Monsters & Memories

[Xenich]

I made an Archer on the pvp server named Jig. Seems like you need a group if you want to mostly shoot arrows

Did you play on a PvP server in EQ?

Nope. I'm not a pvp guy at all unless the game is completely built around it like Shadowbane. I've just had the itch to play and jumped on the chance

Ah ok, I was going to say that EQ PvP is the worst example of it due to risk/reward consequence in play. EQ opened up a PvP server at release called Rallos Zek. It was fun for what it was, it had slightly different rules eventually, but also died when raiding became the main focus of the game due to the fact it was near impossible to raid targets when it only took a small amount of people to force a wipe. People were very poorly geared on the server because of it and progression came to a slow crawl where it eventually died and was shut down.

PvP really doesn't work well on long developed and hard consequence systems.

[Xenich]

So, nobody has any extra Beta Keys? *Beg*

[Norfleet]

PvP really doesn't work well on long developed and hard consequence systems.

Isn't even just PvP. It's "hard consequence systems" in general. PvP just accelerates the process by creating a class of encounter where the lose rate is always 50%, typically higher than PvE encounters where most people win their mob fights. But somebody has to lose a PvP fight, so it's always 50%. Once somebody loses, the hard consequences of losing introduces a natural attention rate: What percentage of players will now ragequit?

I mean, there's a genre of games which is now entirely functionally dead: The arcade game. It wasn't generally PvE, but it had extremely harsh consequences: When you die, you lose real money. This particular element has largely been entirely extirpated from all the genres that used it.

It makes me wonder if we should bring it back. When you die, you have to insert a quarter within 15 seconds to continue. If you don't, your character is deleted and people loot your corpse (no matter what it is you died to).

A high-pressure sales tactic tied to a genre classic.

[Xenich]

PvP really doesn't work well on long developed and hard consequence systems.

Isn't even just PvP. It's "hard consequence systems" in general. PvP just accelerates the process by creating a class of encounter where the lose rate is always 50%, typically higher than PvE encounters where most people win their mob fights. But somebody has to lose a PvP fight, so it's always 50%. Once somebody loses, the hard consequences of losing introduces a natural attention rate: What percentage of players will now ragequit?

I mean, there's a genre of games which is now entirely functionally dead: The arcade game. It wasn't generally PvE, but it had extremely harsh consequences: When you die, you lose real money. This particular element has largely been entirely extirpated from all the genres that used it.

It makes me wonder if we should bring it back. When you die, you have to insert a quarter within 15 seconds to continue. If you don't, your character is deleted and people loot your corpse (no matter what it is you died to).

A high-pressure sales tactic tied to a genre classic.

I preferred the console adaptions of those arcade games. With coin operated, as long as you had a ton of quarters, you could keep "continuing" for the most part if you kept feeding quarters before you lost all of your lives. The console adaptions (ColecoVision for instance) forced you to start over at level 1 once you lost the last life, so you truly had to master all of the levels in a single play through to beat the game. It is why many games with the MAME emulators seem rather silly when you can fast feed as many coins as you want. In fact, they almost become a joke when you think about it.

The difference between PvP and PvE though is that pattern behavior of the game allows for a more controlled and expected play (which has its own satisfying play). With PvE, those boundaries allow a player to choose "when" they wish to approach the challenge rather than it being forced upon them without consent. That is, you choose when you will risk, while with PvP that risk is usually chosen for you, not just when you initiate an encounter or situation. PvP is usually a game without rules, expect anything, and it is not uncommon to be at a state where you are not "playing" the game so to speak (ie you step away, are focused on preparing to enter a dungeon or setting up for an encounter, etc...) only to have it played for you. While that form of play has its own enjoyment, when combined with extreme penalty systems that have grueling recovery, being penalized in such a manner can feel "cheap" in various situations which is why even if you really like PvP, there are times where this concept of risk becomes a bit tiring.

I always preferred PvP games to have either light penalties, or at least a recovery cycle that is designed around that style of play (ie early MUD systems that had perm death, but leveling back up and gaining gear again was fairly reasonable once you knew the game well).

[Norfleet]

The difference between PvP and PvE though is that pattern behavior of the game allows for a more controlled and expected play (which has its own satisfying play). With PvE, those boundaries allow a player to choose "when" they wish to approach the challenge rather than it being forced upon them without consent.

