Questions to DEVs.

[SzaryWilk]

Hi

 

I have questions:

 

1) We will play in Dual Universal on a one single server (game producers) or we will play on dedicated servers / servers players ??

 

2) Are you planning to start campaign on Kickstarter ??

 

3) When you start Alpha and what the minimum amount of support will entitle to participate in the Alpha phase ??

 

Thank You ;-)

[vylqun]

1) single shard

2) yes they will

3) no concrete information yet, i personally rather dislike alpha access for money tbh, it makes many impatient ppl who are potential money bags leave in dissapointment because they don't understand that alpha means access to limited, unfinished content for the purpose of bug finding and mechanics testing.

[NQ-Nyzaltar]

Hi SzaryWilk,

 

To give additional info complementary yo vylqun answer:

 

1) Yes, all players will be on one single server (using cloud computing), managed by Novaquark. No player-hosted server will be possible.

 

2) Yes, a Kickstarter campaign, planned for the end of the year. 

 

3) What's planned at the moment (but it might change): Alpha Team members will get access to the Alpha a few months after the Kickstarter campaign.

 

There are two ways to join the Alpha Team:

- by being an active member of the community who brings constructive suggestion & feedback and/or contribute to the community growth. 

(the Novaquark team will decide on a case by case basis)

- by backing the game during the crowdfunding campaign.

(minimum pledge amount still in discussion)

 

We adopt the same philosophy for Alpha Access than for our Monetization Model: by bringing personal and significant contribution to the community or by supporting financially the game, this show proof that a player cares about the game and contributes to its development. Considering that, we assume players corresponding to this profile are the ones we seek to help us improving the game during the Alpha.

 

Best regards,

Nyzaltar.

[SzaryWilk]

 

 

1) Yes, all players will be on one single server (using cloud computing), managed by Novaquark. No player-hosted server will be possible.

 

 

Thank you for your answers.

 

The most important information for me is........one single server will be.......no instances and zones....all players in one world. Very nice !!

In my opinion this decides on the big success of the game.

[Astrophil]

Thank you for your answers.

 

The most important information for me is........one single server will be.......no instances and zones....all players in one world. Very nice !!

In my opinion this decides on the big success of the game.

 

Yes this is one of the big distinguishing points of Dual Universe that sets it apart from just about every other MMO out there. Exciting stuff!

[SzaryWilk]

If you want to build 100% MMO game, with large interaction between players......this is no place for instances, zones. Everything must be on a single server, each player sees any other player.

[norab7]

I am Excited and i didn't know where to post it as I've only just found this game and couldn't contain myself while at work so couldn't find the right place to make my first post.

 

What I'm imagining from the answers in this thread (and the bits I've read elsewhere) is that this game is just a Space Engineers MMO... I have a ridiculous amount of time and creations in SE but SE just doesn't have enough 'space' (lol?). 

 

Potentially infinite planets/ space/ players/ creations/ THINGS... I am game for all of that and more, I'm going to university in September to do computer science (Games Development Obviously) and one of the things i want to do with it when i graduate is space sandbox games. There just isn't a good enough game to satiate my hunger for space and construction.

 

The one thing I'm hoping for out of this game (as factories was mentioned somewhere) is a kind of Space Engineers & Factorio combination feel in an infinite universe. I don't know if i'd be able to contain myself if it had anything like that.

 

I'm far to excited right now, so I'm going to stop typing and calm myself down. But potentially infinite universe with every player playing on the same universe where you can build your own... everything?... what can go wrong with it.... I need this game...

[RyussDraven]

 

Hi SzaryWilk,

 

To give additional info complementary yo vylqun answer:

 

1) Yes, all players will be on one single server (using cloud computing), managed by Novaquark. No player-hosted server will be possible.

 

2) Yes, a Kickstarter campaign, planned for the end of the year. 

 

3) What's planned at the moment (but it might change): Alpha Team members will get access to the Alpha a few months after the Kickstarter campaign.

