So yet another unannounced change.

Sorry, my last post was short, due to using my phone.

They were talking about succession on the player towns themselves, not the actual house plots. At least hat was my take form it, as the whole hang out was specifically about player towns, and not housing plots. And also, a succession system, does not offer the option for "new plots" to be added, it simply prevents existing ones from the pledge tiers being lost as players leave the game.

This is something that they might want to clarify.

I understand your view, and can see where you are coming from. But in my opinion, it is things such as this example here, where two people have a complete difference of opinion, based on some fairly broad statements, that cause threads like this to arise. The way I see it, is the devs spend more, additional time on later clarifications, corrections and updates, then it would take to spend some extra time to think over a post, and get a few different opinions before it is made public. And in taking that extra time, just as we both have, it would help to prevent at least some of the ... discontent ( i cant really think of a better word here) that is being shown towards them, when they make changes after the fact. Again, this is nothing more then my take on the situation.

I'll also refrain from serious comment on "Don't Lawyer me bro" other then saying, I personally do not like it. But I can understand why it was started.

I agree, they have a lot of time to clean up misunderstandings. But from what I have seen, and again, this is just my take on the matter, most of this clean up is happening after there has been some form of public confusion, or disliking to how something was presented, if it was the intended case or not. And this also goes back to what I said in my previous post (two up) with my opening comments regarding a lack of clarity in information, and the resulting negative feed back it can cause. I want to see the game succeed, and become the next UO/WoW (I mean simply in the context of length of success, not game mechanics etc) However, I am also able to step back, from my own personal desires, i'm not saying other people cant do this either ,but I can see how things may appear to perspective new players and backers, both with how information is available here on the forums, and it being somewhat dotted all over the place. (I know there is an FAQ but that only covers a small portion of things people would be interested in.) Having this information dispersed as it is, can be fairly overwhelming for new players, and I've seen a fair few questions having been asked, that, the information is out there, but its hard to find without knowing exactly where to look.

I agree with you here. The OP didn't present this in a constructive way, which is, in my opinion, what caused the lynch mob to form here.

I will also say, I'm happy to be part of now, what seems to be a civil, constructive conversation, with someone who is willing to accept a difference of opinion. (This comment is not aimed at anyone in a negative way) Its refreshing to have that sort of dialogue on the internet.


And actually, after reading through a few things, including the FAQ, I have a question that I do not believe has been covered here on this thread, or else where.

@Darkstarr or @Dallas

I understand, to my knowledge, that for the Multi-player aspect of the game, Keep and castle lots are restricted to the respective pledges, and are not going to be made available in game. However, does this still stand true for the "Single Player Offline" game play? Will those who have not pledged at Duke or above be able to acquire the keep or castle lots during offline game play?

--Made some edits for clarity, and i failed at proof reading--

 

@Vorshak, thanks for a thoughtful response.

I think we're actually on the same page when it comes to Keep and Castle lots, the only difference being should they have been announced before all the details were worked out. I don't think these lots and their ownership should be trivial as I have hopes that they form the kernel for player driven activity such is rarely seen in online games. This far out from release of episode one I'm not that worried that the full details haven't been worked out and I appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the creation of those details.

Speaking from my own experience I know that no matter how much time I put into editing my comments before I post there always seems to be room for confusion and misinterpretation. If the dev team were unresponsive to our observations and critiques I'd be worried, as that doesn't seem to be the case, I'm not. I really do believe that asking for 100% or even 99% accuracy from dev statements is too much, at this stage of development. The amount of time spent clearing up confusion and misstatements seems to be a constant in my experience no matter how precise the communication is there is always some way to misconstrue it such that clarification is necessary, so I'm willing to let the situation be more fluid and allow for discrepancies to be cleared up at a later date.

If we approach beta, let alone release, and still have this kind of confusion then I'll be one of the first to be grabbing my pitchfork and demanding answers.

I think in this case as we move forward into the releases that involve testing the features for guilds, player-owned-towns and these special lots, we will have a better understanding of how the mechanics are going to work.

There's a point I'd like to make about this thread in general. No one has yet mentioned that at the same time as these exclusive rewards were announced the threshold for having a pledge with a tax free lot was cut in half.

According to the statistics Starr posted in this thread that means the benefits that were added for 67 players, who've pledged an average of $7000 each, also allowed the creation of lots that benefit 537 pledges, with an average pledge of $344, not to mention anyone who couldn't previously afford to pledge/upgrade to $550 but can at $275. I don't think the two are unrelated and to ignore the contributions of the few that are benefitting the many isn't fair in my estimation. (These figures are from the linked thread.)