That's an "open" vs. "closed", not a PvP vs. PvE. Like in "open" PvP, you can be attacked at any time by some rando even when you're not trying to PvP, but in "closed" PvP", you only fight people in specific zones or instances (arenas, warzones, etc) in which there is no other reason to be (so your presence there is a choice to engage in PvP rather than an unwanted byproduct).

Similarly, "closed" PvE takes place only in adventure zones, dungeons, and raid instances. This is a very common paradigm of PvE, but it isn't the ONLY form of PvE. In "open" PvE, I can be sitting around in town and raider NPCs will decide to attack the town of their own initiative, forcing me to engage with the PvE regardless of my current desires. This is a very unusual pattern in MMOs, but actually the predominant pattern in a single player game. In open world and survival-crafters and builders, enemies can attack you regardless of whether you want to be engaging with hostile activity right now. If you've ever been attacked by cliffracers, you've experienced involuntary "open PvE".

So your real distinction here is not between PvE vs. PvP, but rather, voluntary vs. involuntary. When your mobs stand around in groups off the path waiting for you to attack, or at least enter their aggro range, you're engaging in a voluntary experience. When the mobs hunt you down and try to teabag your corpse, you're experiencing an involuntary one. It merely matters whether the enemy agents are active or passive. Active enemy agents engage you, whether you choose to engage with them or not. Passive ones stand there waiting for you to engage them. The distinction and consequences do not actually require that there be another player causing the experience. You are no less killed and robbed if another player hunts you down and kills you vs. an NPC dragon burning down the town you were sitting in and eating your corpse.

[Xenich]

The difference between PvP and PvE though is that pattern behavior of the game allows for a more controlled and expected play (which has its own satisfying play). With PvE, those boundaries allow a player to choose "when" they wish to approach the challenge rather than it being forced upon them without consent.

That's an "open" vs. "closed", not a PvP vs. PvE. Like in "open" PvP, you can be attacked at any time by some rando even when you're not trying to PvP, but in "closed" PvP", you only fight people in specific zones or instances (arenas, warzones, etc) in which there is no other reason to be (so your presence there is a choice to engage in PvP rather than an unwanted byproduct).

Similarly, "closed" PvE takes place only in adventure zones, dungeons, and raid instances. This is a very common paradigm of PvE, but it isn't the ONLY form of PvE. In "open" PvE, I can be sitting around in town and raider NPCs will decide to attack the town of their own initiative, forcing me to engage with the PvE regardless of my current desires. This is a very unusual pattern in MMOs, but actually the predominant pattern in a single player game. In open world and survival-crafters and builders, enemies can attack you regardless of whether you want to be engaging with hostile activity right now. If you've ever been attacked by cliffracers, you've experienced involuntary "open PvE".

So your real distinction here is not between PvE vs. PvP, but rather, voluntary vs. involuntary. When your mobs stand around in groups off the path waiting for you to attack, or at least enter their aggro range, you're engaging in a voluntary experience. When the mobs hunt you down and try to teabag your corpse, you're experiencing an involuntary one. It merely matters whether the enemy agents are active or passive. Active enemy agents engage you, whether you choose to engage with them or not. Passive ones stand there waiting for you to engage them. The distinction and consequences do not actually require that there be another player causing the experience. You are no less killed and robbed if another player hunts you down and kills you vs. an NPC dragon burning down the town you were sitting in and eating your corpse.

I guess that is a fair assessment, but I was speaking more in the context of EQ which was "Open PvP" and I believe M&M PvP is that as well unless they did something different than EQ did. If we add those conditions you gave then, yes... I would say it changes the evaluation. So yes, if a PvE game operated in a similar fashion as "Open PvP", I think it would create issues as well.

I mean, if the game actively hunted you down like that (becoming more of a possibility as AI is developed) it would likely emulate the same problems with "Open PvP". You would be hunted down by a dragon killing you when you least expected it and while running back to get your corpse, you get perma camped by various baddies. So in that respect, PvE could be every bit the problem that PvP is in that situation.

[Norfleet]

I guess that is a fair assessment, but I was speaking more in the context of EQ which was "Open PvP" and I believe M&M PvP is that as well unless they did something different than EQ did. If we add those conditions you gave then, yes... I would say it changes the evaluation. So yes, if a PvE game operated in a similar fashion as "Open PvP", I think it would create issues as well.

