Canno said:I would much rather that than being faced with overcrowded and potentially crashing starter zones.
Though knowing what population limits a zone can handle can tell alot about the quality of the coding and power of the servers. Just as we all start clustered in newbie zones at the start, we'll be clustered together in the top zones/raid zones later on. I'd rather a newbie zone crash and they fix the problems early on than finding out stuff needs fixed when raids crash.
Vandraad said:Canno said:I would much rather that than being faced with overcrowded and potentially crashing starter zones.
Though knowing what population limits a zone can handle can tell alot about the quality of the coding and power of the servers. Just as we all start clustered in newbie zones at the start, we'll be clustered together in the top zones/raid zones later on. I'd rather a newbie zone crash and they fix the problems early on than finding out stuff needs fixed when raids crash.
However, I find day one overcrowding to be a GREAT community building time as people get to know other people and form up into guilds, make friends, etc.
Vandraad said:Full wipe with everyone starting at 0. Those who were in alpha/beta will progress fast enough given their knowledge of the game mechanics and world layout. There isn't any need to further alienate the average player by them seeing tons of much higher level characters running around on opening day.
I agree with this... Everyone needs to start fresh when play goes "live".
Vandraad said:Canno said:I would much rather that than being faced with overcrowded and potentially crashing starter zones.
Though knowing what population limits a zone can handle can tell alot about the quality of the coding and power of the servers. Just as we all start clustered in newbie zones at the start, we'll be clustered together in the top zones/raid zones later on. I'd rather a newbie zone crash and they fix the problems early on than finding out stuff needs fixed when raids crash.
By the time people reach those zones, assuming a slow levelling process, it should be a non-issue. Also chances are there will be many more top end raiding zones than there will be starter zones.
It's about a good first impression, and crashing starter zones are not a good one. :)
Aggelos said:Vandraad said:Canno said:I would much rather that than being faced with overcrowded and potentially crashing starter zones.
Though knowing what population limits a zone can handle can tell alot about the quality of the coding and power of the servers. Just as we all start clustered in newbie zones at the start, we'll be clustered together in the top zones/raid zones later on. I'd rather a newbie zone crash and they fix the problems early on than finding out stuff needs fixed when raids crash.
However, I find day one overcrowding to be a GREAT community building time as people get to know other people and form up into guilds, make friends, etc.
Overcrowding with enough mobs/spawns/etc is one thing, overcrowding to the point people are killstealing a single rat to furhter their quest? Not so much. :)
Liav said:Mostly full wipe:
Name/guild name reservations allowed prior to launch for beta participants. Characters created get stripped naked and reverted back to level 1 and sent back to wherever their initial starting place is/was.
That's pretty much the only thing that reasonably should carry over to launch tbh. Can even skip the stripping characters part if you allow character customizations to be saved to a hashed local file or something.
i mostly agree too. only thing thing i'd add is to be allowed to recreat the char with the same name in any class/race
It's the "Launch" of the game, start from lvl 1. Some people will be out there testing every aspect of the game and submiting info while in beta and then in a way be penalized because they decided to "test" instead of advance in the game if there wasn't a wipe.
Vandraad said:Full wipe with everyone starting at 0. Those who were in alpha/beta will progress fast enough given their knowledge of the game mechanics and world layout. There isn't any need to further alienate the average player by them seeing tons of much higher level characters running around on opening day.
Completely agree. having already geared players at the start trolling the others is never fun. sure you will get some that are willing to help out but most of the time those who keep the characters they rolled at the start are... D!ckheads imo hahah and this isnt just for MMOs either ever slide into a new D&D group where you have to start lower then the ones that have been there with people youve never gamed with before?
Full wipe
Purist in me suggests forcing Beta testers to start in a completely different continent or world zone to prevent knowledge advantage- but I realize this may be undrealistic.
I agree, those testers need to be recognized by devs, making them special in some way we can all see for making sure the game is great for the rest of us.
I agree with a full wipe minus the benefits that come from pledging, like name reservation and stuff.
