So yet another unannounced change.

Isn't there an easy loop hole for the devs though?

The world can't hold unlimited lot sizes. So can't the devs just cap the existing lots to their original size and tell the players "ok go find a lot in-game to put your castle in!" I think they can and probably should have done that judging by the reaction in this thread.

 

Not even close, it met it's initial kick starter to start funding the game. No MMORPG game has been made for $1 million ever, why would one of the best in 2014 be able to do that?

 

nope. Guild houses specifically. http://sotawiki.net/images/a/a3/Kickstarter-stretch-goals-original.jpg see $2mil stretch goal.

 

Perhaps some clarification is in order regarding the guild Castles & Keeps structures. Are those special types of lots? Are those special types of houses that can be placed on any existing lot?

 

I'm failing to see the issue here. Can I buy a replenishing birthday cake in game using gold from an NPC? I doubt it. Can I buy I cake? I would assume so. Can I buy a Cleaver of Prosperity in game from an NPC? No. Can I buy a cleaver? Yes. Can I buy a castle from an NPC? No. Can I buy land? Yes.

 

I just reread it, that doesn't specifically say PC guild castles. My guess is that NPC castles are in the game on the world map and guilds can take them over and defend them but they never truly own them in the sense that a pledger does.

I also assume that no LOTM will one day have his castle raided by NPC mobs. (unless they opt into that or something)

 

Everything else is...so I would think that the "5 types of castle lots" will be as well.

 

I think we should let the devs focus on one thing at a time right now. They are working on PvP and combat. Combat might be the single most important game mechanic.

I would much rather them deal with guild houses when it comes time to work on guilds. Things are so subject to change right now they might not answer right anyway.

I hope they continue with combat stuff, and allow themselves to get that concern off their minds to have a fresh mind for guild houses and wars etc. Also they might get a new wave of funding by spreading out guild houses apart from player towns.

 

There is one question this brings up I'd like to official response to. As castle and keep lots will certainly be very limited. So to will the options in where to place said keep or castle.

Let's say I do get my player town and I happen to have a friend who is a duke or LoTM who wants to live there. I suspect the best answer would be "sorry we can't do that".

But then a similar question would be.. what if a Duke or LoTM purchases their own town (AND wants to actually live there)?

 

LOL not by a longshot. 20-30 mil is needed to make this game. The kick started amount was to get the game started. This is fundraising. Kick starter only kick starts, cant make a game like this with kick starter money.



lol .....edited to make this 20-30 mil cost statement as not a fact. I am not convinced we wouldn't be able to utilize that amount very easily with all we want in this game.

 

I thought all player housing was subject to sieges. Depending on your location in the world, as well as your location in a village, town, or city, your house may be on lockdown more often than others.

 

How can you not read the part that says ownable by "player or guild"? Are you trying to find an out for them not to make these types of buildings for guilds and players?

It has nothing to do with existing houses as far as I know. these are new guild related features for this stretch goal.

 

The goal was a fund raising goal and not the total cost of the project. look at it like up front starter money or small down payment.

 

I could not care less about keeps and castles being available for me to purchase with in-game gold. I have a village lot at the citizen level. That is all I need. A house to me is someplace to store my treasure from adventuring.

 

Actually, player towns can have any type or number of lots. They're only limited by space and whether or not those deed owners want to live in that town.

And regarding your last question....not just those tiers, but any player can buy an entire scene nearly the size of Braemar for $750 and never give away those lot keys, essentially giving himself his own private scene.

 

That's just it, they keep taking the easy loop hole way out of things, and trying to slip things by without even so much as making an announcement about it. And this, is the real issue here. They make statements, followed by "Don't lawyer me bro" as if its all some kind of joke. The constantly preach about openness, and transparency, and yes, i have actually had both of that put to me as an official reply from the devs. Yet, they don't seem to practice their own preaching.

Like I said in my original post, call me a dissident if you want. but they need to be held accountable for things that they have said several times, and this isn't things that were tagged with "don't lawyer me bro" The changes they are making, are only causing people to need to spend MORE money to get things that have been already said, they would be able to get in game.

And to put descriptions on player towns like this (straight from the holdfast town)

does nothing but to make people think, that they would be able to pick a castle plot, and get the deed in game. If their intent was to only ever offer the keep and the castle plot as exclusive rewards to those pledge levels, why put them in the descriptions, and not add it as a foot note to the reward as part of a pledge.

And i can see where that comes from. re-reading the initial post, it was/is a fairly blanket statement. However, its been quoted enough times now, I will leave it as is.

 

I don't know if that is entirely true. When we were at 2 million, RG said something about needing another 1 million to really make Episode I the way he wanted. Now is that on a shoe string budget? Sure. Is that probably without taking large profits, probably. Would RG rather have the buget of Star Citizen, of course.

But you don't have a kickstarter where you say "for 2 million" we'll do this! And then after say "we really meant 30 million". That's not fair by anyone's standard.

But to your point, as the money continues to roll in, and the game continues to evolve...the expectations and the dev teams ability to meet those expectations increases more to a "norm" that we're used to seeing. I just don't think it's fair to say that SOTA is going to need 20 to 30 million to make the game they pitched during Kickstarter. Those other companies with 20 to 30 million probably aren't spending all that on development and are probably taking quite a bit of their profits from that.

 

Less, perhaps, largely because APIs have stabilized; people don't have to "reinvent the camera" -- most notable on the console side, the PS3 having a weird architecture that was quite different than the PS2 architecture which was quite different than the PS1 architecture, for instance, but also relevant for "regular" computers. The industry settled on 3 major OSes for desktops/laptops, new console OSes (Xbox One & PS4) based closely on those OSes, and OpenGL and Direct3D as established ways to talk to GPUs, and (almost) nobody is coding in assembly anymore. Tools like Unity that allow rapid iteration (the thing will compile scripts and relink them while the game is running, which is *amazing*) also lower the cost.

This is really a fantastic time to be making games -- and enjoying them!!!

 

I don't think that's been confirmed. I remember RG saying many things over the last year and half, but I don't remember anything recently or difinatively. I also don't remember all towns being impacted by possible raids...as some were inheriently safer than others.

 

there may be some substance to this, but not this issue. However if @Baron Drocis Fondorlatos

Is serious about misinterpreting the stretch goals, then that would be a case we might want to nail them on. ha ha ha I'm kidding.