Beta Officially Announced as Coming Soon at PAX Prime 2012

Jonathan Chey announced in a recent interview at PAX Prime 2012 that they are working on launching the beta soon. He also said they were accepting beta signups at PAX Prime 2012. So, look for signups to possibly start soon on the site and the beta to launch within one to two months.

 

Oh ho ho! I see a number of new things to note.

So there's the beta idea, which is great. Also important is that new trailer playing on loop (along with the old partial-live-action trailer). You can see pretty darn smooth animation, with visual effects such as movement cards physically picking up pieces to move them. It looks like they solved many of the "communicate this clearly to the audience" issues. Me, I would argue that the "active piece highlight bounce" could be less bouncy. I believe it would get annoying while I'm trying to think.

Then there's the idea of having it on a tablet, which has probably been mentioned before, but I would totally support.

And, lastly, there's the observation that Jon is older than he was when he died in System Shock II.

 

Thanks for sharing the video. I'm hoping that Jon & Friends have time to get back to more dev diaries soon. For one thing, I'm curious about the arrows on the movement highlight. Just pointing out "here's A, there's B" doesn't seem to require the extra visual gesture. (Though it looks awesome, much more stimulating than it would plain, so I would be happy if embellishment really is the reason.)

 

Don't hold me to this, but based on my time with the game at PAX (which I'll write up eventually, I promise), I do believe those arrows indicate the facing that your character will have once it completes the movement.

Facing is important for stuff like Blocks and Parries: they don't trigger if you're hit from behind! Farbs exploited this at one point by flanking my warrior and alternating attacks so his shield never fired off.

 

Read about this on PA, and I love it. I really really want to get into the Beta.

 

I want to get in on the beta. This looks like a game I can love. I also like Jonathan Chey's philosophy behind the game: designing it so it doesn't always have to be a competitive human vs human zero-sum game. I like the inclusion of single-player mode.

 

Looking forward to your write up Roshirai, it'd be good to read up on your first impressions

 

I heard it was an open beta, right? The gamespy.com article quotes it as an open beta which would imply none of us have to worry about "getting in".

 

Just watched the vid on youtube (before heading to the forums) -
Gameplay is just WooW!

But graphic is just amazing - I applied for job position when you were looking for graphic artists to help ... but got turned down
Still , i would love to participate at least by helping you test the game.

So please think about me when inviting people !

 

It would appear we are having an influx of new faces, as publicity draws the curious. See, Blue Manchu, the hordes grow hungry!

 

I actually made account few days after game was announced (was it year or more, can remember) But I didnt post very much since , it was to early - and we dont have to much solid info on the game. And for what I seen the direction cant be better. I am just happy lurker

 

I kinda guessed that the arrows have something to do with facing. But I was confused because I was remembering this:

That's way back from the comments to Diary #3, and I thought Jon implied that you can face any way you want. Maybe there's been an update, maybe he just left a quick comment.

This is why we want more diaries -- to explain all the rules in exhilarating detail so we have all the exploits from day one.
Well, actually I want them because I'm a bibliophile. I've always read the game manual cover-to-cover before playing anything.

 

Ah, yes, we decided that the free-facing system was a lot of extra clicking, so we switched to a system where the character faces in the direction he/she is heading. The character will, moreover, automatically turn to face whatever it attacks, and face an attacker, after being attacked. I'll let the designers expand upon this decision, if they want to. (I am but a poor wayfaring server programmer. ;-) )

And yes, you all sussed out what the arrows on the board are for! As you guessed, those illustrate what direction your character will be facing, if he/she stops on that square.

 

This bugs me way more than it should, but if I'm not wrong*, from the screen captures and videos it seems diagonal movement (... well, considering the isometric view, that actually means N/S/E/W) defaults to facing characters SW or NE? It's probably very minor but it could lead to some situations where simply being a certain compass direction from an opponent could be a positional advantage due to choices in how facing ends up on diagonal movement.

What if it were standardized to, say, moving N faces you NE, moving E faces you SE, moving S faces you SW, and moving W faces you NW (You could call this the 'clockwise system' or something)? The positioning advantage would still be there, but at least it'd be more 'symmetrical' (for lack of better word)

*If I'm wrong, disregard this post.

 

Sounds good to me! So when S******lips the Kobold sneaks behind my tank/paladin, Elisa Brightblade, she won't have to endure a second stab because I needed an extra play just to turn her around. Nice!

Any moment-to-moment advantage probably evens out over the long run. Judging by the frozen first frame on the video above, the current plan looks to be built on which way you would face if traveling one square at a time, using just the cardinal isometric directions; it also appears to favor ending in the same direction your character currently faces (it's the elf mage on the far right who is moving). That makes sense in a simulational logic, but if it becomes a point of contention perhaps they could throw some randomization into the route calculator.

 

Looking at the picture again, actually I was completely wrong in my assumption; as you can see from the two squares I circled, (1) should probably have been facing NW, but if the logic was such that all spaces in the front arc based on current direction should face the same way, then (1) would have been right, but in that case why is (2) facing NW instead of SW then?

I agree, there's probably some logic behind it. And I'd say a deterministic method is superior to a randomized method, just due to the strategic nature of the game. (And yes, I do remember that dice are inherently involved in the game regardless ;p)

 

Which makes sense. I can dig it. And I can see your overall interest in simplification (reminder) in action.

Also, I totally noticed the characters turning to face someone who attacks them in that gameplay video. It made me twitch at first, because I'd be bothered by somebody messing with my carefully-aligned facing (for block card use). But then, well, I figured I'd exploit it myself, walloping enemies to make them turn and negating their own use of blocks.

 

Yeah, that is definitely a benefit, but this system can hurt you too. Let's say you have two enemy's flanking one of your characters. They will get the opportunity to snag a few back attacks in a turn, as opposed to just one. It is cool that there is a benefit to flanking though.

 

An option to choose the pathing might be nice. It needn't be too intricate, simply a choice between two or three legitimate facings at the end of movement. Not a free-facing option, per se; it would still be limited by actual pathing choices (you have to be moving in that direction to face that direction), but it would still give more flexibility.

Look at the provided photo above and the square circled and labeled 1. There are at least two legal paths to that square which result in different, legal facings. Yet from the above it seems my facing SW is decided for me when I very well may prefer to face NW, a legal, though not shown, facing. Squares closer to the character could easily have three or even all four directions as legal facings.

"A lot of extra clicking" means far less to me than proper maneuverability.

But, I could be horribly wrong. I look forward to said Beta for testing things out.