 

 

1. Single shard is awesome, it's worked amazingly well for EvE online.

 

2. I don't know how I feel about Kickstarter campaigns anymore, especially if they offer early access to the game.  I feel this lets too much information about the game come out as it's being developed, especially if the pre-alpha/alpha don't have NDA agreements.  Being able to see everything little piece of information about the game before it is released seems like it burns people out before they get to play it, it doesn't leave any mystery to the game.  This could be a terrible mindset but it's just my opinion.

 

3.  Again I'm all for having as many testers as possible but refer to number to 2 about NDA's. 

[Lladz]

1. Single shard is awesome, it's worked amazingly well for EvE online.

 

2. I don't know how I feel about Kickstarter campaigns anymore, especially if they offer early access to the game.  I feel this lets too much information about the game come out as it's being developed, especially if the pre-alpha/alpha don't have NDA agreements.  Being able to see everything little piece of information about the game before it is released seems like it burns people out before they get to play it, it doesn't leave any mystery to the game.  This could be a terrible mindset but it's just my opinion.

 

3.  Again I'm all for having as many testers as possible but refer to number to 2 about NDA's. 

 

New here, but i cannot stress enough how much i agree with Number 2. I think it is important to keep an air of mystery about the game as its developed in order for any significant interest to build. I have been a part of multiple early access games where the core interested population gets burned out from seeing everything in the alpha/beta. Even worse, i think that sometimes the buy-in for alpha reduces the quality of the testers and brings in people that are expecting a more polished game and maybe aren't quite as ready to spend time in the grind finding bugs and providing constructive criticism. 

 

Alpha should be for testing and i think a kickstarter is a good idea, but i think the early access needs to be done on a more private scope where the emphasis is on improving the game and not publicizing it.

[norab7]

New here, but i cannot stress enough how much i agree with Number 2. I think it is important to keep an air of mystery about the game as its developed in order for any significant interest to build. 

 

I'm going to agree here too. I'm thinking about another certain space game with citizens and such that for me (as a backer) has kind of became a Half-Life 3 joke. It's going to be amazing when it comes out but I know enough about the thing now to just not really care anymore, there isn't a mystery or anything left in it, I know how it's going to work and where it's going to work.... It's just a matter of 'When' it's going to work.. I'd of preferred to not know anything.

 

(Talking about the Main game, not the Arena commander)

[Orborogon]

 

Even worse, i think that sometimes the buy-in for alpha reduces the quality of the testers and brings in people that are expecting a more polished game and maybe aren't quite as ready to spend time in the grind finding bugs and providing constructive criticism. 

 

I was part of the paid alpha for Everquest Landmark (another voxel-based building game) and they had that exact problem. The people who were paying for access had no intention of actively helping to find bugs or providing feedback, and didn't appreciate the game was in an alpha state without most of the features. They just wanted to 'play the game early' and then whined about bugs, bashed the game on the forums, it basically (in my opinion) turned into a huge mess in the end which is a shame as the game showed some real promise (when they fixed the ability to actually claim any land!).

 

I don't know how much that experience contributed to the collapse of the game, or if the developers just had their funding pulled for other reasons, but it is a hard line to walk when you need lots of testers due to the scale of the game, yet you want genuine testers with patience and not angry kids demanding fixes and bashing the alpha because of a lack of features.

 

If the KS goes ahead I will be one of the first to sign up though    and I understand what you're saying about the mystery, but to me it's all about permanence, so the magic of the game is still there because on day 1 of the final release the universe will have been wiped so only at that point will what I create and do have any permanence, making it all exciting again

 

[DarthVader]

New here, but i cannot stress enough how much i agree with Number 2. I think it is important to keep an air of mystery about the game as its developed in order for any significant interest to build. I have been a part of multiple early access games where the core interested population gets burned out from seeing everything in the alpha/beta. Even worse, i think that sometimes the buy-in for alpha reduces the quality of the testers and brings in people that are expecting a more polished game and maybe aren't quite as ready to spend time in the grind finding bugs and providing constructive criticism. 

