So yet another unannounced change.

I'm not aiming my comment specifically at you Bowen, just happened to be responding to something you said. Most are definitely directed at Portalarium.

 

And all I'm saying is things could change in the future.

 

Based on the response from Darkstarr, I doubt castle or keep lots will ever be available in game. To state that they are "exclusive" to their respective pledge levels and only to those, then to change that later on, would be the exact opposite of what they just said, after a 10 page argument on the matter. And if they did offer them in game after this thread, I think it would be a slap in the face to some of the community, who asked them not to be exclusive here (yes I know they didn't ask in the best way.)And if they did change it in the future, it would really make you wonder just how much their word means, if after taking such a firm stance here, they decided to change their mind.

 

The point being we don't know what EP2+ will bring. I'm not suggesting the larger lots should be available strictly through in-game means but it would be strange if new cities introduced in EP2+ didn't have keep or castle lots at all.

 

I never said they wouldn't add the plots, just that if they added the ability for new players to get them. Not to sound like i am repeating myself, as i didn't realize we were talking Ep 2+, again, offering the plots to anyone, after the current pledge system closes, would be a bit harsh as well. maybe of slightly smaller sizes, but that would require addition housing development.

In my opinion, after official release of Ep 1, keeps/castle are going to become the rares commodity in the game, and going to be selling for crazy sums of money, a short while after release.

 

Hey Starr
Thanks for the great post
Addressing the paragraph I quoted It would be Great! if We the Avatars could get like say
A 5:00 news update or 6:00 Headline Monday-Friday on non-release weeks or something similar...
We just want to hear from the Dev+ Team
For myself I droll when you guys come on click click click where are you now, are you looking at? something new, are you making a post?
Ya Know we just want something to chat about... besides the stuff from yesterday, or what kind of computer do you have...
Nobody is really all that interested in posting R pics we've all seen/lived them...
So i'm not saying you everyday change off, something funny once in a while too.
But I have to say that the Vid with you and Chris was really good only... well the time keeper he had a nice tan... lol
I think you get what i'm saying we all care! and want to hear from you guys more
sorry this was late had a long PM shift

 

Some of the things I'm thinking about when achieving some of these lofty goals in-game (player owned towns, keeps & castles) is that they shouldn't be frivolous.

Towns & cities, keeps & castles, these are major points of interest on any map virtual, fantasy or real life, and as such part of being able to achieve such in-game should be some litmus test to show the commitment necessary to keep such structures vital and active. For the smaller towns the test doesn't need to be quite as daunting. It would be nice that if these smaller locales fail that there be some evidence of their passing, some kind of ghost town or marker in an otherwise wilderness scene, or if the location is taken over by another then some of the npc's still refer to it by the older name.

Larger places are harder to rationalize as a ghost town and thus should require some hoops and barrels to get through before you're able to establish these in the game. It is a Role-Playing-Game after all. Having a system that requires that kind of commitment could make it easier to appease those who've been promised exclusivity, the other issue I foresee is the rare instance that someone who's paid for these goes inactive. I don't expect that it would happen often but I also don't expect it won't ever happen. Having an established litmus test for the formation of new structures of this kind gives a baseline for the test necessary to take over an existing structure that has gone inactive.

One thing that I keep in mind is that the number of players who own these in-game resources is relatively small compared to the full player base and as such it wouldn't or shouldn't be too onerous to include them in the process of determining the tests that would allow the in-game creation and acquisition of these kinds of assets. My hope would be that those people committed enough to this game to layout the funds necessary to purchase these things would be committed enough to see that game mechanisms of this sort help keep the game itself strong and vibrant.

This kind of interactivity between real world interests and virtual world activities in a RPG may have occurred before. I can't think of it in any major game, such as I hope SotA will achieve, that has this level of player/developer interaction and as such would make it unique in it's scope as an RPG.

YMMV

 

I wonder after all of the pitchfork raising that has been going on lately if it will ever happen again or if this will be a lesson for game developers to learn from in the future that being transparent with the internet is not always a good thing. Personally I love the interaction we can have with dev's but I could see why it would be alarming to them.

 

Richard actually stated I think in the Greg Kasavin/ Felicia Day interview at E3 that the open development model has already generated tons of great feedback and they're happy they are doing it this way.

Just because the internet doesn't understand it, who cares. There are a ton of people that think a ton of games I like suck and what not, doesn't make them right. Also it's just human nature to trash talk stuff and drag it down, especially if no-one knows who you are and there are no social liabilities or penalties to this behavior.

That's what the internet is good at. Doesn't make it valid.

 

It already is happening, and has happened, in many other indie software developments.

They are just not blasted to the top, above the noise, because they do not have people of RG's name and history behind them.

But even so, even with that experience, it is obvious that has nothing to do with having it actually work, unless you are devoted to doing it, for real.

Of those doing it, some are worse, others are way better.

It will continue to improve as more and more teams figure out how to handle the communication that is required, and if they want to approach development from that POV.

We do it here, though not on a grand scale of thousands, but hundreds, and it works perfectly fine if you have a system in place and design for it from the start. Our vendor studios love the fact they can see what we are building, have input into that process, make requests, debate the good and bad, all while right in direct production.

