Another question about priority

A place for players to do role playing, discuss their guilds, etc.
Post Reply

Priority

Quantity (Quest-centric)
4
24%
Quantity (Map-centric)
1
6%
Quality (Quest-centric)
9
53%
Quality (Map-centric)
3
18%
 
Total votes: 17
User avatar
jesusalva
Moubootaur Legends
Moubootaur Legends
Posts: 1438
Joined: 14 Nov 2016, 22:20
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Another question about priority

Post by jesusalva »

Again, this is NOT an official TMWT poll.

The original poll is at viewtopic.php?f=12&t=20898

This is a simple boolean dillema which plagues me and I would like knowing if I'm right or wrong, at least in my mind.

Both are NOT mutually exclusive, but you cannot have two priorities. Even because that makes no sense at all. To have two priorities we would need to have a team at least twice as big as it currently is and share people to both, and that is unrealistic, so lets ignore it.

Quantity
Means maximizing quests, maps, monsters, items, levels, etc. available to players.
  • Between polishing an already existing quest and writing a new one, writing a new one will be preferred.
Quality
Means to only advance to the next quest once the current quest has been polished, fully tested, etc.

The game will end up significantly smaller, but with way less bugs. Polishing usually takes up about 30%~50% of the time needed to write a new quest, so expect the game to be at least half of the current size.

Also, it is a bit more fun to write new things than polish existing things, so it may be less than half.
  • Between polishing an already existing quest and writing a new one, polishing existing ones should be preferred.

Map-Centric
What should come first, the chicken or the egg? Obviously the chicken, we have mammals who eat eggs like probably you. What a silly question :lol:

In a map-centric approach, the first thing to be added are maps. Everything else is added to give support to the maps.

Draw a map. Assign monsters to the map. Give levels to the players so they can fight the monsters. Give equipment to the players so they can match levels. Add placeholder NPCs to the towns. Give quests to NPCs.

In this priority order.
  • Consistency Control: Maps need monsters, monsters need levels, levels needs equips.
Quest-Centric
In a quest-centric approach, the first thing to be added is the player main quest storyline.

The main quest moves to a new town, then the town map is added.
Town is now bland, so NPCs are added to town. NPCs need sidequests and equips to sell, so they follow. More equips and sidequests means higher player levels, which demands stronger monsters to be added on surrounding towns.

In this priority order.
  • Consistency Control: Main Storyline need maps, maps need monsters, monsters need levels, levels needs equips.

I don't see the point on this.

Well, in a nutshell:
  • Quantity (Map-Centric) - Pretty much TMW right now: An open world, with loose ends and a lot of areas which are fully equipped but you'll never have to visit them, because the quest which will send you to them will only come later. Oh, and a lot of bugs, too.
  • Quantity (Quest-Centric) - "Open world" is dropped in favor of main storyline. The world will be capped by the main storyline. It might make more sense while playing, at the cost of some player freedom. ie. The storyline leading to Artis comes first, so only once you finish everything you had to do on Artis, Hurnscald will be added.
  • Quality (Map-Centric) - I don't think anyone in the team currently have this view, but it appears when you put all on a table. It tends to collapse itself, because you tend to add content too slowly, resulting in bland maps and a bland gameplay. So it'll eventually shift away in any of the other directions.
  • Quality (Quest-Centric) - Pretty much Evol Online. Drasil Island exists because Nard, and only once it was fully tested and polished, Artis was added. The storyline leading to Artis comes first, so only once you finish everything you had to do on Artis, and Artis has been mastered, Hurnscald will be added, then finished, then mastered, before moving to Tulimshar.

Some context (DRAMA):
Spoiler:
I and WildX have an irreconcilable dispute over a question regarding how much content should be featured in release 1.

One of us want to release as much as is complete, even if that implies in a few bugs, malpractices, placeholders, etc.
The other one points out this could affect negatively user experience.

Amidst this dispute there is the question about adhering releases to the main questline or having the main questline adhere to releases. This discussion has already rendered so much drama that I'm not sure anymore if I should maintain my current standing or not.

So, because I'm a busy person and have other priorities to cater, I want to listen to the players community.
This is a poll made by me as an individual. As usual of player talk polls, it have no deliberative power or whatsoever.

One thing I've learned while being president is: In face of opposition, before making a stand, gather intel on what those you're aiming to represent think, so you do not end up dragging the institution down in a personal fight.
...Not exactly the situation here, but it means that I prefer to open polls too many than polls too less.

