GW announces plans for "massive changes" to live sever with no testing

Slapshot1188

I have to say that some of the things that GW says/does comes across as utterly arrogant.  In a discussion about a huge change they plan to make at the start of Early Enrollment many people complained that such changes should, at a minimum be TESTED on a test server prior to pushing it out onto the liver sever and paying customers. Here is the response:

 

rsdancey Idea Submitter

 

 

I wanted to point out that we'll be making massive changes in Early Enrollment all the time. Some of those changes will be tested, and some won't. That's part of the whole point of Early Enrollment. If we have introduced a catastrophic problem we'll figure out how to roll back quickly. But if we have introduced something we just don't like, we'll fix it 2 weeks later. 2 weeks of irritation is not going to cripple the game but the upside from exploring more of the design space quickly in real-game conditions will pay off massively. (no pun intended).

 

Really glad that Early Enrollment is not a beta they are charging a sub for...  /sarcasm off

 

 

 

MumboJumbo

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

Really glad that Early Enrollment is not a beta they are charging a sub for...  /sarcasm off

I got no problem with that personally. It's when it's called an alpha that I do have a problem! 

I signed on for this approach, not many will but maybe enough?

Loke666

This is the test server. Once the game goes live is another matter but alphas and betas often have untried stuff in them.

Slapshot1188

Originally posted by Loke666
This is the test server. Once the game goes live is another matter but alphas and betas often have untried stuff in them.

Early Enrollment is the start of live and NOT the test server.  They have shifted over to the launch servers for this final phase of Alpha and a week or so from now they start Early Enrollment.  That is the real game where they have promised no character wipes and they charge a sub fee.

 

 

User836

It is plain to see from these forums that many do not like this approach to making a game. I would like to say that Goblinworks has made it very clear what the "Early Enrollment" (EE) starting next week is about - the most barebone version of the game that is still playable. There is no NDA, thus anyone can see on twitch or Youtube what the game looks like and what features it has.

More and more features will be added as they go, some things will naturally have to be temporary "placeholder" solutions to more long term problems, some features may be scratched because they don't work out - in short, much can happen. The chance to partake in this is, for some, alluring not in the least because there will be a back and forth process between developers and players - trying out new ideas both ingame and in discussions. Step by step addition of features is not the only purpose of Early Enrollment - the economy as well as the political and social structures will slowly develop over this time. Rather than opening the gates to the game on release for a chaotic rush of players they wish to see a solid community develop, gradually teaching and introducing new players as time goes by.

Is it a beta? Yes, I'd say so (it depends on your definition of a beta but I think many would agree that it is). It also requires you to pay to participate. They are not keeping any of this a secret, they have repeatedly told people that if they are not interested in playing a game that is not "feature complete" they can wait a year, two or however long they wish and enter the game once it is in a state they feel comfortable playing and paying for. "Vertical progression" is supposed to be fast and limited enough that new players are relatively quickly able to catch up to older players power level so joining later does not mean you will always be an underdog.

Is this development model ethical? I think: they have played with open cards, everyone should know what they are getting into if they sign up for Early Enrollment. Obviously making a game requires money and the amount of money you make should correlate positively with development speed. Do they have enough money that they may be able to continue development without additional funds? Well, hopefully their coffers are not completely empty. However, even if they have enough saved from their Kickstarter and other sources that they could eventually reach the "Open Enrollment" version of the game, i.e. 1.0, without additional funds, the income from "Early Enrollment" means they could reach that stage faster. The plan has been from the start that revenue from the game will keep the development going forward - apparently they feel that now is the time to enter that phase.

With limited funds they have set out on an ambitious project. The game will start in a very raw and barebone form and continually be improved. It is up to players when they feel the game is in a state they wish to pay for. There is no NDA and the devs are very forthcoming and open in discussions with the people on their forums. Without charging a sub for the EE process, the development would be slower or come to a halt. I know many do not like Kickstarter as a source of funding for games but this project wouldn't have been possible without it. Kickstarter means paying in advance for a product you will recieve in the future. Is it really so radically different and so much worse to pay for a barebone prototype of what you want in the future, a prototype that will continue to change and develop and one that allows you to follow and influence the process of its growth? A prototype which, although not the finished product, still brings you plenty of enjoyment (your mileage may vary!)?

iridescence

The point of Early Enrollment is to test and build the game which the players will have a hand in. If this is not the experience you want you simply should wait until the game launches for real  in a couple of years. Stamping your feet and posting the same complaints over and over like a "concerned troll" isn't going to accomplish anything. This is very true to what GW's vision of EE has always been, it appears maybe that you did not read carefully enough what you were buying into. Luckily for you you don't have to use your subscription on EE if you don't want to so you haven't lost anything.

 

syntax42

I have seen game companies release large changes to live servers without public testing of those changes.  Usually, though, the changes affect the economy in a way that could be abused if the players know about the changes beforehand.

It sounds like this is just a test server, so I see no problem with them making any kind of change.

At least it isn't like Firefall's promise of never wiping progression for beta players, but then changing the progression system entirely and effectively wiping it.

Asm0deus

My main concern is how they seem to want to nerf ranged fighting via stationary only attacks, will be funny in pvp to see melee owning all the caster/bow users.

Asm0deus

Originally posted by syntax42

I have seen game companies release large changes to live servers without public testing of those changes.  Usually, though, the changes affect the economy in a way that could be abused if the players know about the changes beforehand.

It sounds like this is just a test server, so I see no problem with them making any kind of change.

At least it isn't like Firefall's promise of never wiping progression for beta players, but then changing the progression system entirely and effectively wiping it.

This isn't a test server, pathfinder is in alpha on live server and Early Enrollment is starting the 22nd ish I believe and there is no wipes. Also PVP will be in for EE.

 

BlueMountain

I'm totally on-board with GW's plan to test features in the fires of the live server. It does break the 'traditional' development mold but it also is much more efficient and cost saving so long as the players are willing to take the risk along with the developers.

Tradition doesn't create, it calcifies. They are using an agile development methodology: I'll adopt an agile player methodology.

Xeen88

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

I have to say that some of the things that GW says/does comes across as utterly arrogant.  In a discussion about a huge change they plan to make at the start of Early Enrollment many people complained that such changes should, at a minimum be TESTED on a test server prior to pushing it out onto the liver sever and paying customers. Here is the response:

 

rsdancey Idea Submitter

 

 

I wanted to point out that we'll be making massive changes in Early Enrollment all the time. Some of those changes will be tested, and some won't. That's part of the whole point of Early Enrollment. If we have introduced a catastrophic problem we'll figure out how to roll back quickly. But if we have introduced something we just don't like, we'll fix it 2 weeks later. 2 weeks of irritation is not going to cripple the game but the upside from exploring more of the design space quickly in real-game conditions will pay off massively. (no pun intended).

 

Really glad that Early Enrollment is not a beta they are charging a sub for...  /sarcasm off

 

 

 

 

The Arrogance you are seeing is from Ryan himself. That has been probably the most difficult thing to deal with in PFO. He treats anyone that questions him as scum, and if you happen to be someone who kisses up, well then you have his attention for game changes. 

User836

To me the quote primarily comes across as honest and forthcoming rather than arrogant. He's in effect warning prospective players about what Early Enrollment is about, allowing someone who might be interested in the game (at a later stage) but not prepared to pay to take part in testing and building the foundation for it to hold off until a later date. The "two weeks" thing refers to the planned biweekly update cycle.

(and they have said that they are going to run a test server at a later stage)

Heretique

Game needs an overhaul on a lot of systems, these "massive changes" hopefully are them or else this is going to be another bumpy road.