It doesn't have to be secret. What we are doing here is looking at how we announce, and how far ahead we announce, however. Announcing it too far ahead to a certain extent puts us in a no win position. If content would benefit from a slightly longer schedule we have to choose between disappointing people (but I didn't take that trip to Australia because I thought t4 was coming out this month and now you're delaying it!), or releasing content before it is polished to our satisfaction. I think it's pretty clear why we don't want to do that. What's the best strategy? That's something I am in discussion with our internal partners about. A strategy that considers all possible needs and gets the most benefit for everyone is our goal. Which is why I said we want your feedback.
Best way? Release a yearly schedule and then update as necessary. All dates are tentative unless otherwise stated. People scheduling a trip to "Australia" around EQ release dates are stupid.
I think some of the top end main issue is they just want to skip to the last tier of loot without screwing around with the middle except for essentials. My heart bleeds for those so inclined.
The add ons in RoF so far havent been too "bursty" - It was more like, just walk in and win. It makes you feel like you never left the farming grind. uhh, no guild likes staying in certain tiers of content longer than they need to. Overfarming content isnt healthy for ANY guild. Remember the old Anguish trap? And how guilds farmed that zone for too long? Its what we are seeing right now to some extent. Guilds are having to continually farm T2 just to help fill out their raiding week. By now, if we were still using the old expansion release method, most, if not all, of the top 10 guilds would have dumped T2 off their schedule by now. Nothing burns out raiders more than staying in the same tier of content for too long. It leads to boredom and monotony, and we all know what those two words mean for guilds and where they can lead. You can say well, dont raid it. And I tell you that just doing two raids a week, which equals out to about an hour worth of raiding every week, isnt healthy either. So yeah, you pretty much see the quandary that a dozen or so guilds are in.
How about this strategy: at the time of an expansion release (say, November), announce clearly that it will include 2 of the 4 tiers and half of the AA, and the rest will be released later, around, say, mid-April and mid-July (exact dates TBD). This way the players know what they are getting, and approximately when. And then the exact dates for the 3rd and 4th tier are announced closer to their release time, but definitely not just 2 days before. How about 2 months in advance? I have no idea why RoF was released without ANY information about the upcoming T3 and T4. You took so much heat for releasing 'half' an expansion! At the time (Nov-Dec) players didn't know about the rest, and everybody thought that T1-2 was all we were going to get until next November, and it looked really bad. I don't know if you lost some players or not, but from the reception that expansion got on the forums, you probably did. When the players think that there is no reason to play for the next 10 months - they can easily decide that there is no reason to pay the subscription fee either. How can it be 'not a big deal'? You can prevent the loss of interest (and revenue) by simply telling the players that there IS more content coming, and when to expect it. You can keep the buzz going by dropping tidbits of information here and there, such as screenshots or model art, or game-related stories. Instead, we get no information, and when the speculation starts (because of no information!), we get rudely put in place by the resident Grumpy Cat dev, and still not given any information. The way RoF-SoF-HoF(?) is released makes me boggle.
Axxius, it was fairly clear (to those who had access to the beta boards and could read between the lines, at least) that there would be a later on content update. Give the upgrade going from t1 rof to t2 rof, and going from t2 rof to t3 rof, something else is equally clear: there was only one planned content release, containing exactly one tier, and that the upgrade had to get split into two to accomodate a decision to split what would have been t3 up into two parts, a t4 (that had gear that was planned for t3) and a t3 (that has part, maybe half, maybe less, maybe more, of the upgrade planned for the previous t2 to t3). There was no announcement that there would be a follow on tier, however. Piestro, although Axxius either was not able to see the hints or he simply missed them, he is correct in his statement that there was no public announcement (there wasn't on beta, either, just a few hints and teasers that made it perfectly clear) and there should have been. If you want some feedback, here's some more : find a better balance for content release. 70% up front, 15% a few months later, the last 15% a few months after that, is not balanced well at all. I do not know whether there are going to be more levels or more AA's or more spells with RoF Part 3 whenever that comes out, and I can see having to front-load those, anyway. But if the expansion is going to be released in two parts, make the announcement that it is going to be released in two parts, and find a better balance than more than two thirds of the zones up front. If an expansion is going to be released in three parts, design it around three tiers and release one tier at a time. RoF seems to be, quite honestly, to have been a case of release two tiers up front, then two follow on releases each consisting of half a tier - and reading between the lines suggests that the reason for that is because that is exactly what it is. So, please, find a better balance for the content releases.
SoF didn't even have an announced release date but was clearly getting pushed for the "leaked" release date. Even though it clearly could have used another week of tuning and testing. RoF was even worse in needing more dev time before release but that had a long running release date. If I thought it was at all possible that releases could be delayed for much needed extra dev time, I would be ecstatic.
So groupers will still buy the expansion on a yearly cycle but they can wait until all the content they're paying for is released (9 months later). Got it. That should work swimmingly for expansion sales on release.
It was pretty clear to anyone who paid attention to beta, or the fact that you did AA chats that there would be more content. But none of us had a timetable on when or that there would be multiple tiers.
It was apparent from the way things were being done, but I did not see any direct statement that additional content would be released with the second batch of AA's. AA's are not content, either. They, like levels and gear, provide a reason to go do the content. Saying that there would be more AA's coming at some point is not the same thing as saying there is new content coming.
