Embers Adrift Worldbreaker Stress Test Happening August 13th, and is Open for Signups | MMORPG.com

KnightFalz

Kyleran said:

KnightFalz said:

Uwakionna said:

And that's a perpetual mistake of people testing early access games. A stress test itself is done to test the stability and capacity of the server architecture for the game. That's testing software.

That many use it as a means to measure personal interest certainly happens, it's the inevitable motivator of most participants, it's always at detriment to better judgement, specifically for how incomplete systems may be.

Try before buy is certainly a good thing. But walking into the factory and trying to drive a half a car off the line is jumping the gun. Even public betas are supposed to be about testing the software.

Testing is indeed the developer's purpose. It is not the purpose of the participants during a weekend of free access, except of course for any paid testers taking part to satisfy their responsibilities.

Those dropping in for a free weekend are there to test their interest in the game, or whether they wish to maintain or discard it based on direct impression rather than conceptual appeal. It's not ideal in terms of circumstance, but that's pretty much the way of things these days for those that want to take a look on the cheap.

I think players risk get a poor and probably incorrect impression of what a game will eventually turn out to be which is why I've learned to eschew things like early access or even starting new games at launch.

More than a few have matured into pretty good games but players don't go back because of poor early experiences.

I disliked ESO so much at launch I didn't go back for 7 years...and then only because some friends asked me to.

Now I wait for games to release and then some.

I don't get to play many new games these days since releasing them seems to have become a thing of the past for most.

Maybe. Anyone that chooses to take part would do well to keep in mind the early state of the game and the strong possibility of change.

KnightFalz

Iselin said:

I don;t try everything just because it's free... I have standards

Who does? I expect those entirely disinterested in Embers Adrift won't be present.

Slapshot1188

Iselin said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Iselin said:

I don;t try everything just because it's free... I have standards

True.  But if I'm INTERESTED in something.  I would always take advantage of trying it for free prior to buying it.

But that's just me.   I know some people that just buy all kinds of things sight unseen.

Agree that interest is the key. I mean... Chronicles of Elyria sounded interesting to enough of you that you backed the KS.

I didn't, because like I said, I have standards

No I didn't.  I called out his plans as bullshit and he made it personal so...   I guess we know how that ended up.

Kataal

Raagnarz said:

Not gonna bother. Their total tone deaf approach to magic in the game makes the world and the game completely generic and boring which turned off me and the people I play with. Shame really it could have been interesting.

This is a big factor keeping me from it too. It all sounds great unless you tend to like to play magic classes in games like this (I prefer magic-type healers).

That, on top of the fact that they STILL have yet to go 24/7 with their servers. Slapshot mentioned the game is going to "release" within 4 months, which I hope means release into early access or a different form of testing with 24/7 servers instead of full release. I cannot imagine what a disaster it would be to fully release this after only limited-timed tests like they've been doing.

Slapshot1188

Kataal said:

Raagnarz said:

Not gonna bother. Their total tone deaf approach to magic in the game makes the world and the game completely generic and boring which turned off me and the people I play with. Shame really it could have been interesting.

This is a big factor keeping me from it too. It all sounds great unless you tend to like to play magic classes in games like this (I prefer magic-type healers).

That, on top of the fact that they STILL have yet to go 24/7 with their servers. Slapshot mentioned the game is going to "release" within 4 months, which I hope means release into early access or a different form of testing with 24/7 servers instead of full release. I cannot imagine what a disaster it would be to fully release this after only limited-timed tests like they've been doing.

They have been testing the game for years via closed alpha/beta.   This is just the open Stress test.

Anyone who bought the game had instant access.  At least when it was Lucimia.  Not 100% sure if thats still the case

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Uwakionna

DarkZorvanReturns said:

Uwakionna said:

I would reiterate the point, as this response is addressed by what has already been stated.

Whether a "stress test" or an "alpha" or a "beta" or an "early release", don't open your game to people unless you want it judged on it's current merits. Want people to test, not judge? Pay for professional testers. It's quite simple.

Not exactly always a financially viable option for a studio.

Plus this just cycles to second verse same as the first. Or third verse really at this point.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Uwakionna

That's rather irrelevant to the original point made.

An individual's motivations does not define the purpose of why a company is conducting a test, their parameters is what does.

Moreover, just because people do something stupid, doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Kyleran

If reality doesn't fit the way you think it should be, change your reality.

Slapshot1188

Kyleran said:

If reality doesn't fit the way you think it should be, change your reality.

Works for politicians...

KnightFalz

Uwakionna said:

That's rather irrelevant to the original point made.

