To bring us back home: I dunno about this stuff 'cause I'm not in the game and it doesn't affect me at all but what Cheatle says makes a lot of sense. I think Cal may've had the right of it—two weeks may not be necessary, but ensuring the biggest bugs are gone before release may well be.
First impressions are important in marketing. I know that from my struggles on fanfiction sites. If you don't get the alternate universe Pinkie Pie/Chancellor Puddinghead mindmerge's death scene just right on the first go, well, nobody's gonna come back after you edit it, they'll just meh it off and go read another b#+$#*@* crossover
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First impressions are important in marketing. I know that from my struggles on fanfiction sites. If you don't get the alternate universe Pinkie Pie/Chancellor Puddinghead mindmerge's death scene just right on the first go, well, nobody's gonna come back after you edit it, they'll just meh it off and go read another b~!~@$$$ crossover
+1
I would also add that PFO in general is (and individual settlements are) already being judged based on how things are being handled in Alpha.
Bugs and problems and issues in a game are always expected, it is how responsive the devs are to these issues and the way they are dealt with that people will take notice of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ah, there is the Kobold!! I really think we need to see what the next patch brings before continuing to sharpen our axes and calling for heads to roll. It would be nice to have a follow up post for GW asking us to test specific population densities or mass migrations in attempts to further define where the hang up is for the server.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the NAP only extends to the 6 adjacent towers from my understanding, which only puts them at the same capability as npc settlements - but with less buildings. If they want to provide some reason to use their settlement over an npc settlement, or if they want to get a reward for having a high number of average towers (it's been said before that the groups with the most average towers will get DI-boosting buildings after the cataclysm - or something very close to that effect), then they still need to fight for those extra towers. Given the number of towers that can be taken, and the incentives for taking more than 6 towers, I don't see a need to take away a settlement's baseline functionality by taking some of its initial 6 towers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chris, you can't be expected to follow our conversations, but the agreement under discussion involved by far the majority of everyone who is participating here. The extent of the post removals feels like a heavy handed decision that has damaged my opinion of Paizo.
By the way this is pre-EE Pfo community them song
That's gold man. haha.
My POV about EE and delay-ment is this:
I think maybe EE should start off simple. Obviously. The MVP should be that where the game can be driven, stuff can happen, but nobody can really gain any huge ground. Being as it's a beta-state.
I think the bugs listed are definitely issues. I think PKing needs to be in day one, too. I feel like this game is going to change drastically during EE. A lot of the things, or some of them, which seemed like good ideas are going to really become sores in action. That's normal. Like I said, the issue is to make it so that there never has to be a roll-back, in my eyes. So, advancing slowly is fine.
But bugs, yeah, getm.
Okay, sorry, my bad. I forgot the rules about Vomit Guy. :(
Oh, I had no problem with the personal insults being deleted. It's the "derailing posts" deletions that've been bugging me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back on topic... If we're seeing desynching issues from there being too much server activity now, there are going to be 3x as many people (if not more) as soon as early enrollment goes live.
I just really want people to stick around and for the servers to be active and healthy when the game goes live.
Chris, you have a terrifying new avatar.
Derailment! DERAILMENT!!!
I'm not as bad ass a KC, yall. Sorry.
On topic, at least we players have a means of managing the our desyncs, so it is not as bad as it was before. But probably not completely acceptable for EE, as had been pointed out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Back on topic... If we're seeing desynching issues from there being too much server activity now, there are going to be 3x as many people (if not more) as soon as early enrollment goes live.
I just really want people to stick around and for the servers to be active and healthy when the game goes live.
THIS. THIS. THIS.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In case it got deleted, I'll restate my position.
A two week delay is fine by me, if it gets things fixed. A two month delay should only happen if GW finds truly recalcitrant, game-breaking bugs. Saying "If they're going to delay into November, then they might as well just delay until January," requires more patience than I'd care to muster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DERAILMENT?
Nah, derailed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am sure at this point GW knows whether they plan to delay EE or not. At the very least they know if it is on the table.
Any update for us to discuss on this?
I asked Ryan about this in-game. He declined to make a statement about whether or not they were on schedule, but he did make a general statement, and I hope I reproduce it accurately enough not to cause any confusion.
They met late last week and determined that all of the "must fix" code changes were complete. Server stability issues are the only real concern they have right now. They'll meet early next week to go over where they are and make a "go/no-go" decision.
My sincere apologies to Ryan if I've misrepresented any of that.