Jesusalva (aka. Jesusaves)
Donate to the project! ─ (Note: If you want to support me instead, Buy me a coffee!)

Former system administrator, project lead and developer.
Do not contact me regarding The Mana World inquiries.

User avatar
kytty
TMW Classic
TMW Classic
Posts: 105
Joined: 18 Oct 2019, 23:23

Re: Another question about priority

Post by kytty »

I prefer quality over quantity, doing things right and cute :alt-7:
Whats the point of having many maps with bugs, mistakes and normal looking.
I would personally prefer to take my time and make the maps look cute *-*

I really think it is really important the way the game/maps look on a game. It is the first thing players see :alt-6:
User avatar
Hocus Pocus Fidibus
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 146
Joined: 15 Sep 2017, 12:38

Re: Another question about priority

Post by Hocus Pocus Fidibus »

Voted for "Quality (Quest-centric)" ... re-doable good thought out fun quests with fitting beautiful maps are imho always better than huge boring landmass with random mobs on it.
User avatar
SpeedDuck
TMW Adviser
TMW Adviser
Posts: 71
Joined: 09 Jan 2019, 22:20

Re: Another question about priority

Post by SpeedDuck »

I also prefer the Quality (Quest-centric), as it is much more enjoyable to enjoy fully-developed, mostly bug-free areas before adding new content.
Join the Duck Side!

SpeedDuck -> dangerDuck -> TinyToes -> Vladimir Putin -> LeggoLass -> Calithildor_Elderon
User avatar
ksso
Novice
Novice
Posts: 61
Joined: 26 Apr 2020, 17:32
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Re: Another question about priority

Post by ksso »

Better Quality
There are some quests that were designed for a previous release (like Kylian’s quest, that may be is a little low rewarding, when game started in Tulimshar (as I know, correct me if I am mistaken)) that may be needs to be edited
Or there are quests/maps that log out you forcefully (orum, demon mask, etc) or with another features that I do not know if right now are also a politics of revolts game.
So I guess that in general some former quests may be needed to be updated with recent quests in terms of time and rewards.
Also if is possible that all monsters have sounds (maybe even a tailored sound and music for high level boss and maps)

Also Quantity
If there are bunches of maps, they could be used in a clearing level mini game (like towers or cave levels or so on), so people alone or in alliance go and clear levels (and when they come back they could travel between lower levels that the one reached last time). Just need rewards for complete the level and so on… In that way just put mobs, treasures and rewards, available for all who can afford it…
User avatar
Micksha
Lead Developer (SoM)
Lead Developer (SoM)
Posts: 225
Joined: 18 Dec 2015, 15:34

Re: Another question about priority

Post by Micksha »

As I am pretty involved in these issues, and I do not want to tweak this poll by my personal opinion, I just comment that I will abstain from voting and wait for results. Right now I see there is high majority for quest-centric, quality, meaning:

Quest-centric: In a quest-centric approach, the first thing to be added is the player main quest storyline.
Quality: Means to only advance to the next quest once the current quest has been polished, fully tested, etc.

Well, pretty okay for me. Everybody voting this is very very much asked to:

1. come to our test server on testing.themanaworld.org
2. test stuff and give feedback (without feedback, testing is not really useful)
3. in best case helps to deal with developing, especially designing (and writing) main storyline quests

Thanks yall for voting! Keep us busy here!
User avatar
Hello=)
TMW Classic
TMW Classic
Posts: 648
Joined: 11 Jun 2009, 12:46

Re: Another question about priority

Post by Hello=) »

I'd say "quantity - item an gameplay centric". Well, there is no exactly such option. But as I've seen in Evol, too few items and too few quests grossly jeopardize gameplay, at the end of day nobody stays here to enjoy quality. On other hand TMW has numerous compromises about quality, to extent it ran with 2x upscaled desert fortress looking like crap for few years - and yet it haven't prevented from gaining >120 ppl online at it's golden age. I think alive players willing to play are to be final judges of "quality". If they stay, well, it's overall at least "good enough". If they don't, well, something definitely wrong.

So while quality is "good to have" I'd say Evol approach "as is" proven to be kinda unworkable when it comes to being GAME rather than bunch of assets.