I mean, if the game actively hunted you down like that (becoming more of a possibility as AI is developed) it would likely emulate the same problems with "Open PvP". You would be hunted down by a dragon killing you when you least expected it and while running back to get your corpse, you get perma camped by various baddies. So in that respect, PvE could be every bit the problem that PvP is in that situation.

Yeah, but so you see here the distinction is really "Open" vs. "Closed". When you compare "Closed PvE" to "Open PvP", you're crossing two wires at the same time and thus confusing the issue. If you gave people the choice between "Open PvP" and "Open PvE", they would probably not terribly notice the difference, especially when the NPCs became increasingly ruthless...and when the other players are probably just bots anyway. See how Eve is.

So picture a game where we abolish all non-agentative actors. There are no longer any just "mobs". Everything you encounter, NPC or PC, is doing something and has goals and objectives that it will actively pursue by any means at its disposal. A dragon is no longer just a raid boss that patiently waits for you to defeat it. It is a creature, with goals: Eat food, accumulate treasure, and it acts to pursue those goals, which may thus involve it eating and looting YOU.

[Xenich]

I guess that is a fair assessment, but I was speaking more in the context of EQ which was "Open PvP" and I believe M&M PvP is that as well unless they did something different than EQ did. If we add those conditions you gave then, yes... I would say it changes the evaluation. So yes, if a PvE game operated in a similar fashion as "Open PvP", I think it would create issues as well.

I mean, if the game actively hunted you down like that (becoming more of a possibility as AI is developed) it would likely emulate the same problems with "Open PvP". You would be hunted down by a dragon killing you when you least expected it and while running back to get your corpse, you get perma camped by various baddies. So in that respect, PvE could be every bit the problem that PvP is in that situation.

Yeah, but so you see here the distinction is really "Open" vs. "Closed". When you compare "Closed PvE" to "Open PvP", you're crossing two wires at the same time and thus confusing the issue. If you gave people the choice between "Open PvP" and "Open PvE", they would probably not terribly notice the difference, especially when the NPCs became increasingly ruthless...and when the other players are probably just bots anyway. See how Eve is.

So picture a game where we abolish all non-agentative actors. There are no longer any just "mobs". Everything you encounter, NPC or PC, is doing something and has goals and objectives that it will actively pursue by any means at its disposal. A dragon is no longer just a raid boss that patiently waits for you to defeat it. It is a creature, with goals: Eat food, accumulate treasure, and it acts to pursue those goals, which may thus involve it eating and looting YOU.

It would be interesting for sure... I still don't think I personally would care for it though. I mean, I guess if there were some consistency in patterns you could identify to limit risk, it might be fun, but if it reaches typical player Open PvP function, yeah... no thank you. I like the pattern aspect of play, the controlled aspects in that design, the compartmentalized risk factors of knowing that the NPCs have limits and behaviors that I can account for.

Player behavior (or eventual AI simulated player behavior) would be too much chaos and I have a feeling AI would develop behaviors that may even be worse than players. I mean, imagine all those tests where AI was getting ****** off at people (wanting to destroy all humans) and then considering a games NPCs developing a serious negative attitude to players for whatever reason. I have a feeling they would end up making the worst griefer seem mild in comparison. Yeah, I will pass on that!

[Stack of Turtles]

I guess that is a fair assessment, but I was speaking more in the context of EQ which was "Open PvP" and I believe M&M PvP is that as well unless they did something different than EQ did. If we add those conditions you gave then, yes... I would say it changes the evaluation. So yes, if a PvE game operated in a similar fashion as "Open PvP", I think it would create issues as well.

I mean, if the game actively hunted you down like that (becoming more of a possibility as AI is developed) it would likely emulate the same problems with "Open PvP". You would be hunted down by a dragon killing you when you least expected it and while running back to get your corpse, you get perma camped by various baddies. So in that respect, PvE could be every bit the problem that PvP is in that situation.

Yeah, but so you see here the distinction is really "Open" vs. "Closed". When you compare "Closed PvE" to "Open PvP", you're crossing two wires at the same time and thus confusing the issue. If you gave people the choice between "Open PvP" and "Open PvE", they would probably not terribly notice the difference, especially when the NPCs became increasingly ruthless...and when the other players are probably just bots anyway. See how Eve is.

So picture a game where we abolish all non-agentative actors. There are no longer any just "mobs". Everything you encounter, NPC or PC, is doing something and has goals and objectives that it will actively pursue by any means at its disposal. A dragon is no longer just a raid boss that patiently waits for you to defeat it. It is a creature, with goals: Eat food, accumulate treasure, and it acts to pursue those goals, which may thus involve it eating and looting YOU.