 

Alpha should be for testing and i think a kickstarter is a good idea, but i think the early access needs to be done on a more private scope where the emphasis is on improving the game and not publicizing it.

gotta agree with Lladz here, most of the new games seem to 'burn out' the core users too fast before release with alpha, beta, pre-release etc. My opinion would be to prolong pre-alpha and shorten the length of alpha/beta. We do not want another Everquest Next, H1Z1 or Albion Online 

[Sᵽɨđɇɍ]

I'm interested in the tools we get to create user content

[devu]

I share a concern with many here, about having early access that a factor of generating a hype bust effect especially when expectations are high. Many of us had bad experience with early alpha access games I would assume and we know that many times the game ended up better in many places, sometimes development was literally driven by community and steering the goal in bad direction or ending up as unfinished buggy product with no purpose but just to take a look and leave.

 

However, I do believe in few things here. I've read almost every devblog post here, many posts on this forum and came to some conclusions.

 

1. Developers seems to know what they talking about. I'm a programmer myself and many times had those conversations about what is or what isn't possible these days to achieve. With the right approach and know-how and a bit innovative thinking it's certainly a possible goal.

 

2. Obviously, there will be some compromises and optimisation to be made for all this to make it happen and this is where level of expectation may clash with reality. I hope devs here are mature people and they will select mature testers for alpha phase who understand what alpha or even beta means. People who can provide constructive critics not just constant moan. There is indeed a real danger if you saying multiple times (this and that may not be implemented at first stage)

 

3. It appears to me that devs are mature and will not make this game community driven wish list because there is nothing worst in development. Unfortunately, the whole IT world has been crippled by non-tech people to do things for many stupid reasons not taking tech and logic into account. I believe in dev anarchy lead the way!. And the whole concept of this game seems to have legs and solid ground. There is enough material to work with and guys, please don't let yourself distracted. Sure is good to have an idea panel in the form of a community, but it should not be a distraction at this stage.

[SkilledStealth]

A quick question NQ-Nyzaltar ive been watching the first few videos on youtube over and over and on your E3 teaser trailer for DU the Music is incredible just wondered if that will be part of the actual game the soundtrack or if its just for the trailer?

[lethak]

 

I share a concern with many here, about having early access that a factor of generating a hype bust effect especially when expectations are high. Many of us had bad experience with early alpha access games I would assume and we know that many times the game ended up better in many places, sometimes development was literally driven by community and steering the goal in bad direction or ending up as unfinished buggy product with no purpose but just to take a look and leave.

 

2. Obviously, there will be some compromises and optimisation to be made for all this to make it happen and this is where level of expectation may clash with reality. I hope devs here are mature people and they will select mature testers for alpha phase who understand what alpha or even beta means. People who can provide constructive critics not just constant moan. There is indeed a real danger if you saying multiple times (this and that may not be implemented at first stage)

 

 

Answering your own concerns ?

 

Many problems with Early Alpha:

• Buying to get access coz HYPE -> not here to "test" but to "play" -> 90% sure to be disappointed early
• Buying to give money to enable the project to reach its potential -> may or may not "test" and prefer to "play" -> 50% chances to be disappointed early.
• Buying to test and influence the direction of the game -> 10% chance to be disappointed

of course, if Early Access is too long, it will slowly disappoint more and more as time goes.

 

The only way (that I can see) to mitigate this, is to find a compromise by having a "stable", and a "test" branch

Having the possibility to select which one to use, much like how steam do it.

[devu]

There is one more and important aspect of this debate here we keep on overlooking.

This is supposed to be MMO, 2 branches? Can't see this happening. This is what alpha is for. Test, debug, before we can play for real.

So I would imagine whoever will take part in alpha testing phase is doing it purely for testing, not early access advantage.

Once game goes live the world will be wiped out and restarted.

 

Am I correct here? Could devs confirm?

[lethak]

There is one more and important aspect of this debate here we keep on overlooking.

