i don’t understand what the fuss about update features that’s not detailed before the update, you need to be more patient since that is the main key for us testers. we can’t test updates anyways before its released in game.
1 Like
Another voice for the 'I’m happier when there are still a few pleasant surprises" camp. I like to know roughly where things are headed, but adding something unexpected is welcome (unless it’s a terrible, terrible secret idea. Then it’s never welcome, and I shall stamp my feet and whine about it a lot).
Admittedly it’s a very difficult area to manage, not least of which because managing other peoples expectations is practically a full time job in itself. Release too little information and people feel like nothing is getting done. Release too much information and people don’t get excited enough when it eventually does arrive to go and check it out, resulting in a lot less people testing and reporting bugs than you could have had. They’re basically screwed whichever approach they take. There’s probably a sweet spot somewhere in the middle of that, but it’s a moving target and even just releasing secretive snippets requires ongoing community engagement to build expectations while also keeping them realistic.
I think that given the amount of time they appear to be able to devote to posting things on the forums (being a small team really sucks for finding time to do this stuff, let alone doing it well), they’re doing just fine. Mostly we know about things. This upcoming stuff will probably be a nice surprise. Even if it’s not a nice surprise, as pointed out earlier in this thread, it’s still pre-alpha. It’s something that (despite making it a bit of a waste of precious dev-time) isn’t set in stone and can be changed. Either way, I’m more excited about it because I don’t know exactly what it is than I would be if I had it all laid out before me as a forum post.
1 Like
First of all it’s important to say that discussing “game-mechanic” and “game-play” is hardly a “spioler of all secrets ingame”. If we talk about features it’s most likely that they are not brand new and that most players know the concept from a lot of games (e.g. @Vastar argument with the initial guild idea. Leaving guilds is not a new concept, but the original idea for B< was a horrible idea [sorry @olliepurkiss])
This is the core problem - We need details about major game features and game mechanics but unfortunalty we haven’t got a lot in all the time. The devs stoped answer the FAQ thread AGAIN (and most of the answers are insufficient - especially the answer for end-game-content)
It’s totally OK that we wait for the next big batch of features (which was the purpose of the original post in this topic) but it would be good if the ideas behind the features could be “shortly” discussed before to much time is used to get them ingame. If all of this features are “old but gold” (no new ideas but proven concepts) this shouldn’t take to much time (a well made “copy” can be better than a stupid inovation - e.g. CS:GO is an old as hell concept but it’s well made and therefore successfull) and if they are completly new communication is a key aspect for player satisfaction (e.g. Guild Wars 2 utilizes a completly new combat system [no holy trinity] and their devs talked a lot about it in EA befor players where able to test it).
2 Likes
Somehow I can understand both sides. Dev’s and community.
We come to comparisms like GW2 or CS:GO, i think those cannot be considered. In this case you have to compare the amount of dev’s developing. In giant names like GW, there were probably several just being active in community platforms and condensing feedback. I don’t think wonderstruck has the capacity here at the moment (even though i think it’s worth to stack up - but that’s leadership and finaciating decision @james).
Furthermore there is an internally timetable, not exactly communicated here to not raise wrong expectations. Maybe there is no time to implement too much feedback. Even though again, I think it’s worth to consider community feedback as much as possible and refine best proposals to convert to the game.
Those 2 points are imo point of view of devs.
On the other hand the community can with reason demand more interaction. Since everything started on a “backer-level”. Just now I don’t know how dependet devs are from the Backers, since they have Sony i.e. in the background that probably also delivers financial support.
Also (I don’t know if that’s the case) if Sony has his fingers on developing schedule, their marketing department might have influence on what may be published / discussed and what not? Here I hardly assume, since I am not aware of game developers relation with publishers.
So I personally don’t have the overview across all those facts. Hard to say what is possible and what not considerings community interactions - testing as well as discussing / refining.
I compare it with Factorio for example, the game has just 5-10 programmer/developer. And I get every week detailed Dev Logs, with information about what they did every week and what they have planned. With detailed information, and there are regular patch with bug fixes and new content. And it come out on a regular basis patch with bug fixes and new content.
When you refer to the Factorio updates you’re referring to their weekly “Facts” posts, seen here: https://www.factorio.com/blog
Or are they sharing something more??
yes, this is what i mean. its EVERY Friday not on a other day is every Friday and this EVERY week, and this all since a long time. Therefore, the community knows at any time what the Dev`s make. And if they has a new feature, you can test ist in the experimatle version, they dont wait till they have 20 new feature. if they have a new feature they add it in the experimantal version and let the community test it.
edit:
you can see in every version what they like to add in every version. and it need normal only a couple of weeks to add a new feature not over 3-4month
1 Like
In the devs defense, the weekly devlogs are pretty detailed in comparison to those of other studios and I really don’t mind if they are a few days late sometimes.
