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, starrshipcs said:

Can't argue with that. 

I think OPs point is that not all topics are worth discussion at this point.  Discussing what functions by design and what doesn't function by design makes sense at this juncture, but discussing things like balancing and stub systems that aren't even completely implemented does not make much sense because all of the relevant pieces aren't yet there.  ACE could indeed, and should, get ahead of this for the sake of maintaining all of the testers they have acquired; no one wants to feel ignored for years when they opened their wallet to buy in to the discussion, as we all did.  That said, they also can't react to all posts on the forum where the topic is a moving target that they may have already changed in a more-recent-but-unrealeased build. 

In development, game devs need to walk a line between "we need new players/testers to fund and test development and so need to put something functional together to attract them and hold their interest" and "we are trying to develop a cohesive game with a lot of complicated interlocking systems and working with our testers is paramount to delivering the vision", and I think ACE's communications are more in line with the former than the latter of late.  I'm sure resources are spread thin but I think what they have together is significant enough that they can new attract and keep play testers without obscuring the current state, so they should make more of an effort to make it clear that 1) this is not a functional game yet and 2) to broadcast which systems are in flux and which are test worthy.  I'm pretty sure this will need to entail some label changes and disclaimers in-game to be maximally effective.

Will be interesting to see if ACE changes their marketing and communication styles with the upcoming (last?) milestone and alpha/beta that follow. Hopefully each phase will bring in old/new players to the community. If they show up to a relatively dead forum/game, I don't expect much different when it comes to retention and participation. Still baffles me that they can't figure out or went with a forum system that can't support a dev tracker.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, APE said:

Still baffles me that they can't figure out or went with a forum system that can't support a dev tracker.

Although it is hosted and run by a 3rd party, they can have a dev tracker, I know I checked. For some reason ACE has chose not to have it. I have been told by pann for, gotta be a year or more now, that its not a focus and would update if that ever changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mystafyi said:

Although it is hosted and run by a 3rd party, they can have a dev tracker, I know I checked. For some reason ACE has chose not to have it. I have been told by pann for, gotta be a year or more now, that its not a focus and would update if that ever changed. 

Which is strange.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, APE said:

Which is strange.

I know of 2 people that have stopped following CF due to no dev tracker. They don't want to waste time reading whole forum to see dev activity on multiple prerelease games and figured that if the devs don't care why should they. For many its very easy to just move on to other games. As we all know, folks have much less product loyalty and are fickle and flighty. Not just in gaming, but in many sectors of society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mystafyi said:

I know of 2 people that have stopped following CF due to no dev tracker. They don't want to waste time reading whole forum to see dev activity on multiple prerelease games and figured that if the devs don't care why should they. For many its very easy to just move on to other games. As we all know, folks have much less product loyalty and are fickle and flighty. Not just in gaming, but in many sectors of society. 

Yep. I've backed several of these games and might not play any of them. I have zero issue moving on from games, regardless of the time/money I've put in. Little things like no dev tracker just seem bad management too me and yet another reason to give no money/time to them in the future. 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Play literally any other game, candy crush, doesn't matter, and it quickly illuminates just what a chore playing or play-testing or pushing buttons on this game is.  Needs another 10 years of development.

 

And while, sure, its a "testing" environment, no one is interested in a chore for their limited free time.

Edited by Ble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ble said:

Play literally any other game, candy crush, doesn't matter, and it quickly illuminates just what a chore playing or play-testing or pushing buttons on this game is.  Needs another 10 years of development.

 

And while, sure, its a "testing" environment, no one is interested in a chore for their limited free time.

Sadly, not one game I have tested has ever been this grindy and unfun. Sure they are broken messes, but they are fun or at least the parts working are. For a game designed to not have grind, gear drops, leveling and being able to jump right in to pvp, they sure have failed in those core design categories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...