That's right. Stardock treats betas as "get the game out to the most dedicated of the fanbase and use their opnions to make a better game". They don't use beta as a demo, which is what it turns into if you open it up to anybody.

I just want to throw out there that the swamp lord pictured above makes me pee my pants with excitement.  THAT is exactly the kind of monster I hoped to see in this.   I particulary enjoy the twisted mammoth roots used for it's forward limbs, with earthy body covered in moss, grass, and even a willow tree.

I... uhhh..... don't think that's a tree. I think it's the creature's head.

There are two sides to every story but I have to admit this advanced beta idea does have the possibility of some very promising results. I am in general a proponent of refinement in a timely manner. If Stardock isn't really feeling any pressure from the typical sources I say go for it. The original model could always be reinstated if the new idea starts to go sour.

 Taking the time to put out a truly amazing game is worth it. If you make sure to really work out the bugs and build the best game you can you will make your money back ten fold.

 So to answer your question YES!!!!!

Its above the head as far as I can tell.  The eye is below it.   Its much smaller than the other willow in sight, but it could be young, or the other one could be exceptionally close (it would be hard to tell with that image)

Brad had to know this post would turn into us talking about the picture, right?

Anyway he has a whole forest grwoing on the top of his head and likely along his back.  I imangine he has just risen up from the swamp and startled that guy on the horse in such a way that his he lost control of his bowels.

It's a green herring.

Well, to me it really looks like the profile of a human head, draped in moss (although I am thinking more of a skill now). Although I could be wrong.... or both could be heads. (Or neither for that matter)!

I'm going to disagree with you just for the heck of it and say that the way the vines are draped makes it look like he was petrified in that position.

Would you mind telling us how you divined that? Just wondering..........

 

I'll say what I've said a while back when a similar question was asked.  This is pretty much the only game of its type on the radar, and may very well be the only one released in the next 5 or 10 years.  Do whatever you need to do to make it as good as possible.  It would be foolish of me to insist on getting it earlier, and risk having it fall short of what it could've been.  It's not an RTS for FPS, where I can just go pick up another one if this one is lacking.  Some of us have been waiting 15 years for another MoM.  A few more months is a drop in the bucket.

Besides, I've preordered anyway, so I'll be playing it long before it's actually released.

Yes I would have to agree. Longer beta would be wonderful. We can get in more features and hammer out more bugs. We can get better features that get tons more love and care... and with community ohhh my god this game will be amazing....

A beta that long and interactive, in a game which intends to be composed primarily of user-moddable scripts? Sweet Jesus in a biscuit. Guess it's time to learn Python.

Beta 1 in august? Wasn't in in september? Not that I don't like the sound of that. Must mean no alpha thing?

I was going to vote for a delay in the game release until august of next year due to players' feedback so naturally, I must agree with directly delay it and prepare a longer beta period.

How many players should/can we allow in a game? 8? 12? 32? Just humans? Don't know, it's not like I'm going to play much multiplayer (unless something really weird happens, who knows).

How sophisticated can we make dungeons in the game? Let me build dungeons a la Neverwinter Nights 2, for example. It wouldn't work the same way (not being a group but a stack of units) but it gives you an idea.

How sophisticated can we make quests in the game? As long as they are not pointless and they are worthy of the time and resources they take, that would be a good start.

How sophisticated can we make tactical battles in the game? Hmmmm Not a spreadsheet? I'll let more qualified people judge this part of the game.

How big of a scope can we give the campaign? EPIC!!!! I want to have a feeling of "Wow, that was epic!". I understand that many people don't want campaigns because they are going to be playing sandbox only. But I want one (as long as, obviously, it's interesting and challenging).

My big question is does Beta 1 = closed alpha. Cause if the longer time is for more player input then making the extremely limited closed alpha so long seems like a waste of time...

This is a rare, if not unique**, opportunity to experiment with development cycles.  For that, I'm curious to see the outcome.  So, I would support the proposal.

I say this with the assumption that I'd be playing through all of those alpha/beta/gamma cycles.  If the game were unavailable to play during the proposed time period, then I may be less interested in being part of the experiment.  If I'm going to be part of this experiment, then I want the full Monty.  I don't want to sit on the sidelines with an incomplete product as it runs through an experimental extended development cycle.

** It occurs to me that such a reiterative cycle of development --> test --> feedback --> development is what we see in MMOs that release regular patches and content updates, though I agree the scenario here differs in some ways.

 

How many players should/can we allow in a game? 8? 12? 32?

In reality, my MP play time will be overshadowed by my SP play time, unless something wonderful happens (which I'll mention at the end).  So my short answer is 8.  My longer answer will follow in a separate section, under the question "How big a scope can we give a campaign?".

How sophisticated can we make dungeons in the game?

I'd rather you ask "How sophisticated can player content creators make dungeons in the game.

How sophisticated can we make quests in the game?

See above

How sophisticated can we make tactical battles in the game?

This is more complex than the above items. If the core game functionality can provide for massive battles of highly-varied and often-unique units wielding a variety of weapons/skills/spells/powers, then my objective would be to see the game developed to the point where such epic (read: huge, massive, varied) battles can be realized.

How big of a scope can we give the campaign?

This is where my dream gets aired.  I want to see the ability to chain multiplayer servers and their respective campaigns together.  So that as a player, I can log on and run aroudn in my 'world' while being able to hop over (in a hopefully relatively seamless way) to some other player server/world.

So the short answer to campaign scope is that I want it limited only by the number of game worlds I can connect to.  Players can get semi-organized and perhaps even develop their custom world maps such that thematically, they are similar.  Providing the appearance of a single campaign, that in fact is the result of running through gateway/portals that carry a player from his/her world over to another player's world.