Re: End-of-OpenBeta
A full-wipe is essential, if for no other reason than to ensure the testing done is just that - testing. If anyone is sidetracked from this goal (other than, perhaps, being nosy and trying to find out what is behind the 9-locked door) it dilutes the effectiveness of the Beta testing. It also creates an unequal playing field, beyond what is skewed by prior knowledge.
Re: 'Head Start'
There is only one advantage, (from the developers point of view) other than (potentially) a monetary one, for having a 'head start' phase.
To mitigate initial Population Density.(I.e. Stop the servers/zones lagging/crashing)
I don't recall if it is even proposed to have a 'Head start' (via pledge rewards) but I could, potentially, see a benefit for having all pledges/subscription players getting 1-3 days advance access.
Here are some suggested options and their potential benfits ....
Early Client Access:
This would allow players to gain access to the client before the 'Launch date'. It might, perhaps, allow them to create characters and, potentially, validate the character names. This might be important in order to ensure that subscribers get a small lead on 'free to play' players when it comes to choosing names. It might also serve to flag up comparative shard loading and allow a certain amount of re-balancing. It would certainly spread out the initial flurry of character creation requests/validations over a slightly longer period, rather than a massive single hit on the access control server. It would also level the playing field slightly for name choice/allocation for those in awkward time zones on launch day.
Early Game Access :
While early client access would take some of the load off the access/validation server, it does not address the potential lagging/crashing of the starter zones. In many games, this is mitigated by the use of multiple instanced versions of this zones (some even dynamically creating a duplicate zone when load gets above a certain threshold). This is not possible in a non-instanced 'open world' system such as Pantheon. Thus the 'cheap and nasty' options available to other MMOs is not open to Pantheon. There is therefore a potential gain for having a slightly staggered launch - not just by geography (ie time-zone) but by 'lead time'. It reduces the initial load on the server/zone and also the contention for the 'starter mobs' that all the players will seek to kill.
(Unlimited): Players get full access 1-3 days ahead. Allows players to advance enough to get away from starter zones.
Not the best method since it offers a potentiall large 'unfair' advantage.
(Limited): Players might only get a time-slice - say allowed to log on for a maximum of 4 hours per 24 hour period, or a fixed number of hours (eg 16 hours playtime) to be used over the 'head start' period. This has the advantage of allowing an earlier 'Head start' access time, but still limit the advancement players can make in that time.
These two methods also offer some possible insight into methods of having a 'soft launch' where the launch date is actually a 'launch week' and players only get limited access to the servers over that time (by whichever method chose - be it time-slice or fixed max hours of play).
TL;DR - Wipe, yes .... head-start, hmmm
Full wipe for sure. While we don't know the exact number, we've heard from many members on the team that there will be more than one server at launch, so having one that happens to be further along than the others doesn't make a lot of sense.
The only situation where it might make sense to retain the characters from alpha/beta to post-launch would be if they were migrated to (or the alpha/beta server became) a test environment. That would provide some player's a character on the test environment already at higher levels available to test changes to higher end content, as well as a logical bridge for the player's who tested in alpha and beta to post-release to continue that work in support of VR's bug fixes and patching process, etc. But I don't see this as a major reason to preserve them otherwise, it is best the world open to everyone on equal footing, it will already be bad enough that I know my way around already when my friends don't ;-)
I will mourn the loss of my alpha/beta character(s) for sure, but would prefer that all release servers be a fresh experience for all.
Full wipe.
Beta is supposed to be for testing. I appreciate that some people work hard to level up to the end during Beta testing, and it's invaluable to the devs because the high-end conent has to be tested outside of a controlled environment. But people shouldn't put their hearts and souls into creating their mains during beta, and I know many people who do just that. I just had a thought: What if you're only allowed to name your character in Beta through a random named generator, or some sort of restriction like that. I think it may help focus people on testing mechanics instead of getting lost in creating their perfect world.
Also, in the current age of MMOs, Beta has grown into a soft game release instead of an actual testing environment. I think that's what creates the need for not wanting to wipe after Beta. As the VR guys have said they're taking an old-school approach to their development and Alpha/Beta testing, I don't think they're going to roll out a soft release.