Looking back at this post I think the point I'm trying to make is that, just because something seems to be wrong doesn't mean we should instantly start heading for the pitchforks.

This is a process, approaching these issues with a well reasoned post asking questions & offering solutions as opposed to dealing with doom-and-gloom-hyperbole, is the discussion I'd rather be having.

YMMV

 

By updating the lot sizes for Duke Portalarium created not only a benefit for existing Dukes, but also one more attempting incentive for others to jump eventually up the pledge chain and so generate more income to invest back into the game for all players.

*Salute*
Olahorand

 

Vorshak, it was also stated during the hangout that player owned towns can be upgraded from one tier to the next. if they are upgraded after ht splayed town has been placed, the current player town would be destroyed and a new one placed. All the current houses and their contents would be placed in a special 'bank' slot so nothing in the house or the house itself would be destroyed. The owner would need to place it again. This is the plan for ep1. After that the system is likely to change so that destruction may not be necessary.

 

I'm sorry jiirc, but where did that come from?

 

Vorshak, it was stated during the player town hangout.

 

Yes, I know that. I'm sorry, I didnt word that last post to well. I should have asked, what relevance that had to what I had said previously. I'm just a little confused on what upgrading a player town, has anything to do with my previous comments. But if I've missed something, please, let me know. I prefer to have all the facts, then base a view on incomplete information.

 

Vorshak, I was pretty sure you in one of your posts you had made a comment about upgrading player owned town spots. I can't seem to find the spot now, maybe it was someone else. When I'm using this tablet, I can't use the quote feature when I'm responding to posts, so it was just a general response to one of our many posts. Maybe it was somebody else. Sorry.

 

Not a problem jiirc. My apologizes if I came across at all snippy with my last post, it wasn't my intent. Its hard to get things across like that in text.

I took a quick look back at my own posts, and don't believe i mentioned anything about upgrading player towns, but then i did only quickly skim over what i had written, so there may very well be something. Either way, no harm done.

 

I have been stating similar to this from the start

When it was decided to change the one plot per player rule, and then changed it to a player could own as many land plots they wanted, extra rewards dished out to try to calm the storm.

Then selling off the Founder Pledges to anyone and being used to bring benefactors the same benefits a year after Kickstarter, again the Dev's answer give them more rewards and a new title and a 2snd shield in a different colour. Dev+ would then have a large number of Benefactor backers so once again the lobbyists got their way.

Lower tier backers would struggle to win a vote as many higher pledge backers are also multi account owners, with the extra land deeds and house's and at that time only ONE character per account now you are rewarded with the 3rd extra slot at $275 pledge (landowner) yet we are told that housing land is a scarce item so only those with a house get the 3 characters.

I know they quoted it as similar to the Oklahoma Land Grab, but giving out coloured beads to the natives didn't work then.

 

If that "exclusive" territories will not be visible in my offline singleplayer world, then I have no problem with this, since I'm mostly going to play offline =)
Well, on other side it's not a big problem if they will exist and can be obtained in SP Offline.

 

I don't see much of an issue because I always assumed they would be out of my limits from the start, I didn't know this was even a thing.

 

Captain Jack agrees with this logic %120, Captain Jack came into Shroud late in the game so to speak and is totally not affected by this and thus cares not for the cries of others because he too sees this as out of his limits!

Actually Captain Jack sees this as a great equalizing measure, it gives him a chance to succeed as his luck on the high seas hasn't been bringing in a lot of loot recently so he can't buy his way to the top.

 

So, this lots not be visible in offline sp?

 

yes only in online mode you can see the other lots.

 

Awesome, thanks
To clarify, i mean that Very Exclusive SWAG'ish Lots that OP mentioned

 

yes because these are lots from players. It could be that some are also in in offline mode, but not for your use, except your are an owner of this lot size.

 

They haven't said yet, as to how the new exclusive lots will be handled in Singe Player Offline. Which is why I asked, as it would be nice to know.

They also mentioned, some time ago now, that they were looking into ways of the single player offline world, having its housing plots populated from multiplayer, as there is going to be an extensive amount of 'player housing' plots, that would require a large amount of effort to manually populate in offline mode. However, they never said specifically how they were going to handle it, and were just throwing out some ideas from what I could tell. At this point, we know very little about offline play.

 

You mean lots without owner, which i can own?

 

In that way, i starting to feel myself like dirty peasant