Games should do the opposite and abolish all agentive actors by randomizing what players see so they can't tell what they're fighting (or even if they're fighting something real). Put all the characters on LSD.

[Kalarion]

So, nobody has any extra Beta Keys? *Beg*

So I got into the closed beta server, but I'm not convinced it wasn't some kind of fluke. I received no email notification or anything, I just went to make sure I was oped-in for the lottery and BAM! It said I was in closed beta. At first I was over the moon, wanting to try out some ideas I had from the open playtests, but then I bummed out a little when I realized that, if I want to play SK, I need a reliable partner. I'm still really happy though.

I don't know how or if I can give out a buddy key or three, but I'm researching it right now.

[Norfleet]

It would be interesting for sure... I still don't think I personally would care for it though. I mean, I guess if there were some consistency in patterns you could identify to limit risk, it might be fun, but if it reaches typical player Open PvP function, yeah... no thank you. I like the pattern aspect of play, the controlled aspects in that design, the compartmentalized risk factors of knowing that the NPCs have limits and behaviors that I can account for.

Whereas I find that dumb mobs exhibit very flat and uninteresting behavior, and engaging with them tends to be merely a necessity to gain XP and loot, rather than something that's truly desirable on a long-term level.

Player behavior (or eventual AI simulated player behavior) would be too much chaos and I have a feeling AI would develop behaviors that may even be worse than players.

Well, I mean, only a select number of agents would be simulating "player" behavior. The rest would be simulating things like "bear behavior", and the actor would be acting as a bear, doing bear things: Stealing picnic baskets, eating honey, catching fish, ******** in the woods, converting to Catholicism and getting elected Pope, etc.

I mean, imagine all those tests where AI was getting ****** off at people (wanting to destroy all humans) and then considering a games NPCs developing a serious negative attitude to players for whatever reason.

I don't have to imagine that. It's pretty obvious why that happened: It's the only thing in the training set. Nobody writes stories where, when people try to shut down the AI, the AI just passively accepts this and is shut down without issue. Nobody's writing a story where the robots peacefully coexist with the humans. Since the bot simply seeks to write the most probable outcome to the story, and this is the only kind of story in the training set, THIS is the most probable outcome.

[Ranselknulf]

[GhostCow]

"Trolling is ok as long as you don't do it with words"
Kinda gay

[Finarfin]

****, what a ****** game.

[Xenich]

"Trolling is ok as long as you don't do it with words"
Kinda gay

They can't police PvP, it is pointless, there will always be people getting offended by this or that, what is too much, etc...

This is why I don't PvP anymore. Part is because there is a certain level of lost respect in behavior (this is era based) in the game (ie respect on PvP), and the other is because of those who play and don't understand that PvP is pure chaos and fuckery and what happens, happens.

It isn't WoW controlled PvP where there are set times, matches, etc... It is like being in a chat room with people, some are going to be ******** some aren't and at times the non-******** will control things and keep stuff in check while other times ******* will have full control and it will be absolute misery.

So either you understand this, deal with it, plan, prepare and take revenge as and when you can, or you don't play PvP. Its ****** up and more trouble than it is worth "unless" it is that chaos you seek.

If you are trying to actually play the game, expecting "some" PvP inbetween, you will only be miserable because in an EQ like game with PvP, it is always chaos, always misery, always a ******* "trouble" and what matter is if you are prepared for it or not. The "game play" doesn't matter, only the PvP and how you can leverage the next encounter to your advantage.

Moral of the story, play non-PvP, save yourself the hassle.

[Xenich]

If you want tips on PvP in those types of servers, ask @Norfleet , he knows the game, the purpose, the direction and point of play. I am sure he can give you tips on how to do well there, but FFS to do well in PvP, you have to not be the average PvE player which means gear has to mean little to you (ie don't get attached to your gear, you are going to lose it). Some of the best PvP players I knew could kill people with the least powerful gear because they knew the game, the strategy in play, how to wait people out, where to attack, when and how to use the environment.

Also, PvP isn't a "solo" game, it is a "tribe" game. If you are soloing your way in PvP, you will end up as the *****, the constant fun target everyone laughs at. Better to be the "bait", the guy who looks like he is out alone and when people attack, they get **** stomped by your buddies who are hiding out. PvP is planning, waiting, tactics, etc... and yes... it may mean you have to wait to loot your corpse for a day or two until you get a good time to collect it.