If there're only few high-quality quests, ppl would complete them and ... leave the place forever. If quests prove to be just too hard/lengthy, they would give up and leave place. So there should be something to keep players - and give them positive feedback rewards - quite often. That's a rather basic part of MMORPG formula to retain players. Fail that - and it would end up being empty world no players want to revisit. At which point what's value of quality? And if someone is bothered by quality... what a nice nagging, let 'em try to improve it! I'd say it works, that's how/why I created my client theme: whole thing been usable, but I disliked UI appearance, so I did thing I would at least like myself :D

User avatar
WildX
Source of Mana
Source of Mana
Posts: 2084
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 14:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Another question about priority

Post by WildX »

t3st3r wrote: 15 Oct 2020, 20:24

Evol approach

I can agree that the "Evol approach" consists of a greater focus on quality and consistency, but I'm worried as to how this is often interpreted. What Evol delivered up to 2016 was very much limited by the availability of contributors. It's often thought that Evol took so long to develop because there was so much attention to detail and that's true to an extent, but it's not the only reason why it couldn't have gone faster. With a larger team it would have been possible to maintain the same quality standards and produce content faster.

The secret is to efficiently adjust quality standards to the current team at any given time. So, priorities can change. Generally speaking two artists can make a prettier map than one artist in the same amount of time. It's okay to aim for a better final product when you feel you have the resources to make it happen.

TMW Team member

User avatar
Livio
Warrior
Warrior
Posts: 347
Joined: 26 Feb 2019, 19:08

Re: Another question about priority

Post by Livio »

From my point of view this poll is a waste of time.
Players are way too different each other so there's no way to know exactly how to make them happy: some would love to feel part of a story others love harsh challenges and be wealthy.
A game without enough items, maps and stories is called a "demo".
I'm sure that items are many enough, maps too, so it's up to stories to complete the game in my opinion.
Making annual quests is a cool feature that literally drive players crazy for the game, just like that damn Tormenta.
I bet none of them remembers the name of the guy who grabbed them from the sea anymore.

User avatar
Hello=)
TMW Classic
TMW Classic
Posts: 648
Joined: 11 Jun 2009, 12:46

Re: Another question about priority

Post by Hello=) »

WildX wrote: 16 Oct 2020, 10:52

I can agree that the "Evol approach" consists of a greater focus on quality and consistency, but I'm worried as to how this is often interpreted. What Evol delivered up to 2016 was very much limited by the availability of contributors.

I think Evol had weird priorities that prevented it from becoming game and community. And I really hope ppl aren't in mood to do same mistake twice. This topic gives at least some hope it is actually a case.

It's often thought that Evol took so long to develop because there was so much attention to detail and that's true to an extent, but it's not the only reason why it couldn't have gone faster. With a larger team it would have been possible to maintain the same quality standards and produce content faster.

But wait, wasn't all this obsession on details & quality a thing that prevented many ppl from contributing at all? Just because it either scary or too challenging or takes too much tantrums and ppl give up, resorting to doing something easier/more funny for them instead. TMW always had its edge due to being more agile about this. Not to mention opensource tends to work better in "release early, release often" mode. That's where I have to admit quantity also matters. As well as not looking complete;y stagnant & dead to outsiders I guess.

The secret is to efficiently adjust quality standards to the current team at any given time. So, priorities can change. Generally speaking two artists can make a prettier map than one artist in the same amount of time. It's okay to aim for a better final product when you feel you have the resources to make it happen.

Well, I'd say in opensource it eventually works like this: someone makes some half-baked something, that more or less works for them. Someone else isn't happy about quality or features or something - and eventually attempts to improve that. If there is someone capable of that and they got their time and will for that at all. I'd say TMW managed to keep things balanced - and paying attention to quantity (and many other things beyond quality) was probably one of reasons why it managed to stay alive so long.

...and from this point of view, I'd say it's better to have "half-baked" map or item nagging others by their imperfect appearance than wait for army of knights on white horses who could do everything at top-notch quality. And if there is no things to (try to) improve.. it can be just too challenging to do equally cool thing from scratch.

p.s. this said, I like quality. Hell a lot. Who doesn't?! But I don't get a point of nice looking but unplayable worlds with no players willing to "enjoy" all that. Look, when computers were at their infancy, incapable of doing anyhow decent GFX at all, still, ppl were quite happy to play games. Even if "flying plane" means merely horizon line and few primitive pixels on the screen, it still made a workable game, that actually made some ppl to incline in their seat like if they're facing G-forces they would on actual plane. So, you see, games can even get with ... virtually missing assets :D. More modern example could be Minecraft. Their GFX/assets looks like DOOM at best. But funny gameplay makes it up for it and they even managed to declare bug a feature.

