So yet another unannounced change.

Source for that figure? Because if that's the case, this game is essentially failing. It has nearly 10 times the amount to go? Maybe we should be cancelling the stretch goals and contributing towards the game?

 

My theory was that once a Keep/Castle plot became available in-game (due to its original owner either never claiming it or decaying) the lot should have become available for the first user with sufficient in-game funds to purchase a deed.

----

The inability to purchase new deeds leads to the peculiar problem of what happens if/when all the original lot owners fade away, and there is no one around capable of claiming those larger lots ?

I'm sure the team has thought of that.... Yes...

Since the option to choose a Keep or Castle lot was explicitly mentioned in the original proposal, I would expect if one asks for the lot then you should probably have someone available who can use it, or you are simply wasting your square-meters on something you cannot use.

Personally, I intend to request a Keep Lot in my Holdfast, since I know I can use it myself.

I will be quite miffed if they refuse.

 

No, I think it's been said multiple times that player houses could be affected. But you're right, some places may be more impacted than others. I'd actually be rather disappointed if some towns were never attacked. That just wouldn't be fun.

 

Heh... I've wondered how much the "cinematic trailer" for Elder Scrolls Online cost. It looked awesome but said nothing about the game, really...

 

Not to lawyer them, but: Eurogamer interview, March 26, 2013
All told, Shroud will probably cost around $5 million. "That's probably where we'll be. Something to the order of $5 million - plus or minus $2 million, who knows?" That, incidentally, is how much Ultima Online cost to make ($5-6 million). "Tabula Rasa," he said, "was $10-20 million, something around there."

 

For the record, SotA's crowd-funding only fills a partial gap in funding (despite the hype). Like many other companies, Portalarium has investors, including venture capital funders, mobile tech investors, and even RG himself who, for the record, has owned castles, traveled through outer space, and battled corporate giants for stakes as high as 32 million dollars, which is about how much it costs to go into space. Anyway, my point is that private investors have dropped double what the community has on Portalarium on more than one occasion.

 

Oh, so we're not far off being fully funded.

Then I'm struggling to understand all this exclusivity.

 

I think you missed the point of the questions. The assumption you'd have to make if keep and castle lots are pledge exclusive, is that you would NOT be able to use them in player towns. Towns are not just limited by space but you'd also be limited by the type of lots to fill up that space.

Would exceptions be made in player towns for duke+ backers who may want to live in them?

 

There is a point coming up here I am waiting for the edit that adds it..

 

It makes sense to me that it would not be available.

It is all about building the world and the game play. The size of the lots are very large. And they require special positioning within a scene. There must be some limit to the number that could be placed. It is not like a village lot, where houses are easily side by side. And beyond that, how many castles would we really want to see side by side in game? Could we imagine a scene with five castles lined up? Would that be good? Probably not ideal. The most interactive towns probably will have many row and village homes, that actually look like a town, with player run vendors. Enabling too easy of access to castle lots may create the opposite of that.

So I think this thread needs to consider the game-play issues that proliferating castles could create while also debating if the SoTa made a good call or not. How could castles be achievable for in-game gold and avoid these issues that I mentioned above?

 

No exceptions. You simply choose where to live if the lot is empty. I don't see the problem. If a player town wants to entice a Duke or LotM to live in that town, they'll design the town with a Castle lot on it.

 

I can't speak for these others, but I'm new here and still deciding on pledge level.

Shouldn't you look at the flip side? How is the game to survive if people don't shell out the big bucks? How do they pay the developers and stand up new hardware?

It's a vanity item. It offers no - none, zero - in game bonuses. The people in question shelled out a huge amount. I don't know what devs make, but it's probably not $5000/week. So consider that someone spending $5000 has donated a week of developer time to the cause ... and more like 2. Think of all the entertainment that game players get out of a couple weeks of developer time. Why don't the people who pay for it deserve some rewards?

 

That's not really fair.

You *do* have point when you reference specific text on the main website tagged to dollar values for specific pledges.

But I *like* the fact that the devs can "think out loud" on the Google+ hangouts, the chatroom, AND THESE FORUMS. Part of what I paid for when I paid for Dev+ was the ability to hear and see the devs "think out loud" like that. I *want* to see Richard Garriott and Starr Long spouting whatever random thing comes into their head, whether sense or nonsense, because I want to see how they think. If the DLMB tag lets them do that more, then I say let them say it more often.

(But yes... when it comes to the actual text tagged directly actual dollar levels, a lot more care is needed).

 

The way I took the player-ran towns is if you have the lot deed to place a keep lot they will let you plan for it. Those suggestions just shows that you can do different setups but if you go larger you will have less lots overall.

I look at it this way. If I designed the "Celtic Holdfast" with a Castle lot it would just sit there unoccupied as I don't have a Castle lot deed to place. I need to design it so that all of the lots will be occupied by someone.

 

Hehe. I already made the edit by the time you quoted me. Look for, "Anyway, my point..."

 

according to the stretch goals, I assumed that it meant Guild Houses.

So, following up on that, does that mean that guilds will never be able to own a castle unless they put down real cash?

 

The quick change to the website verbiage is not ideal. But I get the sense that this is a small team trying to work quickly while wearing a lot of hats. Not that it's a team of money grubbing quick change artists trying to sell you a bridge in brooklyn.

Being a dissident is a valuable trait to have, imo. It's only when everyone is thinking alike that no one is really thinking.

The "don't lawyer me bro" can be over used at times. I agree. But I don't see this as such a big deal. Yes the communication was poor in retrospect...but they have a history of trying to do the right thing and listening. They probably need more change control internally. How do they do that without being less available and even less open than you think they are now? Just something to consider.

Personally I think they're very transparent and open realtive to their industry peers. I think they would be more so if they had a dedicated staff that could help manage this for them.

That's a good point, but I don't think they did this on purpose.

Listen, I'd be very surprised if Dallas or someone didn't respond to this in time. Because that's what they do here, they want to do the right thing. And although I understand your persepctive of "really wanting the ability to get a castle lot in-game", this is not something that I personally feel is the crisis it's being made out to me. It's ok that you feel that way, I just don't. Having said that, I'm not sure how the devs balance out what is now 1 or 2 crisis's a week (an increasing trend) but I really hope it doesn't stop them from acting when I care this passionately about something.

 

I agree, I hope all towns get attacked.

 

errr No exceptions followed by if they want a Duke+ they'll put a castle lot there.. That's entirely contradictory. If there are no exceptions then they wouldn't be able to design their town with a castle or keep lot even if a duke or lotm owned the town.

 

Just more proof as to the lack of information they are providing. We have heard, 2 million to make the game (Richard durring the 'why kickstarter' interview) stating he went for about half of what they need, so that would be 2 million. To the quote above, saying 5 million. And people now quoting 20-30 million? I have no idea where these numbers are coming from. but if those are true, then they have a HUGE issue with the information. Stating a game can be made for 2mil to then go, oh wait, sorry, we forgot a zero there, is just plain false advertising. However, i do not believe that the budget is 20-30 mil like some have claimed, so no, even the dissident that i am, I am not claiming false advertising.

Exactly. So, now there is the fact there is potentially, for up to 67 lots (based on the may numbers they gave us) that could in theory, end up as nothing but vacant lots with no one able to live there.. makes a lot of sense to me.