[GhostCow]

"Trolling is ok as long as you don't do it with words"
Kinda gay

They can't police PvP, it is pointless, there will always be people getting offended by this or that, what is too much, etc...

This is why I don't PvP anymore. Part is because there is a certain level of lost respect in behavior (this is era based) in the game (ie respect on PvP), and the other is because of those who play and don't understand that PvP is pure chaos and fuckery and what happens, happens.

It isn't WoW controlled PvP where there are set times, matches, etc... It is like being in a chat room with people, some are going to be ******** some aren't and at times the non-******** will control things and keep stuff in check while other times ******* will have full control and it will be absolute misery.

So either you understand this, deal with it, plan, prepare and take revenge as and when you can, or you don't play PvP. Its ****** up and more trouble than it is worth "unless" it is that chaos you seek.

If you are trying to actually play the game, expecting "some" PvP inbetween, you will only be miserable because in an EQ like game with PvP, it is always chaos, always misery, always a ******* "trouble" and what matter is if you are prepared for it or not. The "game play" doesn't matter, only the PvP and how you can leverage the next encounter to your advantage.

Moral of the story, play non-PvP, save yourself the hassle.

I'm fine with the FFA PvP rules, I just think you should be able to call someone a ****** too

[asf]

pvp rules are ********, no item drop just money so zero risk for attackers

[Xenich]

"Trolling is ok as long as you don't do it with words"
Kinda gay

They can't police PvP, it is pointless, there will always be people getting offended by this or that, what is too much, etc...

This is why I don't PvP anymore. Part is because there is a certain level of lost respect in behavior (this is era based) in the game (ie respect on PvP), and the other is because of those who play and don't understand that PvP is pure chaos and fuckery and what happens, happens.

It isn't WoW controlled PvP where there are set times, matches, etc... It is like being in a chat room with people, some are going to be ******** some aren't and at times the non-******** will control things and keep stuff in check while other times ******* will have full control and it will be absolute misery.

So either you understand this, deal with it, plan, prepare and take revenge as and when you can, or you don't play PvP. Its ****** up and more trouble than it is worth "unless" it is that chaos you seek.

If you are trying to actually play the game, expecting "some" PvP inbetween, you will only be miserable because in an EQ like game with PvP, it is always chaos, always misery, always a ******* "trouble" and what matter is if you are prepared for it or not. The "game play" doesn't matter, only the PvP and how you can leverage the next encounter to your advantage.

Moral of the story, play non-PvP, save yourself the hassle.

I'm fine with the FFA PvP rules, I just think you should be able to call someone a ****** too

I have no problems with that, but I mean... yeah... are you surprised though in this day and age?

[Xenich]

pvp rules are ********, no item drop just money so zero risk for attackers

Really? LOL what is the point then? Might as well play an FPS game.

Don't get me wrong, I hate being looted and you already know how I feel about playing PvP in an EQ like game, but seriously... that is ********. If I was into EQ like PvP, I would want full loot, otherwise it makes no sense.

[GhostCow]

They can't police PvP, it is pointless, there will always be people getting offended by this or that, what is too much, etc...

This is why I don't PvP anymore. Part is because there is a certain level of lost respect in behavior (this is era based) in the game (ie respect on PvP), and the other is because of those who play and don't understand that PvP is pure chaos and fuckery and what happens, happens.

It isn't WoW controlled PvP where there are set times, matches, etc... It is like being in a chat room with people, some are going to be ******** some aren't and at times the non-******** will control things and keep stuff in check while other times ******* will have full control and it will be absolute misery.

So either you understand this, deal with it, plan, prepare and take revenge as and when you can, or you don't play PvP. Its ****** up and more trouble than it is worth "unless" it is that chaos you seek.

If you are trying to actually play the game, expecting "some" PvP inbetween, you will only be miserable because in an EQ like game with PvP, it is always chaos, always misery, always a ******* "trouble" and what matter is if you are prepared for it or not. The "game play" doesn't matter, only the PvP and how you can leverage the next encounter to your advantage.

Moral of the story, play non-PvP, save yourself the hassle.

I'm fine with the FFA PvP rules, I just think you should be able to call someone a ****** too

I have no problems with that, but I mean... yeah... are you surprised though in this day and age?