An individual's motivations does not define the purpose of why a company is conducting a test, their parameters is what does.

Moreover, just because people do something stupid, doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Your original point is rather irrelevant to player participation.

The company's motivation does not define the purpose of why a player is participating in a test. The player's motivation will be self-serving.

Just because you feel something is stupid doesn't make it so.

KnightFalz

Slapshot1188 said:

Kyleran said:

If reality doesn't fit the way you think it should be, change your reality.

Works for politicians...

Politicians are more concerned with changing the realities of others. Their own, they want to preserve as much as possible.

Kyleran

KnightFalz said:

Uwakionna said:

That's rather irrelevant to the original point made.

An individual's motivations does not define the purpose of why a company is conducting a test, their parameters is what does.

Moreover, just because people do something stupid, doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Your original point is rather irrelevant to player participation.

The company's motivation does not define the purpose of why a player is participating in a test. The player's motivation will be self-serving.

Just because you feel something is stupid doesn't make it so.

Oh, I'm a pretty much an authority when it comes to recognizing when something is stupid.

Comes from a lot of experience doing stupid things in my life, probably earned at least a Master's degree by now.

KnightFalz

Kyleran said:

KnightFalz said:

Uwakionna said:

That's rather irrelevant to the original point made.

An individual's motivations does not define the purpose of why a company is conducting a test, their parameters is what does.

Moreover, just because people do something stupid, doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Your original point is rather irrelevant to player participation.

The company's motivation does not define the purpose of why a player is participating in a test. The player's motivation will be self-serving.

Just because you feel something is stupid doesn't make it so.

Oh, I'm a pretty much an authority when it comes to recognizing when something is stupid.

Comes from a lot of experience doing stupid things in my life, probably earned at least a Master's degree by now.

Heh. We've all done some of that.

We are all experts on what we personally consider stupid and declaring so about our own actions is our prerogative.

Considering those of others to be stupid is indicative of intolerance of their contrasting views of what they personally feel stupid more often than not.

I feel it an odd attitude to have, especially in those from the comparatively free world where independent thought and action are ostensibly societally valued. It is abundant nonetheless.

Uwakionna

Player motivation or purpose does not define the purpose of why a test has been formed and conducted.

Your attempt at circular argument fails to address that fact. The test has a defined purpose, players having ulterior motives does not change that.

And it being a stupid choice/motive comes out of the objective fact that their ulterior motive is to judge something based on incomplete data.

The subject of tolerance is irrelevant to that. Not like people are being put on trial for it, but they should be given the awareness of what they are compromising.

One should avoid reducing their argument to clever wordplay solely for the sake of "winning" it.

achesoma

Kataal said:

Raagnarz said:

Not gonna bother. Their total tone deaf approach to magic in the game makes the world and the game completely generic and boring which turned off me and the people I play with. Shame really it could have been interesting.

This is a big factor keeping me from it too. It all sounds great unless you tend to like to play magic classes in games like this (I prefer magic-type healers).

That, on top of the fact that they STILL have yet to go 24/7 with their servers. Slapshot mentioned the game is going to "release" within 4 months, which I hope means release into early access or a different form of testing with 24/7 servers instead of full release. I cannot imagine what a disaster it would be to fully release this after only limited-timed tests like they've been doing.

The healing roles play just like in any RPG, it just not magical thematically. Instead of mana it's stamina. All the similar abilities are there like directs heals, HoTs, shields, buffs, etc. It really does play the same.

For those that like wizards or mage archetypes then there is nothing for you.

Currently, the servers are open Friday 10am PT until Monday 10pm, and every Wednesday night from 6-10pm PT. So it's only Tuesday and Thursday you don't get to play.

Theocritus

I wasnt impressed at all with the gameplay videos this game has released......and then they want to go with a sub only model on top of that...I will pass.

TheDalaiBomba

KnightFalz said:

Kyleran said:

KnightFalz said:

Uwakionna said:

That's rather irrelevant to the original point made.

An individual's motivations does not define the purpose of why a company is conducting a test, their parameters is what does.

Moreover, just because people do something stupid, doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Your original point is rather irrelevant to player participation.

The company's motivation does not define the purpose of why a player is participating in a test. The player's motivation will be self-serving.

Just because you feel something is stupid doesn't make it so.

Oh, I'm a pretty much an authority when it comes to recognizing when something is stupid.

Comes from a lot of experience doing stupid things in my life, probably earned at least a Master's degree by now.

Heh. We've all done some of that.

We are all experts on what we personally consider stupid and declaring so about our own actions is our prerogative.

Considering those of others to be stupid is indicative of intolerance of their contrasting views of what they personally feel stupid more often than not.