 

This is supposed to be MMO, 2 branches? Can't see this happening.

 

• Planetside2 is an MMOFPS with a Public Test Server having a different code base than public servers
• EvE Online has a second server for testing
• SWG, back in the day, had a Public Test Server (with blue frogs giving you all the item you wanted for SCIEEEENCE)
• Star Citizen is doing unstable testing on a PTU too.

 

Being an MMO is not a limitation at all.

 

 

Of course this is what alpha is, but... come on, be pragmatical, look at what happend with StarCitizen... the need for a "public" and "testing" branch was a NECESSITY to prevent bad press and forums/video flame wars from thoses who don't know what "ALPHA" means. Educating most of them is hopeless you know...

[Volkier]

Answering your own concerns ?

 

Many problems with Early Alpha:

• Buying to get access coz HYPE -> not here to "test" but to "play" -> 90% sure to be disappointed early
• Buying to give money to enable the project to reach its potential -> may or may not "test" and prefer to "play" -> 50% chances to be disappointed early.
• Buying to test and influence the direction of the game -> 10% chance to be disappointed

of course, if Early Access is too long, it will slowly disappoint more and more as time goes.

 

The only way (that I can see) to mitigate this, is to find a compromise by having a "stable", and a "test" branch

Having the possibility to select which one to use, much like how steam do it.

 

I would think it's more of an issue with the modern gaming industry's definition of what "alpha" is, compared to the gaming industry ten to twenty years ago. You were bloody lucky to get into 'beta', the game would be pretty much complete by then with the reason for beta being to stress test the environment, hardware optimisation, focus on balancing and gameplay stuff, see how certain features are reacted to and maybe finish or add one or two of those in, and iron out any bugs missed in the alpha.

 

The players who did get lucky to be a part of beta testing, were ALWAYS those who were passionate for the project, it's success, and treated their presence in the beta purely as a means to better the end product. There was no mentality that "that area there is bugged so I won't go there" - it was "that area is bugged, so I'm going to go there - repeatedly - and try to provide the developers with as much information as I can with what actions activate the bug, how it's duplicated, what actions don't activate it" and so on. As for alpha, you actually had paid testers who did it as a job, and treated it as such.

 

The thing is, somewhere in the past decade, "early alpha" became the "norm" and the expectation of players - most of whom see it as simply "playable version of the game is released, and stuff is going to be added in gradually while I play it". Of course there are pros and cons to this. The pros are that developers get options for massive feedback and 'guinea pigs' very early on, as well as a sizeable injection of cash for their work without having to spend years working for free first (and of course you no longer need to pay professional testers to alpha test your game). The cons are, a lot of developers have sadly taken advantage of this while abandoning half finished games or constantly changing their mind and the direction they want the game to take, in order to "appeal to as many groups of people at different points of time", and of course the vast majority of players no longer realising what the terms "alpha", "beta" and "testing" mean, and the importance of them. 

 

Which is exactly what you outlined the 'many problems with early alpha' as being. People 'wanting' to 'play' the game, when the purpose of alphas is specifically 'needing' to 'test', with the ball being firmly in the developers' - and not the players' - hands. Not having a go at you or disagreeing with what you said - you were spot on. I'm not suggesting we should go back to the whole 'pay for alpha testers' model either. I'm simply saying that people need to go back to treating a game in an alpha stage, as a game in the alpha stage of development, understand the importance of their 'job' of finding and reporting problems, and hold out until at least the beta release (which no longer seems to happen) if they don't want to commit their time and effort into that.

 

Star Citizen does provide a good example of this, you are right yet again. I would however almost dare say that having two branch system seemed to have slowed their progress down as a whole. I dunno, I'm probably wrong there, but it just feels like it would. You are working with two platforms, the 'stable' would still have issues that went through the 'test' batch, you now have to consolidate and prioritise information from both sources, figure out whether bugs from both of the 'batches' are related to another one etc. I just don't see how it wouldn't slow the development....