 

OP, it is your opinion that the people who are helping fund this game should not be offered rewards for their financial investment that is exclusive to those individuals who have invested large sums of money?

Could you please explain why?

Without those investors there would be no game for you to earn any in game items for any amount of gold. I do not understand why you're upset.

 

Instead of handing out at least 10 crafting table's to higher backers why were they not the items offered in a stretch goal to raise funds and give everyone the opportunity to obtain ONE , they just seem to come up with a new batch of stuff to add to existing pledge tiers usually after they have had a PR nightmare of another unannounced rule change or a Dev+ backed idea from their wish list, if the funds for those tiers is already reached why keep giving more & more stuff just for the sake of it.

 

Except "the internet" all consists of potential players for the game. These bad decisions are literally driving away tons of people that might have otherwise played the game.

"Who cares" is probably the worst position to have when making a MULTIPLAYER game. Do you want lots of people to play with, or do you want this to be a IRL rich guys club? It's already hard enough to keep players actively playing an MMO for more than 1 month, imagine what SotA will be like if people ALREADY feel this way about the game before its even in beta..

 

When the "internet" is your player base, its pretty important that they understand. Games are no longer just sold in a store, and you get feed back from magazines, and friends. Games are now purchased on the "internet" so clear information is a very good thing. Look at some of the early access games on steam. The ones that don't provide clear information and feed back, get negative reviews, and "flamed" pretty good. Which, at least for me, make me very reluctant to want to buy the game if i see negative feed back like that. The game itself may be great, but when an early access game doesn't provide accurate information, or provides false information (not saying that is the case here) then i'm pretty much certain not to buy it.

That doesn't make them right, nor does it make you right. Its personal opinion, which everyone is entitled to, even if it does match up with your own.

I'm not a psychology major, so I don't know if that's accurate these days, or not. However, I don't see that as human nature. Take the OP for example, if you look over their history on the forums, they seem, at least to me, to be an active member of the community, who had been openly encouraging and promoting the game. And the comment might not be aimed at this community specifically, but as it was mentioned here, there is penalties to this behavior. There is a chance you are banned, and loose any money you put into the project. Now, I don't know how much the OP paid in, but seeing as there is comments in dev+ threads I cant see, it would be at least $400+


Now, as I said before, I am not agreeing with the methods of the OP here, but taking some time to read over some of the past updates, and Darkstarr's comment here, I can understand where they are coming from.


The entry from update 64, that got thrown around here as a refernece:

and from Darkstarr's post,

Those bits of information, combined with the fact I couldn't find any information on the forums, where the change was discussed publicly, (there may be, but its not in the non-dev+ area) with the rest of the community, does, at least in my opinion, show some biased/favoritism. As I said, this is just my opinion, and I am in no way saying this is the case here, but to discuss the topic only with those who stand to gain from the change doesn't seem to be fair. The people who pledged to those levels initially pledged knowing what the current rewards were at the time they pledged. And before it comes up, I know there is the view that those who would NOT gain from the change would be against it, and i cant speak for anyone else, but if i was presented with the idea of upgrading the pledge reward plots like they were, I would have agreed, and i'm sure others would have as well, seeing the responses of backers I would assume are not Duke+ agreeing with the change here. . But the fact that I was never given that option to give my views, is whats concerning.

And the only thing I will say in the OP's defense here. The way Darkstarr's comments, update 64, and some of the people in here have come across, at least to me is, its fine to lobby for a change based on the fact that you have pledged a ton of money, $2200 or more. (Lord Marshals seemed to have managed to get a change made as well to some extent.) However, unless you've put that kind of money into the game, any attempt to make a change, is by at least some of the members of this community, deemed to be greedy. I am not defending HOW the OP brought this up, far from it. However, reading through all the comments, and yes I've read all 13 pages, the OP seemed to be unhappy, that these decisions were made with no input from the community as a whole, but only by those who directly benefited from the change. And that, because those changes were not discussed with the community, the other 36,700 ish backers have now had a new reward that was added, completely removed from being available to them, even as a Taxed lot in game. But again, this is just my personal interpenetration of how things were intended to come across, and it may very well not be the case.

 

Uhmm do the people who want to scream about how the sky is falling read any of the developer posts? Everyone is going to have the chance to have all the crafting tables with the same buffs as the tables given to those with higher pledges, they will just have to create and or pay for them in game which is hardly unfair. As they don't start giving them out 10 at a time but at lower pledge levels you can get just one of your choice, again it hardly seems unfair.

Do those who just want to be negative not realize that when you mistate facts and get shown to be incorrect you don't do any good for your position, and if you do it repeatedly you don't get taken seriously on any post you make.

On the first point here, what is your non-anecdotal evidence this is the case?

As we are neither in the "initial announcement" phase of high interest or the "about to be released" phase of high interest I'm not surprised by the slowdown in pledges. You can look at well advertised and expected KS campaigns and see the same trend, high pledge rates to start, a lull in the middle and high pledge rates again as the campaign finishes. So where is the information to support your statement that "bad decisions are driving people away" other than it's what you say?