We would still like a tentative timetable. I have yet to bust the balls of someone who said that "x" product would tentatively be delivered on "y" date, only to have them come back later and say that because of unforeseen events it now being pushed to the right "z" days/weeks/months.
We were recently told by a dev not to believe anything that's not officially announced, and not to speculate about the schedule.
The only thing that was 'fairly clear' at the release time was that some of the new AA and spells were not ready yet and would be patched in later. It was most definitely understood not as any new content but as running behind the schedule. And even that information was known only to those who participated in Beta or IRC chats, i.e. only a teeny-tiny percentage of EQ players. Anybody who simply saw the new expansion released and the official announcements would have no clue whatsoever and had no reason to think that it was not the whole expansion. Also, a podcast mentioned that there would be some content later on. But since there was anniversary content every year, and some revamped/Legacy zones some years too - did anybody really expect anything more than that? Even if they watched the podcasts (again, a tiny fraction of the player base).
Piestro, thank you for communicating, it is MUCH appreciated. I agree with Kelefane, Arwyn, and others though, that a very "loose" timeframe would be very much appreciated. Main release in say October/November, additional content "planned" for in march/april and again in july/august would be nice. That said, most of us understand that the names we see posting are not the final decision makers. So thanks you a LOT for all you and the other developers do. We very much appreciate it!
It was mentioned that AA would be coming later, which has happened before. There was also talk of more content to come but it was never mentioned if this was FREE content or if there would be an extra charge. There has been so much secrecy about dates with everything related to Rain of Fear, it has started to feel like you are afraid to tell us anything. I'm hoping with the Fanfare returning to August that we will start getting info again at that time about EQs next expansion and not have to wait until Beta starts to get an inkling of what is to come. 2 zones for RoF part 2 wasn't enough, they were chock a block for the first few days and now they are empty, they were just a blip and have added nothing to very little to extend the expansion, the same can be said for the 2 raids. When Convorteum was added after other zones in Underfoot it worked as a lot still hadn't finished progression and unlocking previous zones, so not everyone was ready to play there the day it was released unlike the 2 RoF part 2 zones.
Well, if/when the system is ironed out...it should end up in a static release cycle. There should be (eventually) a standing cycle of updates. It does NOT have to be that each cycle release point HAS to have the next big thing...but it would be a known target point for updates. Much like the monthly patches...they are (should be) on the same date each month. Everyone would know the date well in advance. If there is nothing to release that month...the patch doesn't happen (not likely to happen often) otherwise the release happens on that date each month. Or in EQ's case...it seems it is a day of the month (a Tuesday or first Tuesday of the month instead of the 5th of the month). The new release cycle should be publicly known...given this new model. For example, every 4 months there is the POTENTIAL for major new content to be released...in Oct, Feb, and Jun. This would be the release cycle points for major content updates. It falls after Fan Faire...(Aug? Sep?) so announcements can happen with all the promo/hype...and is before the holidays. Feb is before fabled....and Jun is at the beginning of the summer lull. Or...every 3 months....Oct, Jan, Apr, and Jul could be another release cycle for new content. Regardless of the gap (3 vs 4 months) the release cycle is known...it doesn't mean Tier "x" must be released that cycle...because ultimately tiers should start to go away as a game concept too...it locks the game into progressing levels instead of questing/exploring. Another topic for another thread. But each release cycle point should have SOME new content released...with the target being the internally planned content ("tier") at each release cycle point. If SOE made hard target dates for releases it just means if some new content isn't ready for the next hard target date it slips. As the system is ironed out internally there should be fewer missed target dates but the dates would be public so everyone knows when to schedule days off etc... Each expansion isn't a new product...and each new set of content ("tiers" for now) isn't a new product. Software releases on a steady cycle isn't uncommon...and if the expectation is to keep charging for new expansions...having hard target dates for content releases would help justify the cost each year. Otherwise, if tier "x" is going to slip a few months because it isn't polished...do we pay for an expansion in Oct (for example) and if nothing is released after that we got what we paid for? Or are we paying for 2 more content releases during the year? Or 3 content releases? OR is it just 1 because SOE had internal issues getting some content out... By having set release points...SOE can still release content...even if it isn't all that was expected by that release cycle. Currently, the new model seems to be pay for an expansion with an unknown number of content releases ("tiers") and if we get more content it is sort of a bonus. By having known release cycle points...as long as something is released on each cycle...SOE has met the goal of new content each cycle...even if it wasn't a full set internally planned...and the community knows it will get something each cycle. The debate over if a release is enough raid/group content is also another thread topic.
Can you guys also keep us informed about other issues people have raised? Casters I'm sure will want to know about the plan for focus effects and degradation, etc.... Changing the content model affects a lot of other things also.
Can you look into having more than just exp/AA as a reward for completing T4 content (quests & missions). Many players have now finished the new AAs they got with T3 and have been max level for a long time now. I can understand the increase in exp and AA returns to help newer toons catch up, but those who have been around the block a few times and were at max level and AA before RoF was released received very little reward in completing t3 content and if the rewards stay the same for t4 they won't receive anything.
