2 1 3

The main issue with saying time last is the money factor. The longer the development the more money needed and probably the more likely the failure of the project due to money issues.

2 1 3

I'm not in a rush, i want this game to be the best it can be.

2 1 3

With all the pre-alpha, alpha and beta experiences we will be having, waiting for the release will be much easier than with most other games that I have had a high amount of anticipation for.

So, due to those, I personally have a higher tolerance for pushbacks to this game. Quality and Quantity of content are much more important to me, in regards to this game, than them maintaining their current schedule. If it gets pushed back then so be it.

"Quantity" in the respect that this thread refers to will always come first. CoE has a lot of different aspects to it, with many different systems working as a whole, and if something was cut, it would mean something else just wouldn't be working right.... and sure it could be added later on, but it'll just be weird to have something important suddenly appear in the game and change how the game essentially works.

"Quality" comes second imo.... not that I don't want quality for CoE, it's just that Quality can be improved over time, but it can't be improved if the system doesn't exist in the first place.

The "Time" aspect is somewhat redundant compared to the other two, because it is basically the same thing as Quality and Quantity. Time has nothing to do with the actual release of the game, because if they really wanted the game finished next month, it could be done, but they would have to hire thousands of people and quality would be drastically effected, but it "technically" could be done.

None of us are here though for a game that can be turned out in a month, and forgotten about the next, we're here for a game that is designed to have a 10 year story, and making it will take as long as it takes :D

I actually have different opinions for the Pre-Alpha Experiences than for the game: ElyriaMUD: 312 - I would like to see ElyriaMUD released as quickly as possible, with as many features implemented at a very basic level as is possible. After that, they can worry about polishing it up. Part of this is because I want something to play as soon as possible, part of it is that I think it will draw people back to the community who have been less active since the State of Elyria, partly because I doubt ElyriaMUD will draw too many new players in its early days, so it's okay if it's unpolished at first.

Prologue: 231 - The prologue is likely to be a great advertisement for CoE, but only if it is fairly polished. Releasing it in a timely manner will help bring in new players and more money if needed for continued development. Even if it has a fairly limited subset of mechanics, so long as they are polished up I think it will be a great experience.

Chronicles of Elyria: 213 - So long as they don't take long enough that they run out of money, I would like to see Chronicles of Elyria pretty well polished with all the mechanics implemented on launch day. We'll have the Pre-alpha experiences to keep us busy before then, so I say let them take as long as they need to get it right.

Quality, and I don't mean pretty graphics, I mean gameplay.

I'm over 'Early Access' and the modern-day excuses. I want CoE to be a Nintendo cartridge which I plug in and start playing.

Much rather a game playable from the start. Why? It means the Devs are picking up on issues early and seeing a potential fault with them. I expect Launch to be bug-free.

I work in QA. Do it once. Do it right. Anything else is an additional expense, with the potential of lost customers.

Better to have a delayed game with playability out of the box than have the critics say: "I told you so".

I don't think quantity vs quality vs time is accurate. There is a point where taking too much time directly conflicts with quality output instead of raising them because you drain resources and are forced to make rushed decisions and sometimes scummy decisions to gain more of those resources.

So while I see many around the community say time is least important and it gets done when it's done, that's not really practical if to get said product done correctly you take so much time your out of resources. Extended time also cuts community engagement and support which also drains your future resources and again forces decisions from the company involved.

Time is only really a fair factor to compare against if we make an assumption they have all the time in the world and the negative effects of taking that time don't exist.

Depends on what we're talking about.

If it's about the entirety of the game and it's overall development, I truly believe that QUALITY takes top place, with time being in last place. Essentially, "don't give me a rushed POS in a similar timeframe you could've had to come through on your promise." So: 2 1 3

If it's about DSS and Settlers of Elyria, right now I believe time is of the essence, and frankly at this stage they could do a standard GUI and almost everyone would come out of this almost equally satisfied. This has been dragged out far too long, and has created numerous controversies around the Studio, from both well meaning and malicious actors. For these reasons, time takes number 1 place, quality takes number 3, leaving quantity in the middle [only if you can sneak it in]. So: 3 1 2

So context matters. That being said, the original pitches of the game were the opposite promising us fast content we would have in our hands rapidly. The original pitches were that it was a complicated game with fresh and experimental ideas. They would take the necessary time they desired in order to properly see this through. It stands to reason that every informed pledged member should, at the very least, agree on 2 1 3 being the ideal approach, leaving aside whether or not people believe it's most practical in this present moment.

@Pendulum

Exactly. I was thinking about how to word my response, but I think you nailed it.

Considerations like this aren't done in a vacuum, nor are they unilateral.

Context matters.

Your premise may be a little flawed, because while usually quality, quantity and time(/money) can not go hand in hand, this game is crowd-funded.

Which means that the more quality and quantity they deliver in time, the more money is likely to come in, which fuels further development.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't want to sacrifice any features (quantity) nor polish (quality), so the only sacrifice I am willing to make is time, but if they get too many delays, they may not get any more funding because backers get anxious/annoyed/impatient and then it may result in not getting a game at all.

However this could probably be solved to some extend by showing off regular and tangible progress so that backers keep backing. See star citizen. They started small with just a hangar module, but they showed progress and they made millions.