Pathfinder Online Interviews: We Want to Under Promise and Over Deliver

Slapshot1188

Right here on this site: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/719/feature/8222

 

Given recent info around the cutback launch of Early Entry (start of sub fee) does ANYONE still believe that to be the case?

If so... please explain!

 

Grunty

Regarding your signature, Star Wars Galaxies was the first MMO that supplied their beta client on a disc.

Kilrain

Originally posted by Grunty
Regarding your signature, Star Wars Galaxies was the first MMO that supplied their beta client on a disc.

I played beta for Everquest Online Adventures for PlayStation. It came on a disk. 

iridescence

I don't get the connection between the two things. Delaying EE by a week is not a big deal. Even if they delay it by a few months that is fine. Early enrollment needs "minimum viable product" emphasis  on viable. If they don't have that yet they shouldn't launch anyway just to stay on some silly schedule.

 

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by iridescence

I don't get the connection between the two things. Delaying EE by a week is not a big deal. Even if they delay it by a few months that is fine. Early enrollment needs "minimum viable product" emphasis  on viable. If they don't have that yet they shouldn't launch anyway just to stay on some silly schedule.

 

You are misunderstanding.  Nobody I have seen, on any site.. has complained that they delayed 1 week.

 

Every complaint I have seen is that they should delay FURTHER, to actually make it worth a sub and closer to what EE was envisioned to be.  Launching with only 1/3 of the EE map, no player settlements and other substandard things (like targeting) means that (in my opinion) they UNDER delivered on what they OVER promised.  The opposite of what the article claimed.

 

If they really want to "crowdforge" they should listen to the recent survey where 3/4 of those responding felt the game should be delayed for 4+ weeks (and 91% thought further delaying beyond the promised 1 week) in order to deliver a "substantially higher quality Minimally Viable Product".

 

So I was asking if anyone felt differently and could point out how the Early Entry is in any way over delivering on what was promised...

MumboJumbo

I don't think it's as dramatic as you make out from the previous blog:-

One Does Not Simply WALK Into Early Enrollment

 

We are moving Companies into a release after Early Enrollment has begun. They are a prerequisite for the War of Towers but we don't need them until the War is ready to commence so we've shifted that feature down the timeline. We are currently planning on deploying War of Towers the week of October 9th and Companies may be deployed at the same time. How the War of Towers will start is still being discussed so we will probably come up with ways to ensure that you have time to engage in Company formation in an orderly way before the War commences.

We will have the top 1/3rd of the Early Enrollment map ready on Day One of Early Enrollment. 

We plan to deploy all of the terrain the week after Early Enrollment begins. It may take longer but we are planning on a one week delay.

 

>This should allow us to perform various load balancing tasks and avoid clustering so many players in one place that we break things. No, you won't be able to pick where you start. Yes we know that this means that some people will have to hike across the map to get to where your friends are. This is a short-term solution, not the way the game will be played forever so we ask for your forbearance for a limited time.

So it sounds like staggered reasons are given. Delays are a week or two from what was supposed to be ready.

Hence may prove easier to wait a week or two and save some game time. I guess there will be players particularly alpha who want to get going and storing progress time.

The only thing I'd be worried about is none of the above but the actual quality of the gameplay on offer, the quality of performance and how streamlined GW manages to add the above during EE first few weeks without further delays.

It depends what the alpha players think of the condition of the current alpha 7-8 and if that's near enough EE MVP or not.

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

I don't think it's as dramatic as you make out from the previous blog:-

One Does Not Simply WALK Into Early Enrollment

 

We are moving Companies into a release after Early Enrollment has begun. They are a prerequisite for the War of Towers but we don't need them until the War is ready to commence so we've shifted that feature down the timeline. We are currently planning on deploying War of Towers the week of October 9th and Companies may be deployed at the same time. How the War of Towers will start is still being discussed so we will probably come up with ways to ensure that you have time to engage in Company formation in an orderly way before the War commences.

We will have the top 1/3rd of the Early Enrollment map ready on Day One of Early Enrollment. 