I feel it an odd attitude to have, especially in those from the comparatively free world where independent thought and action are ostensibly societally valued. It is abundant nonetheless.

Encouraging a free "marketplace of ideas" does not instantly make all ideas valuable.  Indeed, the entire point is that society would discard the ideas it feels are "stupid."

Slapshot1188

KnightFalz said:

I feel it an odd attitude to have, especially in those from the comparatively free world where independent thought and action are ostensibly societally valued. 

Wish I lived in a place like that.  Around here free-thought is scorned and flagged as dangerous.  Only Group-Think is valued

KnightFalz

TheDalaiBomba said:

KnightFalz said:

Kyleran said:

KnightFalz said:

Uwakionna said:

That's rather irrelevant to the original point made.

An individual's motivations does not define the purpose of why a company is conducting a test, their parameters is what does.

Moreover, just because people do something stupid, doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Your original point is rather irrelevant to player participation.

The company's motivation does not define the purpose of why a player is participating in a test. The player's motivation will be self-serving.

Just because you feel something is stupid doesn't make it so.

Oh, I'm a pretty much an authority when it comes to recognizing when something is stupid.

Comes from a lot of experience doing stupid things in my life, probably earned at least a Master's degree by now.

Heh. We've all done some of that.

We are all experts on what we personally consider stupid and declaring so about our own actions is our prerogative.

Considering those of others to be stupid is indicative of intolerance of their contrasting views of what they personally feel stupid more often than not.

I feel it an odd attitude to have, especially in those from the comparatively free world where independent thought and action are ostensibly societally valued. It is abundant nonetheless.

Encouraging a free "marketplace of ideas" does not instantly make all ideas valuable.  Indeed, the entire point is that society would discard the ideas it feels are "stupid."

Encouraging a free reign of ideas instantly makes more available increasing the chance good ones will surface. It is often done by intent for that very reason.

The point of society is to constrain human behaviour such that large groups of people can coexist reasonably smoothly so as to reap the benefits of advanced civilization. Declaring what people may or not value is not needed to accomplish that and is in fact counter-productive to advancement.

KnightFalz

Slapshot1188 said:

KnightFalz said:

I feel it an odd attitude to have, especially in those from the comparatively free world where independent thought and action are ostensibly societally valued. 

Wish I lived in a place like that.  Around here free-thought is scorned and flagged as dangerous.  Only Group-Think is valued

Hence my use of the word ostensibly. Freedom of thought and choice get a lot of lip service but in practice many advocate lock-step conformity in outlook instead, some to the point where they cannot even conceive how another could favour other than the song the bandwagon is playing.

Uwakionna

That's a leap in logic.

Declaring what one individually finds valuable or not is just that, a singular self-declaration. It's not an impetus for all of society to adopt or reject something. It is, however, a shared thought for others to consider in the exact same token as one talks about ideas.

Ideas are only as useful as they can be put to action. Scrutinizing the merit of an idea is the necessary and inevitable next step to sharing them.

And, as it sometimes turns out, some ideas lack merit. On that same token, calling a poor line of reason out isn't a denouncement of free thought, it's the literal act of such.

KnightFalz

Uwakionna said:

That's a leap in logic.

Declaring what one individually finds valuable or not is just that, a singular self-declaration. It's not an impetus for all of society to adopt or reject something. It is, however, a shared thought for others to consider in the exact same token as one talks about ideas.

Ideas are only as useful as they can be put to action. Scrutinizing the merit of an idea is the necessary and inevitable next step to sharing them.

And, as it sometimes turns out, some ideas lack merit. On that same token, it's exactly freedom of choice that then allows people to commit to poor decisions. Calling a poor line of reason out isn't a denouncement of free thought, it's the literal act of such.

Personal values don't create widespread social change except when held by someone with the capacity to force it.

What tends to cause social change is an increasing congruence of values alternate to those currently dominant in many persons that over time accumulates into a new dominant social value.

Be the mechanics of social change as they may such are entirely irrelevant to the personal choices one has available in matters that only affect one's self. There the personal value one finds and merit one sees reigns supreme.

Ideas not used often have value in that they can inspire ideas that are. The merit of ideas is always scrutinized, but not necessarily in the terms one may prefer or consider proper, leading to choices of varying merit and appeal between persons.

One's trash is treasure to another. Reasoning denounced as poor is indicative of contrasting underlying personal values that led to a discrepancy in view at least as often as not.

Kyleran

Can't decide where I've heard such before, Ghandi, Marx, Freud, Orwell, or Hari Seldon...

One of those for sure....