So yet another unannounced change.

I think a lot of people feel this way because we're engaged in a sort of communications PvP with the design of the game. Emails, forum posts and $ contribution are the tools people use to win changes in the design. I don't mean to be rude in saying this, it just is what it is.

At some point as DarkStarr indicated, changes becomes some additional work, maybe not much but some. As he described the new lot sizes and the balancing decisions that had to be made. This takes hours of attention away from the core of the game. Maybe not much in every single one, but death by 1,000 cuts. Unless new people are hired, the changes are a few hours less here and there that rob from the core components. I trust them to manage this but I worry because I've been involved in too many projects (non-game) that have been killed or delayed by this. Two most common responses when those things happen, "It's just a small change!" and "We're doing this to be more responsive to our customers."

I suspect that vast majority of people would pleased if what has been promised is delivered without any further changes or additions. Where is the voice for those who say no more changes - just deliver what you've already got?

 

Not that, exactly, since we don't have all we need for a game yet, but I agree that we should be weary of adding more when the core is not done yet!

 

I meant deliver the design promised, not just what they've got now. Clarification!

 

I've avoided this thread, because, well its a mess. But I think Vyrinor has brought up a valid point here.

To me, it seems like there is a bit of feature creep going on here. New things are being added on a somewhat regular basis. Don't get me wrong, I understand things like jumping and swimming being added in ( I was honestly surprised these weren't included from the start, as they are something that I would consider a core part of an rpg, but that's just my opinion) But things like, player towns and such, are things that were never part of the initial plan. And I can't help but seeing these additions, as causing more delays to release, by adding new unplanned content. I personally would have thought that these additional features would have been after the game was officially released.

But that's just my thoughts.


Sent from my LG-P930 using Tapatalk

 

My comment is still within EP1 as well. The entire idea of a "buy once and then free to play" game is that you don't need to buy anything else to get what was included in the initial release. Keep and Castle lots will be available in the initial release, but are locked behind a money wall. The reason for this exclusivity, that they cannot create extra lots of these types, has been changed with the addition of player-owned towns.

Just as an example, say I purchase my own Holdfast, and choose to populate it with a Castle, four Village and four Row lots. I want to be a business mogul and don't ever plan to let other players into my town, so I drop my Knight's Keep on a Village lot, and my son's Row house on a Row lot. We build up enough cash to buy the other lots in-game and I place my extra homes. However, that castle lot is still empty, since no other LotM will ever own it, and I can't buy it. Why, exactly?

I'm not suggesting that they open this up now (although, adding even a few of each size to the Add-On Store and noting that they can only be placed after launch would be a great way to make some extra cash), but after the game has launched and all of the Lords of the Manor and Barons have placed their homes, what is the harm in allowing players to buy up the empty Keep or Castle lots using an in-game means? Its not like there will be a ton of competition for them; they will mostly exist in player-owned towns, and be used for things completely unrelated to housing (the big open space is great for town meetings or tournaments, for example).

There just isn't need for exclusive lot types after launch. That is the argument against this change (or "clarification").

 

It will be interesting to see what they plan to do about that. If they stick to the exclusivity, then you'll need to ensure you have a LotM lined up to go live in your town. Or they don't allow Castles or Keeps to be allowed in a player-town design, which some LotMs who do own towns would be against.

But in regards to people buying player towns for their own personal use, are we now creating endless neighborhoods? I originally envisioned player towns as a special reward for the largest guilds, but once they showed up in the add-on store, I knew this would happen.

 

No keep lot in a player ran town? I would return mine in a heartbeat.

If you have the deeds for the keep lot or castle lot, put in the space in the planning. If you don't, then plan for what you have and what can be purchased in the game or add on store (R/V/T/C).

 

I hope this is still the case. Bought towns should always remain vanity items. Earned towns should be critical to game mechanics. As far as I'm concerned a bought town is just a personal instance for someone to hide from the rest of the game. They might as well be playing offline.

 

Well, I do hope that the player towns are well managed and offer value to the players at large. And I'm not against player towns when they're created in that spirit, as it's all about building community. I'm just posing that question as commentary on the long term effects on the game, the persistent world we'll all play in, and especially the story. I commented on that issue in this post too, where this specific discussion can continue.

 

This x 100.

 

Yeah. These converstaions are really boring. I was enjoying the dialogues we had this past week or two about PvP and combat skills. Now you guys are talking about what?

If I had moderation powers I would just simply turn this off. Not because I don't want portalarium to look bad, or stop some discussions I didn't like... ITS JUST BORING!

 

I think what you're seeing is a tension between (1) the fundamental elements of the "core game," and (2) the "auxiliary aspect" of the game geared towards bring in more funding to polish (1).

The mere though of having to balance and (1) and (2) would make me want to hide in a closet and curl up in the fetal position.

I do feel like all the debates over lot sizes and housing suck all the oxygen out of the room. Housing is one of the features I'm least interested in. But, if that's the key feature that gets people to contribute $500 to $5000 towards development -- and Portalarium has built much of it's funding model around that -- I must accept it as something that must demands careful attention.

