Excited for final wipe but seems like a catch 22

We still have 4 months to see improvement on those.

I do have experience. The only time it helps is when they need to change the "core" code of the combat, and they will have that down by july so that any further changes would simply be to balance and skill additions, which wipes aren't really needed for because its not effecting the core code.

 

There's always going to continue to be balancing and polishing to everything with the game at this point, since it's not the "official" release. I have zero problems with expecting tweaks and the like, as long as the basic game is playable and enjoyable at the final wipe, so we can work on our characters properly

 

Oh, I have plenty of concerns. I'm just saying the majority of concerns I do have with everything can mostly likely be worked out by the end of the year, possibly maybe even going into the first quarter of next year, but not by July. I am a patient person, so I don't mind waiting.

 

Say no more - God i loved that game, and if the crafting in SOTA will be close to how DAoC did it i will be a very happy man

 

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/story-in-scene-the-palace-gardener.45844/

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/story-in-scene-the-prison.45944/

...and that's just from a couple of the players. Portalarium has much, much more waiting in the pipeline.

 

Check out Camelot Unchained. That's a game I am backing and that I have the most hope for. They are in a similar level of development and the game play is orders of magnitude better.

 

Aye, I backed it as well. It has the type of RvR PvP I enjoy. MJ has been gracious and straight-forward throughout the project. I have lots of respect for him. My hopes are that CU will be my game for strict PvP and Sota will be my PvE game. Both games are different and both have the potential to offer something I can enjoy once they're finished.

 

People already judge the game right now and many truly believe pre-alpha is a lie. Of course these people are poorly informed. The same will be true for those that claim the final wipe is the release. It cannot be helped.

Final wipe is not the release. end of story.

 

That's precisely what I am hoping too. I've never been much of a fan of PvP, especially when the game tries to do both PvE and PvP in the same game. And then you always have the PvErs whining about the PvPers and vice versa (CU will be all PvP all the time). But I found that I loved RvR combat because of its tactical/team-based nature vs. the one-on-one mentality; it's the one thing that ESO did right but failed to deliver on technically. Oh, and WoW. The only thing I liked about WoW PvP was that it was on all the time when doing stuff in "enemy territory" I had to be vewy vewy careful while hunting wabbits.

 

The issue with PVP in RVR such as Camelot Unchained is the fact all skill will be nerfed into oblivion and the largest zerg will win almost always. Please save your stories about how you single handed saved the realm one time. Crowd control is the main tactic for a smaller force to beat a larger and CC is the first to get nerfed to uselessness.

RvR is even worse to balance fairly. Especially because people will flock to the winning zerg.

If you want PVP Crowfall or Star Citizen. The best PVE and RPG is Shroud.

 

<3

 

It's not uncommon for a developer to hide under the guise of a pre-alpha label to perpetually avoid criticism while still charging money for it. It doesn't help that others use the term to sell access to their "demo".

As much as I like where SotA is heading, I've seen prototypes that offered better game-play. Right now, all that SotA has is "infrastructure". Which is a good way to approach things when talking about production but going into production without a functional and fun prototype, you run the risk of getting to a point where you can't bring out the fun... because there was nothing there to begin with... or waste resources building something that won't be used in the final product because you didn't spend the time to check what you really needed.

It took 7 years of hard work for Blizzard to realize that their Titan project wasn't fun.

Nintendo is actually really good at that.

 

This is why I really dislike the "Early Access" tag, simply for the negative baggage that has become associated with it. Sure, the final wipe isn't official release, but it -IS- the difference of the world going permanent versus "testing" where everything was wiped periodically. It does fall under the "soft launch" concept; we just have to see how well it turns out come July.

 

Aye, I agree.

 

I'm really excited about the world of New Britannia being populated and communities forming within that world PRIOR to the official launch.

If people are just looking to play a good game in single player mode, then all of this is just about dates. But for people in multiplayer mode, the world is about persistence, and if there were a good game out there that had persistence for months that I could join and have fun in, I'd do that.

If a developer is giving access to the game and it's not fun, who's hiding?

People don't play games that aren't fun. So if you don't like it, don't play. Come back later and check it out, if it's fun, keep playing.

 

You misunderstood: It's not about being transparent, it's about dodging criticism and bad press.

Most recent offender is "The Division" and their so called "beta".

 

How does anyone dodge bad press in the information age?

More importantly, if a game is in Early Access and you want a finished game, don't buy it. What am I missing? Also, why should developers want to open themselves up to criticism if they don't need to? My game isn't finished so I guess I'll tell everyone it is? Where's the logic in that?

It used to be that playing Beta was a big deal. A HUGE deal in fact. Then it was Alpha. Now it's pre-alpha. Pretty soon it will be "Yeah, I helped design that game on a cocktail napkin at 2 am last year".

But the one part of this conversation that we're missing is the fact that no one makes you buy a game that's in pre-alpha, early access, a soft launch, or whatever else you want to call it. So if you buy the game and it's not officially launched and that's not your thing, don't you have some responsibility in all this? And if you bought a game (like kickstartered it) and the game is going to have a final wipe prior to launch (like this one is), who says you have to play it earlier than launch?

Here's why I think some people dislike the final wipe being before the official launch. Because if it turns out to be a good game, they want to be on the inside track the day the game has persistence! But they don't want to pay more money for a game that might not be for them when it's all said and done. So instead of just making a decision, they get upset that a game company is putting them in the position of making that choice. I think that's what the real problem is for some people. What do you think?

 

This one time at space camp, Richie Garriott and I....

 

I have a serious question, would a final wipe take place after an official launch?

I dont think anyone in this thread is complaining about the money spent, in my case i could care less about what i have invested, but i just hope final wipes isnt any indication we arent going to see big changes, otherwise the game may not be what i was anticipating thats all

To be clear im more concerned with the current core mechanics. Though i dont feel the game has that "thing" to keep me wanting to come back for more at the moment, content can be easily added in the future. July is a long way away so again i hope to be pleasantly surprised in the near future!

 

I also dont agree with some of the tone in this discussion about if your not having fun, or have concerns about the game, or arent happy you can sell your pledges and move on. If i did that everytime i had a concern with an investement in the stockmarket i would have missed out on some real gems. Which is why i continue to play SOTA at this time.