What happened to Beastmaster?

[Menriq]

I would argue that there's a difference between having a roadmap for the expansion and saying "The expansion will have [X]!" with no elaboration on when it's coming out, sometimes as far down the road as the last patch of that expansion. It frequently boils down to guessing off of when comparable content released in previous patch cycles or people repeatedly asking Yoshida or senior devs if it's in the next patch until the answer is yes.

That's a fair take. However, by putting a roadmap for an expansion, they have now timeboxed themselves. Let's say for example Cosmic Exploration was on the roadmap for 7.2. Any number of things caused it to slip, and now they are getting heat if they don't release it 7.2 because they "promised" it would be 7.2. However, if they never said when it would release, just that it would release in the expansion, then even if they didn't hit their internal goal, they can still meet the "promise" of delivering it during the expansion.

As a developer, I would really like to understand the MMO's reason for still doing "waterfall" deployments. I'd much rather have smaller iterations of releases (i.e. 7.0-7.98) and deliver content when it's done. This keeps people engaged with quicker releases, and let's them iterate on feedback much sooner. I know there are a lot of factors that go into content (artists, VA, designers, etc.), but I still think this is something that can be overcome at a quicker cadence.

[Jeeqbit]

That's a fair take. However, by putting a roadmap for an expansion, they have now timeboxed themselves. Let's say for example Cosmic Exploration was on the roadmap for 7.2. Any number of things caused it to slip, and now they are getting heat if they don't release it 7.2 because they "promised" it would be 7.2.

Deadlines are important. You know this if you've ever so much as gone to a place of education. Without deadlines, humans often just kinda, don't do stuff. Since there is no pressure to get it done. Even if they don't release the deadline publicly, they have an internal one (we usually know what it is because we know when they released comparable content in every other expansion ).

It tends to be completed months before that deadline normally. As you said, they wouldn't set a deadline they were not certain they could make, so if it's a new content type they don't always put an exact timeframe.

As a developer, I would really like to understand the MMO's reason for still doing "waterfall" deployments. I'd much rather have smaller iterations of releases (i.e. 7.0-7.98) and deliver content when it's done.

Quality Assurance. As a developer you must know how prevalent bugs are and what games are like if they are released riddled with bugs like Cyberpunk was.

This keeps people engaged with quicker releases, and let's them iterate on feedback much sooner. I know there are a lot of factors that go into content (artists, VA, designers, etc.), but I still think this is something that can be overcome at a quicker cadence.

As you said, factors like concept art/story design > models/textures > placement of those models in a world to design the world > designing and creating the story and quests - you're looking at what is something like an 8 month process (this was mentioned in dev panels) and they also have to QA it to iron out thousands of bugs. So the bulk of it is taken up by that time anyway and would only be made faster by, say, a few months where they skip QA and let you play it riddled with critical bugs.

Where there are no critical bugs, there is value in a consistent schedule. It keeps it consistent, not just for developers but also for players who can predict the cycle and plan ahead when the subscribe. I personally like this, and many others do too.

They need to stop announcing "end of expansion" features before the expansion is even out.

We know most of it is coming anyway because we can predict it based on precedent, so they may as well announce it.

I guess this is one of those situations where no matter what, people are going to be upset.

Very true.

[Menriq]

Deadlines are important. You know this if you've ever so much as gone to a place of education. Without deadlines, humans often just kinda, don't do stuff. Since there is no pressure to get it done. Even if they don't release the deadline publicly, they have an internal one (we usually know what it is because we know when they released comparable content in every other expansion ).

It tends to be completed months before that deadline normally. As you said, they wouldn't set a deadline they were not certain they could make, so if it's a new content type they don't always put an exact timeframe.

Anyone who has played Blizzard games remember the saying "It will be done when it's done". This was because they released it when they felt it was ready to ship. However, shareholders, like everything else, don't see things the same way. This is why things get released when they shouldn't, not because the developers think it's ready.

Quality Assurance. As a developer you must know how prevalent bugs are and what games are like if they are released riddled with bugs like Cyberpunk was.

See my quote above. If they felt the game was ready to go, they wouldn't have been in crunch time. They were timeboxed, like I said is an issue when you give a date and are forced to meet it, instead of giving a date when it's ready.

As you said, factors like concept art/story design > models/textures > placement of those models in a world to design the world > designing and creating the story and quests - you're looking at what is something like an 8 month process (this was mentioned in dev panels) and they also have to QA it to iron out thousands of bugs. So the bulk of it is taken up by that time anyway and would only be made faster by, say, a few months where they skip QA and let you play it riddled with critical bugs.

Faster by a few months is a pretty big order of magnitude. We've also seen with so much QA, bugs are getting through anyways that should be caught pretty quickly in QA. So either QA isn't doing well, or the timebox is causing issues. Pick your poison.

Where there are no critical bugs, there is value in a consistent schedule. It keeps it consistent, not just for developers but also for players who can predict the cycle and plan ahead when the subscribe. I personally like this, and many others do too.

Every 2 weeks or every month is a consistent schedule too.

[Jeeqbit]

Anyone who has played Blizzard games remember the saying "It will be done when it's done". This was because they released it when they felt it was ready to ship. However, shareholders, like everything else, don't see things the same way. This is why things get released when they shouldn't, not because the developers think it's ready.

While it's true that a developer would usually say "it'll be done when it's done", once you've made the content before and have a good system for it, you can at least predict the max time it will likely take.

It's also true that there are companies that will say "release this content on schedule" even though it's not ready. That happened with Cyberpunk, obviously. It also happened with 1.0 of this game (many developers did not feel it was ready). Both were obviously a disaster.

But what I meant was the scheduling is very generous... they are done MONTHS in advance. In fact, when 5.0 was about to release (Shadowbringers), they said 5.1 was done! They actually said the first patch, due to release around 4 months later, was done! And that prevents the issue altogether.

Faster by a few months is a pretty big order of magnitude.

But as I said it prevents the issues that happened with Cyberpunk and 1.0.

We've also seen with so much QA, bugs are getting through anyways that should be caught pretty quickly in QA. So either QA isn't doing well, or the timebox is causing issues.

Their dev panels explained they reduce bugs from thousands down to a small number. The small number remaining is due to the timebox, otherwise they'd obviously have fixed them instead of listing them as "Known Issues". But most likely if they were given an extra month, they would still eventually find a new bug, because people always find bugs in software even years after development is complete.

[Kacho_Nacho]

..... man, it's already February? Wasn't Christmas like a week ago?

Whoa... I was just thinking the exact same thought!

Normally, January drags on and on forever. But, this year it has flown by.

If time continues to speed by at this rate there will be daffodils and hyacinths in bloom next week. I'm not ready!

I want at least one more decent snowfall in Columbus this Winter. Someone push the brake pedal on this this thing!

Anywho, I'm very curious to hear about Beastmaster and hope it is implemented by Autumn of 2025. CS3 has had lots of opportunity to learn about limited jobs from its first experiment, Blue Mage. Let us all hope Beastmaster is better.

As an aside, I am also hoping CS3 reviews Blue Mages and makes them relevant again. Limited jobs have a place in FFXIV. Content should never be discarded once its been introduced, especially a job.

If it becomes apparent CS3 is unable to stick to providing support for a limited job, and keep pushing the work required to keep limited jobs relevant to the back of the triage line, then they should bite the bullet and make Blue Mage and Beastmaster regular jobs in 8.0.

[Asari5]

they told us beastmaster will come late in the expansion. dont remember which live letter that was, but its probably not before 7.45... which means more than a year to wait