As to the "who cares" statement you seem to be trying to attribute that to the dev team and not just the individual poster who made the comment. Reading carefully I'm pretty sure Trady meant 'who cares if there are haters of this process' and wonder if you've mistakenly twisted the comment or are doing so deliberately.

Having watched an number of the dev team hangouts, interviews and read their posts, I'm pretty sure the dev team does care. I think the way people's opinions and feature requests are being handled is fair and in the interests of all and not just those who've invested/pledged thousands. I do agree with others that those who've invested/pledged hundreds or thousands (or those who pledge towards any stretch goals that wind up being attained) are owed a debt of thanks from those who didn't/can't pledge to that level and yet still gain the benefits of the features these large value pledges have made possible for all. I don't see how this is going to create a 'IRL Rich Guys club'.

Many other games allow the purchase of these sorts of things or the hard work method of grinding it out to obtain such in-game, those who don't want to spend cash or the time required to afford these in-game items aren't affected by those who do. The one exception to that statement is jealousy. Anyone who is envious of others, without being willing to expend the resources that the others did, isn't taking a rational view of things.

None of the gifts/rewards being offered by these pledges are game breaking and most are fully achievable through in-game means. The only two exceptions being Keep and Castle lots, but the most recent dev hangout talked about the succession rights for control of these rare assets and how they are similar to the same sort of rights needed by guilds, which are features not yet ready for release/testing. So come release of episode 1 I fully expect that even those 2 assets will have some method of achievement in-game.

Sweeping statements of how the game or this development process are being received are merely your opinion especially when the only support you offer for the statement is non-existent or anecdotal.

Sweeping statements made about perceived flaws made with histrionics & hyperbole with no constructive alternatives shouldn't have any influence on the dev team.

Assuming you're here on these forums because you're a fan of the Ultima games, why post in a manner that lessens your input and actually creates the devisiveness that drives people away?

Just some of my opinions, YMMV

Edit Ps.

Vorshak made a calm and reasonable post and I'd like to thank him for it. The two things I'd like to point out are;

The game as I see it is still about 9-10 months from release of episode one, so it's too early to state that there isn't an in-game method to acquire these two lots. If by late next winter there isn't some method to transition ownership of these larger lots to those who didn't pledge for them initially I'd be surprised.

My experience of large groups of people is such that I don't expect rational behaviour at all times. In my experience allowing those who pledged small amounts full input and vote over changes to the benefits to extremely large benefits would result in jealousy voting against it, regardless of the future benefits available to all. My hope is the Castle and Keep lots become factors in player-driven events in-game as such not having them would be a loss to us all. I'm thankful for those with the resources to pledge thousands of dollars as the in-game benefits they receive are small compared to the benefits we all gain from their input to the development process.

Again, YMMV

 

This was a long thread to read through, it sure goes fast here at times.
I probably never would have noticed this if someone hadn't said something.

My thanks to Darkstarr for explaining - it is always nice to hear your thoughts!

 

Thanks. The thread has enough un constructive negativity, I wanted to be constructive, even if there is some negative aspects.

And I just want to point out, they had definitively stated that the plots would not be available in game. If you look at both Darkstarr's post, and the reward description on those pledges.

Sent from my LG-P930 using Tapatalk

 

As per the Dev Hangout from yesterday Chris & Darkstarr talked about succession rights to these lots being very similar to succession rights in guilds. I think it was Starr who stated something along the lines of "As guild functions haven't been addressed yet, the way these lots are treated hasn't been fully determined but that they will closely mimic the guild functions." I'm paraphrasing from memory but that's the gist of it.

I know Darkstarr takes some heat from his "Don't lawyer me, bro." I'm willing to be flexible about seemingly absolute statements changing. I take a lot of time to write and polish my posts, I'm in a place personally where I have a lot of time and participating here takes my mind off my other issues. Starr and the rest of the team are pretty busy working on something we all have high hopes for, so I'm willing to give leeway to even the "Mega posts" if something is stated one way and that turns out to be a misstatement.

There's a lot of time to clear up minor misstatements between now and release of episode one. I'd rather the dev team is working to that end rather than making absolutely sure each of their posts is perfectly accurate. Even if the post is perfectly accurate at the time it's made the dev's have shown they are responding to the concerns brought up on these forums and so things change often.

I'm hoping that when someone brings up a concern they do it in a manner that encourages discussion and not in a manner that creates enmity. I know how hard that can be when it's a topic I'm passionate about and so I too have to take care against such behaviour.

YMMV

 

But wouldn't that have made a better argument from the start? Instead of getting upset over who receives what for the different tiers of investment, suggest ways that others can invest and obtain some of the items.

I think this is easily one of the better gaming communities I have participated in (probably because most of are actually funding this game). So if there is something that you feel strong enough about, make your case. This Dev team has shown time and again that they're listening. They may not agree with every suggestion or point of view but I feel they at least consider the opinions we bring forth.

It is my opinion that those who have invested large sums of money should receive rewards exclusive to them. I do not begrudge anything that they have earned through their financial support. Instead those individuals have my gratitude.

 

This is a good idea Wagram. If they offered things like this up with our stretch goals I'm sure they would move a lot faster