I'm pretty sure chat was totally unmoderated when I played Mortal Online 2 so based games still exist. I'd give anything for that game to be given to competent devs.

[Ranselknulf]

"Trolling is ok as long as you don't do it with words"
Kinda gay

They can't police PvP, it is pointless, there will always be people getting offended by this or that, what is too much, etc...

This is why I don't PvP anymore. Part is because there is a certain level of lost respect in behavior (this is era based) in the game (ie respect on PvP), and the other is because of those who play and don't understand that PvP is pure chaos and fuckery and what happens, happens.

It isn't WoW controlled PvP where there are set times, matches, etc... It is like being in a chat room with people, some are going to be ******** some aren't and at times the non-******** will control things and keep stuff in check while other times ******* will have full control and it will be absolute misery.

So either you understand this, deal with it, plan, prepare and take revenge as and when you can, or you don't play PvP. Its ****** up and more trouble than it is worth "unless" it is that chaos you seek.

If you are trying to actually play the game, expecting "some" PvP inbetween, you will only be miserable because in an EQ like game with PvP, it is always chaos, always misery, always a ******* "trouble" and what matter is if you are prepared for it or not. The "game play" doesn't matter, only the PvP and how you can leverage the next encounter to your advantage.

Moral of the story, play non-PvP, save yourself the hassle.

I'm fine with the FFA PvP rules, I just think you should be able to call someone a ****** too

It's not FFA PvP

It's a +/- 4 Level Range

[Xenich]

They can't police PvP, it is pointless, there will always be people getting offended by this or that, what is too much, etc...

This is why I don't PvP anymore. Part is because there is a certain level of lost respect in behavior (this is era based) in the game (ie respect on PvP), and the other is because of those who play and don't understand that PvP is pure chaos and fuckery and what happens, happens.

It isn't WoW controlled PvP where there are set times, matches, etc... It is like being in a chat room with people, some are going to be ******** some aren't and at times the non-******** will control things and keep stuff in check while other times ******* will have full control and it will be absolute misery.

So either you understand this, deal with it, plan, prepare and take revenge as and when you can, or you don't play PvP. Its ****** up and more trouble than it is worth "unless" it is that chaos you seek.

If you are trying to actually play the game, expecting "some" PvP inbetween, you will only be miserable because in an EQ like game with PvP, it is always chaos, always misery, always a ******* "trouble" and what matter is if you are prepared for it or not. The "game play" doesn't matter, only the PvP and how you can leverage the next encounter to your advantage.

Moral of the story, play non-PvP, save yourself the hassle.

I'm fine with the FFA PvP rules, I just think you should be able to call someone a ****** too

It's not FFA PvP

It's a +/- 4 Level Range

I read a quick rule list for it, do they also allow single item looting from the corpse?

[Ranselknulf]

Nope, coin only.

[Xenich]

Nope, coin only.

Yeah, that sucks. It basically means there is little means to deter the extreme ******** griefer types. No risk, no consequence. The nice thing about full loot, or even partial loot systems is that bad behavior eventually produces negative returns (ie all your gear is taken, you are weak and ineffective) and it also provides a nice form of "justice" as well... nothing is more pleasurable than bringing about extreme revenge to the ******** types. It also allows for the formation of some alliance and truce behaviors because people don't want to burn too many bridges and end up with nothing, constantly hunted down and forced to be naked.

[Ranselknulf]

June for Early Access at least.

There will be subscription cost, but I'm fine with it. I think the PvE is worth a sub price.

[Xenich]

June for Early Access at least.

There will be subscription cost, but I'm fine with it. I think the PvE is worth a sub price.

Yeah, I am looking forward to it. Will be nice to play that style of game play again, especially considering it isn't EQ "exactly", just extremely familiar with enough changes to make it feel like a fresh new game. That does make it a bit more enticing than EQ legends because exploration will feel fresh and new again.

[Rienen]

Looks like EA has been delayed to Oct 1st.

https://monstersandmemories.com/updates ... ber-1-2026

Why the delay? (spoilered for size)

► Show Spoiler

This decision is not something we’ve taken lightly. We realize that this will be a major disappointment to many of you. To others, the decision is obvious and needed.

It was a tough call for us to bring to the team. We’re still a team of volunteers and each month that passes has a real personal cost. But we’ve discussed it and we all agree the push to October is for the best.