SotA's funding model is sort of the exact opposite of Candy Crush. Candy Crush rakes in bajillions on $1 and $2 microtransaction. SotA is mostly operating on megatransactions.

 

Its not mandatory to read and participate in every thread.
I'm sure if it starts to be against what portalarium want read it will be locked (again)

 

That's the thing. I work within a development pipeline, so I can see feature creep when its happens.

They have a fairly substantial pledge structure, that had pulled in $4mil before any of the new pledge change or player towns were brought on line.

The new pledge system was put in place, including player towns, and we seen a $400k increase approx, though keep in mind, this includes payment plans, and the natural pledge increases. Well be safe, and say $200k. Now, if you look at the stretch goals as well, that added around $20k, of un usable funding, as that is set aside specifically for when those stretch goals are met.

Now, compare the time and money spent on developing these new pledge rewards, stretch goal items, and the future development time that is going to be required on player towns. No, we don't have that information to actually compare to, but there seems to be a few community members who know the rough times.

They have added a bunch of new items, and features to the game, that are going to require a fairly substantial amount of funding, and have the potential to delay release by a considerable amount of time. All as part of a way to increase funding.

That is almost the text book definition of feature creep.

Sent from my LG-P930 using Tapatalk

 

Why I barely post on the forums...

The current discussion that some of us have dug into due to last weeks hangouts was actually variety of items in crafting via interchangeable ingredient items make minor adjustments to items to add variety of a base item type in content without tons of extra work on the part of the devs because much of the assets could be crowd-sourced... various metals, but same similar recipe for shield or breastplate, etc...

 

Good points in your link, But I think RG maybe guilty of creating endless empty neighbourhoods with Tax free Land deeds being allowed to stand for at least 3 months to over 1 year without the owner ever logging in. It's not like the player that paid real cash will lose the deed, house or contents (in UO you lost everything in it too) it is a further pandering to the $ at the game and future players expense. What will be the norm for anyone buying the game on release I think 1 month is a reasonable time for anyone not to visit the house. The New player owned towns ( a vanity buy in my opinion) will be creating endless instanced housing neighbourhoods that no one will ever want to visit unless they live there. RG may as well have gone for instanced neighbourhood in towns accessed through a gateway near the market at least everyone would have to visit that town centre and keep it looking like a community.

 

Some of the complaints about feature creep are a little unfounded. Specifically that the stretch goals or player owned towns are feature creep. As these features require funding outside the normal pledge framework they are thus self-funded and as such (if the costs involved stay within the bounds of the the money raised) can't be described as feature creep affecting the core elements of the game.

In other threads I've defended the structure of things like the stretch goal pledges and player owned towns as it allows for funds to be raised to cover the things not necessary to the core function of the game but that would still be nice to have as features sooner than later.

As to player owned towns, I'm not sure the player owned towns are going to cause endless neighbourhoods as the real world dollar amounts are quite high and the ingame costs for these should likely be equally restrictive. Given the statements Portalarium has made about player owned housing and carrying that over to player owned towns, I trust that the in-game costs to towns will be sufficient to keep towns from popping up everywhere and then not being supported by a community of player and thus becoming ghost towns. The other thing to remember is that if towns follow the same rules as lots, towns purchased with in-game currency will cease to exist as soon as the monthly rent is not paid and those purchased with cash will cease after some period of inactivity. I think the mechanics of this might be fun as when you explore an apparently empty scene in the wilderness you may happen upon the remains of a town lost to time.

About pledges and specifically the stretch goal pledges. In this context a pledge is a gift in support of a goal, while these gifts have minor tokens as an appreciation of the gift they are not direct purchases of such tokens. I don't think of the money I plan to pledge towards stretch goals as purchasing the items I may receive but as helping to support features I wish to see included in the game sooner rather than later. I don't plan to pledge money that I can not afford to give and won't do so until such time as the other things I intend to purchase have been.

Trying to treat a pledge as a purchase is a logical failure. Stretch goal pledges aren't required, they are optional. Some of the confusion around pledges comes from the fact that KickStarter chose to use the word 'pledge' as their way to indicate the crowd sourced investment in projects and thus people try to put the restrictions of a KS pledge to all other kinds of pledge. I find having a clear definition of the differences between the types of pledge I've made to this project helps keep me from having unreasonable expectations around those various pledges.

Just my thoughts on this, YMMV.

 

Does this argument not assume no further opportunities post-launch? When you use words like "forever" it does sound like you mean "forever" which is what compelled me point out things might change at some point in the future. Besides, your example is preaching to the choir. I was the first one to ask about keep and castle lots in player towns.

Something you may be overlooking here whether or not player towns will be obtainable through in-game means. Are they not also exclusive to the store? Locked behind a money wall as it were?

 

Yes, they will be available in-game based on the Megapost:

• NOTE: There will be a path to achieve this in game via in game gold purchase but the ownership of the scene will incur a rental fee.

 

aha.. obviously I missed that. Thanks.