Only thing they miss is:
If they really want to surprise release something they should do it with fancy new GUI-graphics or cosmetic props, not with stuff like XP-progression.
PS:
They told us that the current situation is an exception because releasing the new features in a batch is faster & easier for them and that they’ll go back to weekly releases as soon as it is possible for them.
2 Likes
thank you for your totally unfriendly useless comment.
3 Likes
this execption is longer as 6 month now, and we have never weekly releases, a long time ago we had 2-3 weeks where they have add some new things but only 2-3 weeks.
I like the game really, but it was in the beginning a lot of promise which has still not been complied with. and after 1.5 years I expect just a bit more as this all. the release date of the game was e.g. moved already 2 or 3 times backwards
i have ~400 play hours, 350 hours i played before the c++ port, and ~50 direct after the c++ port. all new added feature since the port till now i have tested in just 2-3 hours.
i have payed a lot of money for this game and played a long time, I think that’s enough reason to say something and to expect something from a game that has promised much.
1 Like
No, the community is not with you because that’s exactly what you have to expect when you buy an early access title.
Sure, if the updates are for a finished game, then you are right. But not when the game isn’t even out of the alpha stage.
I’d say the cycle for an early access game should be as follows: Release → Players break stuff/discover bugs/dislike features → devs fix all the new issues → Release (repeat that until the game works.)
If you delay the releases of new features to fix every little bug you basically delay this process which in turn delays the release of the finished game.
(Note: That doesn’t mean they should release stuff which has glaring bugs that could be fixed in an hour or so.)
2 Likes
There’s a big difference between us and most EA games which I think people are often overlooking when complaining about releases (i’m not saying we can’t do things better).
We’re a multiplayer only, MMO game with a small number of servers running for the EA, that means we ‘cannot’ release possibly unstable features that could crash servers or else as soon as someone crashes the game, it’s crashed for ‘everyone’ and no-one can play at all…
If we were making a single player game, it’d be much, much easier to just release features that are even partially developed and unstable, because hey, it’s just your game that will crash, so if you’re messing around it’s not a problem. We can’t do that (or we could, but it’d be really expensive, as we’d need many more servers running different versions of the game for different versions of clients to connect to, rather than just the current stable/testing)
7 Likes
This is NOT ■■■■■ ing as you said so charming (and neither is @Saint_X) . We are all grown up adults (at least i hope this) and as you can see, other devs doing EA different (some would say “better”). This is not an offence against anyone - as i said some times before (in other posts) - this is an attempt to make things “better”.
Did you ever asked why there are only few players ? EA is not the correct answer - a lot of other games are EA too and have a LOT of players / buyers (e.g. Factorio (500k +), The Universim (23k+) and B< has only 10k.
Did you ever asked why B< has only “Mixed” steam reviews ? Read some of the Reviews and you’ll see most of the people missing content and updates.
I’m part of the community since a long time now (late '14) and a lot of things changed in this time (not only in good ways). You can read my complete statement with a detailed description of my main concerns HERE and HERE. But to name only a few:
- No more dev survey (they have been one of my main reasons to buy this game as EA)
- A lot of things change without any announcement (this is a bit better in the last time, but not much)
- Only few information about key gameplay aspects
And yes, i’m totally willing to play a game that crashes every 20 mins. This is (as @KuroKuma said) what EA is all about. Test, Feedback, Fix, Test again.
@lucadeltodecso: This is right, but wouldn’t it be possible to have e.g. at least a few servers (6-12) to host different versions (at the moment, there are only 2 servers up and running. In the past there have been a LOT more servers with no one playing on them. What has changed ? ) ? You could set up a Cron-Job to restart the server every time it crashes and store the server logs or am i wrong ? (Yes, i know you might not get the Client-Side error log but you have at least the last server-client-interaction)
3 Likes
all 3 games has a small dev team
thats what we said sice a long time, a early access game is for testing ánd finding bugs, and it is for helping the devs to decide ehat is a good feature or not.
it is useless if a dev spend 200h on a feature what the community dislike.
me too, if i get some new content i have no problem with it if the game sometimes crash. this time i spend for testing is time what the devs can use for fixe a other bug or adding more feature.
what is better 3 dev for testing or over 100 player with diffrent systems ?
i thing we need only 2-3 server:
- 1 Stable server, with no buiggy feature
- 1-2 experimental server with all feature for testing.
i know that we have at the start over 20 server, therefor it should no problem to host 3 server.