For you guys, we hear a ton of feedback that people are ready to get started playing the game as-is and we’re excited to get you on your ‘real’ characters as soon as possible.

The plan has always been to continue working on the game during EA, but we’ve got some more work to do before then. And we feel that it’ll make a big difference in the overall experience.

In December, we described work we wanted to get done in prior to EA in the Beta & Early Access Update. The work was started, but it was slower than we hoped, and we weren’t happy with our progress.

Over the last couple of months, the people we added to the team late last year/early this year have had a chance to ramp up.

We’ve added 20 people in various roles since this time last year, with half of that being this year. This includes new people in audio, animation, environment art, game design (content & systems), 6 GMs, 2 additional QA, tech, VFX, etc… and that’s taken some focus and onboarding.

We’ve also moved a couple of people around. Some are assisting in new roles and others have been unblocked/given more leeway to act. Since then, the progress as been very encouraging and the team has been more engaged than ever.

We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us in the next 5 months, but it’s feeling very positive.

Again, the game will still be ‘in progress’ when we enter Early Access, but the additional time will provide you with a better experience at launch.

[rusty_shackleford]

Looks like EA has been delayed to Oct 1st.

https://monstersandmemories.com/updates ... ber-1-2026

Why the delay? (spoilered for size)

► Show Spoiler

This decision is not something we’ve taken lightly. We realize that this will be a major disappointment to many of you. To others, the decision is obvious and needed.

It was a tough call for us to bring to the team. We’re still a team of volunteers and each month that passes has a real personal cost. But we’ve discussed it and we all agree the push to October is for the best.

For you guys, we hear a ton of feedback that people are ready to get started playing the game as-is and we’re excited to get you on your ‘real’ characters as soon as possible.

The plan has always been to continue working on the game during EA, but we’ve got some more work to do before then. And we feel that it’ll make a big difference in the overall experience.

In December, we described work we wanted to get done in prior to EA in the Beta & Early Access Update. The work was started, but it was slower than we hoped, and we weren’t happy with our progress.

Over the last couple of months, the people we added to the team late last year/early this year have had a chance to ramp up.

We’ve added 20 people in various roles since this time last year, with half of that being this year. This includes new people in audio, animation, environment art, game design (content & systems), 6 GMs, 2 additional QA, tech, VFX, etc… and that’s taken some focus and onboarding.

We’ve also moved a couple of people around. Some are assisting in new roles and others have been unblocked/given more leeway to act. Since then, the progress as been very encouraging and the team has been more engaged than ever.

We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us in the next 5 months, but it’s feeling very positive.

Again, the game will still be ‘in progress’ when we enter Early Access, but the additional time will provide you with a better experience at launch.

Seems easier to just play pantheon

[GhostCow]

Looks like EA has been delayed to Oct 1st.

https://monstersandmemories.com/updates ... ber-1-2026

Why the delay? (spoilered for size)

► Show Spoiler

This decision is not something we’ve taken lightly. We realize that this will be a major disappointment to many of you. To others, the decision is obvious and needed.

It was a tough call for us to bring to the team. We’re still a team of volunteers and each month that passes has a real personal cost. But we’ve discussed it and we all agree the push to October is for the best.

For you guys, we hear a ton of feedback that people are ready to get started playing the game as-is and we’re excited to get you on your ‘real’ characters as soon as possible.

The plan has always been to continue working on the game during EA, but we’ve got some more work to do before then. And we feel that it’ll make a big difference in the overall experience.

In December, we described work we wanted to get done in prior to EA in the Beta & Early Access Update. The work was started, but it was slower than we hoped, and we weren’t happy with our progress.

Over the last couple of months, the people we added to the team late last year/early this year have had a chance to ramp up.

We’ve added 20 people in various roles since this time last year, with half of that being this year. This includes new people in audio, animation, environment art, game design (content & systems), 6 GMs, 2 additional QA, tech, VFX, etc… and that’s taken some focus and onboarding.

We’ve also moved a couple of people around. Some are assisting in new roles and others have been unblocked/given more leeway to act. Since then, the progress as been very encouraging and the team has been more engaged than ever.

We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us in the next 5 months, but it’s feeling very positive.

Again, the game will still be ‘in progress’ when we enter Early Access, but the additional time will provide you with a better experience at launch.

Seems easier to just play pantheon

I played Pantheon and it just made me want to play M&M. Pantheon does not have sandwich combat