Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to be as blindly positive as all the happy go lucky 5-post people here, but it is true that seeing Anet communicate in more detail about their game is a fresh breath. It also sends a signal of having a better outlook on your playerbase.

What I find missing from this is any inkling of time and resources. A transparency in description is good, a transparency of urgency would be better and even relatively broad estimates helps people set expectations. While alot of us can appreciate that this is a daunting task and (with some reservation) can appreciate setbacks I think it is also apt to point out that we're looking at a soon 4-year feature of 7-year (and two expansions) of promises. The longer something is left behind the more daunting it becomes to pick back up again (refactoring, etc.). I think that is a fair point to raise here when legacy is mentioned.

I also think that it is apt to at a time like this remind people of that Guild Wars 2's WvW mode was inspired by Dark Age of Camelot: A game that it took 25 people 18 months to complete, the entire game. Rhetorical questions to parallel would be: Are there 25 people working on WvW? The cornerstone game mode. When there are legacy issues developers may argue for slating with a rebuild, has this notion been entertained? We're likely way past that point now, but it is an interesting topic in cold discussion: The design of WvW has proven its stability over the years and it isn't overly complex on the concept level.

Things like code, management/direction and HR have their relationships. What we can see out from Anet is that they seem up to both new- and old tricks. Some of it reassuring, some of it concerning.

Anyway, this was alot of words to say: Techspeak good, timeframe important, commitment is resource allocation.

 

 

Edited by subversiontwo.7501
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi all, On October 21, we released “Inside ArenaNet: World Restructuring Beta 1,” a blog post that detailed the problems we encountered during the September 24 World Restructuring beta attempt an

So many paragraphs to blatantly say you don't have your core developers anymore and no one knows what's going on with the core game engine anymore.  Just the other day, you said you had a 3-4 week

Alliances when? 

On 11/11/2021 at 12:18 AM, NotNoPants.9573 said:

So many paragraphs to blatantly say you don't have your core developers anymore and no one knows what's going on with the core game engine anymore. 

GW2 was released in 2012 and is based on the engine from GW1 (which was released between 2005-2007). 

Because of this, my guess is, that there is a lot of old (legacy) code that is 10 years or even 15 years old and older and in this long time span a lot of different developers (that understood the code sometimes better, sometimes not so got) worked on the code and because of this, the changing of old/legacy code can have a lot of unexpected side effects.

I am glad that the devs share the details about their work and their decisions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

GW2 was released in 2012 and is based on the engine from GW1 (which was released between 2005-2007). 

Because of this, my guess is, that there is a lot of old (legacy) code that is 10 years or even 15 years old and older and in this long time span a lot of different developers (that understood the code sometimes better, sometimes not so got) worked on the code and because of this, the changing of old/legacy code can have a lot of unexpected side effects.

I am glad that the devs share the details about their work and their decisions.

That would suggest that they would have game-wide implementation issues. GW1 did not have WvW so particular code for WvW does not specifically use old code from GW1 while other parts of the game would not either. It is rather the other way around. Instead, there are likely (as noted in the post above) two other primarily contributing factors to difficulty working in the WvW environment: 1) It was poorly drafted to begin with (SCW, Anet's programming guru, commented on that on Reddit in 2016 in a series of relatively interesting posts when he was made temporary WvW director) and 2) If you don't touch something for 7 years it tends to get left behind (not necessarily just in the sense of possible lost competence, but also lost familiarity).

For example, there is an interview with Colin J before he left company speaking about how the team that made Megaservers would be kept intact to iterate on back-end infrastructure work. Clearly, that team was not kept around to iterate on WvW or its persistant EotM beta. It's the services and competence of such a team they would need for this, deeming by the update notice. Had they done it then, we would not be here now. Though there is little sense crying over spilled milk beyond pointing out its plausible fact.

Case in point: We're pretty much playing the beta (relinks) of a beta (rushed conception), with a separate beta (EotM) on the side waiting for a beta (alliances) to replace the beta (relinks). Not to mention holes ripped up by things like the Warclaw not plugged, like being able to jump into objectives etc. (which just furthers an unpolished or unfinished beta feeling). Whenever Anet will concentrate (divert, recruit) the needed resources for this mode to actually be a cornerstone game mode remains to be seen. So far it seems good talk, no walk. Like I alluded to above: What we see is still rather the other way around (no balance updates because Cal is moved from Ben to Karl, or however you want to phrase it). While not the most important example in this situation (Alliances, programming) it shows taking resources from the PvP modes rather than giving resources to them as an ongoing tradition. A studio of Anet's size should have enough GD to do both things at once and without moving resources from traditionally understaffed areas of the game.

Edited by subversiontwo.7501
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

That would suggest that they would have game-wide implementation issues. GW1 did not have WvW so particular code for WvW does not specifically use old code from GW1 while other parts of the game would not either.

All game modes share some code (that probably could originated in GW1). And GW2 was released in 2012 and the development work for GW2 started obviously years before 2012.  If that code is still in the game, it is more than 10 years old legacy code.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...