1 Like
i’m sure that all the features are/have shown or discussed in here at forums before they release it so there’s no way for them to do features what people dislike. anything they release is already kind of accomplished by us. is the feature good when we personally test it is a different case. this is the reason why im wondering why u feel this “no detailed info before update” so negatively? i’m sure there will be detailed info when the update comes like every game does (patch notes)
Hi @Saint_X
It is a difficult balance. On the one hand we have a very passionate and dedicated community who want to try new mechanics out as soon as possible, no matter what state they are in. And on the other we have the players who check up on the game and play it every few weeks or months. If we update the game too often with game breaking updates a lot of players from the second group might be driven away from the game and we risk missing out from their feedback. Feedback from both groups is important to any early access title as the second group of players will not be up to date with the game’s progress or how the new mechanics work when compared to players who follow the forums.
I am still relatively knew to the Wonderstruck team and this is the team’s first early access title. The process is certainly far from perfect but we are learning and hope we can improve things.
I would like to add that a lot of the individual mechanics being worked on are linked so it made sense to release them together so they are reviewed as a group and so players can see how different systems crossover.
Oh, by the way I am happy to chat anytime. So please send me an @ if you want.
first thx @luke-turbulenz for the answer
but on the other way you lose a lot of people from the other side if you wait to long for updates^^ atm the balance is too much for the player where want big updates. As example we see so many units as artwork but we have only 2 ingame, as example you can add some from the other units as example the smasher unit. since a long time i wait for this unit. i think it is not so much work to add the unit to the game. and it is a good midway between both sides
hey @luke-turbulenz,
at this point I might be on side of @Saint_X. You spoke about balance to carry “weekly / monthly” players and “the real followers”. Don’t you think the value of comments of those who keep on track all the time (instead of the feedback of those who join monthly) is much higher? Those people identify themselfves much stronger with the game. Those people are much more ambitious to contribute feedback. They develope proposals partwise, that even you dev’s didn’t think about before it was posted in the forum…
You might consider a change in thinking about it. I don’t think weekly / monthly checkers can contribute by far as much as the “active” community. I see your concern, but out of the current point of view and like @Heurazio proved on steam feedbacks, you lose the active part of players because of too less content in too long time.
Even in unstable ways it is good to discover new. Additionally I think the feedback of active players is far more valuable.
Till the next big patch (because it’s a big feature wrap up) active people might stay with you. But if afterwards content releases again take that long, you might lose strong feedback givers. Furthermore the amount of posts on steam and other forums with complaints of too less new content will increase. That could be too negative publicity…
I really hope you don’t experience that since I really like the game and want it to be as big and successful as possible. But this can just be reached if the public image contains more dynamic, more advertisement, i guess.
I already thought of supporting a team in creating a fan website for boundless. I think things like that really create good publicity, because gamers are so amazed by the game, they want to go further - support it and scream it out into the world, how nice it is. But this is not working, if you can just write about dev posts. If you want to catch interest, you need screenshots, videos, statements of own gaming experience. So that’s why noone really was motivated to really start it yet…
So far…
PS: I read this unqualified comment from @UmbraVictus about Blizzard Games. I really wonder what games and studios he considers to create far less buggy / unbalanced games then the Snowstorm Studios. I play their games since warcraft 2 and have to say, all of their games were @ release faaaaar ahead of other publishers. Of course balancing in Online titles always is an issue, especially after releasing updates with new content. But where is that not the case? The perfectionism, the artwork, the community interaction of Blizzard made me and Millions of others their fans. Considering them as a good example for bad releases makes me realize how far away from a realistic world he lives 
Wonder what his original post was, that was deleted by @Squidgy . Sorry for mentioning that in this detail, but I felt hurt in a way 
2 Likes
Hi @Smoothy
I’m not sure the term real followers is correct. Either way the players who don’t post in forums are giving us feedback in other ways. But please do not get me wrong, the feedback from the forums is vital and shows us if we are on the right track.We should look at ways we can improve it to keep everyone happy.
It is interesting because this topic is now shifting from new features to more content. As a developer they are two different things. But in order to get more content you need the system in place and that’s what we are working on at the moment.
What would you call the fan site if you got it going? 
1 Like