User avatar
WildX
Source of Mana
Source of Mana
Posts: 2084
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 14:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Another question about priority

Post by WildX »

t3st3r wrote: 19 Oct 2020, 02:15

But wait, wasn't all this obsession on details & quality a thing that prevented many ppl from contributing at all? Just because it either scary or too challenging or takes too much tantrums and ppl give up, resorting to doing something easier/more funny for them instead.

I can safely say that I have never witnessed any examples of this throughout the existence of Evol Online. There were people coming and going and it was always a fun environment. In fact, I rarely witnessed fights or tantrums from anyone. The only times that happened usually involved TMW in some capacity. They were very precious about competition and at times hostile towards Evol because of that. In the end, TMW came to Evol proposing a merge because we both struggled with resources.

TMW Team member

User avatar
ksso
Novice
Novice
Posts: 61
Joined: 26 Apr 2020, 17:32
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Re: Another question about priority

Post by ksso »

Hi, idk about developing
however, i think that if there is there an option, i think could be with fixing the client in order to get a massive players input with smarthphones (ported with ios and android), in that way there could be a really nice input of players to the game. May be need to solve the zoom in option and play like a resized window, so char look bigger at the phone screen (so quality could be the priority). But it could also bias resources for another important things. So please take in account that idk a thing about all this. Thanks for your patience. :)

User avatar
jesusalva
Moubootaur Legends
Moubootaur Legends
Posts: 1438
Joined: 14 Nov 2016, 22:20
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: Another question about priority

Post by jesusalva »

ksso wrote: 19 Oct 2020, 11:37

Hi, idk about developing
however, i think that if there is there an option, i think could be with fixing the client in order to get a massive players input with smarthphones (ported with ios and android), in that way there could be a really nice input of players to the game. May be need to solve the zoom in option and play like a resized window, so char look bigger at the phone screen (so quality could be the priority). But it could also bias resources for another important things. So please take in account that idk a thing about all this. Thanks for your patience. :)

Ah no, Evol quality standards will be completely worthless for what you want.

The images are still on the 32x32 base in a 1:1 ratio. If you upscale them, regardless of how good they are, they'll look like a bunch of colored squares.

Well, you could change the base to 64x64 and downscale to 32x32 by default to support that, but you'll have a very quick problems with that:

  1. It is barely pixelart at this point

  2. You need to redo 100.00% of all art assets, and this would take years

  3. Artists are not willing to do that

  4. ManaPlus, obviously.

So for what you mean, "Evol Quality" is completely unrelated.

Jesusalva (aka. Jesusaves)
Donate to the project! ─ (Note: If you want to support me instead, Buy me a coffee!)

Former system administrator, project lead and developer.
Do not contact me regarding The Mana World inquiries.

User avatar
Reid
Lead Developer (SoM)
Lead Developer (SoM)
Posts: 1549
Joined: 15 May 2010, 21:39
Location: Artis
Contact:

Re: Another question about priority

Post by Reid »

ksso wrote: 19 Oct 2020, 11:37

Hi, idk about developing
however, i think that if there is there an option, i think could be with fixing the client in order to get a massive players input with smarthphones (ported with ios and android), in that way there could be a really nice input of players to the game. May be need to solve the zoom in option and play like a resized window, so char look bigger at the phone screen (so quality could be the priority). But it could also bias resources for another important things. So please take in account that idk a thing about all this. Thanks for your patience. :)

I don't understand what you suggest, would it be to have an upscale (2x, 4x) to be easier to play on mobile?
In that case, yes, pixelart would look better and the "evol quality" could be a good target.

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
-- Ford Prefect
User avatar
ksso
Novice
Novice
Posts: 61
Joined: 26 Apr 2020, 17:32
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Re: Another question about priority

Post by ksso »

Hi, again maybe that comment was off topic thread
just suggestion to use like a resized window to display at phone, maybe the default view could be tailored upon phone size. About upscale and zoom in and resolution, i really doesn't understand that terms :)
for instance if in my screen the char heights 1-2 cm more or less, i thought is a good size for a phone, just need to resize the window and see less map available to player
feel free to move my comments if this are not related, thank you :)
indeed I am happy with the enhanced quality at evol and revolt testing, are harder (play and dev) but values the effort

Post Reply