We plan to deploy all of the terrain the week after Early Enrollment begins. It may take longer but we are planning on a one week delay.

 

>This should allow us to perform various load balancing tasks and avoid clustering so many players in one place that we break things. No, you won't be able to pick where you start. Yes we know that this means that some people will have to hike across the map to get to where your friends are. This is a short-term solution, not the way the game will be played forever so we ask for your forbearance for a limited time.

So it sounds like staggered reasons are given. Delays are a week or two from what was supposed to be ready.

Hence may prove easier to wait a week or two and save some game time. I guess there will be players particularly alpha who want to get going and storing progress time.

The only thing I'd be worried about is none of the above but the actual quality of the gameplay on offer, the quality of performance and how streamlined GW manages to add the above during EE first few weeks without further delays.

It depends what the alpha players think of the condition of the current alpha 7-8 and if that's near enough EE MVP or not.

I admittedly can be a bit over dramatic so fair point, but back to the topic... is the way they are rolling out this start of Early Entry an example of "Over delivering and Under Promising" as was claimed in the article?  Or are we just quibbling about the degree to which they are UNDER delivering?

 

 

iridescence

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

 

You are misunderstanding.  Nobody I have seen, on any site.. has complained that they delayed 1 week.

 

Every complaint I have seen is that they should delay FURTHER, to actually make it worth a sub and closer to what EE was envisioned to be.  Launching with only 1/3 of the EE map, no player settlements and other substandard things (like targeting) means that (in my opinion) they UNDER delivered on what they OVER promised.  The opposite of what the article claimed.

 

If they really want to "crowdforge" they should listen to the recent survey where 3/4 of those responding felt the game should be delayed for 4+ weeks (and 91% thought further delaying beyond the promised 1 week) in order to deliver a "substantially higher quality Minimally Viable Product".

hmmm...You're right I completely got the opposite impression from your OP. I am more sympathetic to the arguments you put forward here. I do understand though is that the harsh reality is they need to raise money in order to keep the lights on and develop the game. I doubt they have the money to develop the game for a year or two longer with no revenue coming in. I think they have always told us EE would be a stripped down experience. I'm hoping that when the game actually fully launches they can still over-deliver but they need money for that.

Assuming you are an EE level backer, you do always have the option to skip EE and save your free months for after the game fully launches or after its been polished to your satisfaction if you wish.

 

MumboJumbo

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Originally posted by iridescence

I don't get the connection between the two things. Delaying EE by a week is not a big deal. Even if they delay it by a few months that is fine. Early enrollment needs "minimum viable product" emphasis  on viable. If they don't have that yet they shouldn't launch anyway just to stay on some silly schedule.

 

You are misunderstanding.  Nobody I have seen, on any site.. has complained that they delayed 1 week.

 

Every complaint I have seen is that they should delay FURTHER, to actually make it worth a sub and closer to what EE was envisioned to be.  Launching with only 1/3 of the EE map, no player settlements and other substandard things (like targeting) means that (in my opinion) they UNDER delivered on what they OVER promised.  The opposite of what the article claimed.

 

If they really want to "crowdforge" they should listen to the recent survey where 3/4 of those responding felt the game should be delayed for 4+ weeks (and 91% thought further delaying beyond the promised 1 week) in order to deliver a "substantially higher quality Minimally Viable Product".

 

So I was asking if anyone felt differently and could point out how the Early Entry is in any way over delivering on what was promised...

Ah just saw this, ok get where you're coming from, think a bit of drama is warranted.

Yeah, maybe GW should have asked the players in alpha and blogged on that? THAT'S my main worry: The game quality on EE day 1 MVP.

I don't mind if it's bare features, going around pvp'ing should be fun - so long as - the combat and targetting etc are all working. If the basic gameplay loop is dysfunctional then it's a non-starter. Is there any alpha tester feedback on all this?

 

MumboJumbo

the degree to which they are UNDER delivering?

Yeah it's the actual quality of the basic game loop that I'm agreeing needs to be up to standard. They have to deliver on that I'd argue. Apologies as I misunderstood your first post. You're about the above.