Take a deep breath....

I see some negative posts regarding R9, and even saw a post by an individual who was incensed that he couldn't play before the release even opened-even though he pledged his $45! Really? I guess I'm baffled by what some people were expecting. It seems that some people just didn't do their due diligence and thought if they paid, they would be getting a finished game. Taking part in pre-alpha is NOT playing a game. It's like getting the donkey to pull the cart with the dangling carrot. We're the donkey(s), the game is the cart, and all the pledge goodies are the carrot. The game makers get $$$ to fund the project, and the participants get a peak at the content and give feedback. After we get to the finish line (finished product), then the donkey(s) get to eat the carrot. Right now, we only get to see and smell the carrot, and for many that just isn't good enough. I've never played a game where everything was perfectly to my liking, and it seems that's what a few are looking for. IMHO, Shroud has something for everyone, but few will have everything. Pledging for a game that is in pre alpha is gambling in its simplest form-you are taking a chance. No one should ever gamble unless they can afford to lose. Take a deep breath people, we have more pulling to do.

 

While you have a valid point, you also need to remember that the whole idea of giving us backers early access every month is precisely to get our feedback on the systems that have been implemented.

Feedback can be positive or negative or a mix of both, and everyone is entitled to provide their opinion on what they liked, didn't like, or changes they would like to see. Having only positive feedback is almost as useless as having no feedback in many ways.

 

I very much enjoy the discussions here, particularly the contrasting viewpoints. Debate and Diversity combined frequently yield Strength of product. I have faith this will help make a stronger game. So yes, folks should absolutely share their feedback, provided it is constructive and honest.

That said, this is pre-alpha. We're here to play and explore, but also to test, to break, to contribute and help refine. It's not a finished product. The awesome thing is, that finished product may well be impacted by our input, testing, and/or playing.

 

Constructive feedback can be hugely important.

I think the OP's point was that expectations have to be in the proper context to provide meaningful constructive input.

 

That about sums it up, and much less reading.

 

lol what if my religion forbids me from gambling... 0_0

 

"lol what if my religion forbids me from gambling... 0_0 "

lol...good one. I have to ask, though, what religion would allow you to game online but not gamble? Must be one of them new religions.

 

hehehe I'm not religious I was just thinking...

Has there been any mention of a "god" yet in SotA ? Or are we stucked with the burning One All Seeing Eye ?

 

religion
burning one all seeing eye....I was wondering how/if they were going to implement religion as well. I see that a thread was started on the topic, but not sure how much "light" it will shed on the subject. It does have a few points to ponder. I can't think of many rpg's, books, D&D games that exclude religion. There is mention and utilization in all of them to one extent or the other. Don't most of these games come down to good v evil? Maybe it's just trying to decide who/what is good and who/what is evil?

 

I thought we were all just supposed to worship LB?

 

from ultima 3 :

In the time of Exodus in Ultima III, the division between arcane magic and divine magic in Sosaria was complete, with various specialty classes practicing either one or the other form of magic. Scrolls no longer had to be bought. Casters knew their spells from memory, and only the amount of mana available limited their level of power and frequency of use. Divine magic relied on wisdom about the world that surrounds the castle, while arcane magic relied on intelligence to understand the concept and theories behind magic.
In these times, the Cult of Runes represented the arcane side of magic, while the Cult of Truthrepresented the divine aspect. Both sides had their own unique set of 16 spells, which were further divided into 10 basic and 6 advanced spells. Both cults tried to make the workings of their spells a secret to outsiders, by giving them names that were not of the common tongue.

And of course the dragonlance series written by Lord Hickman is filled with faith and priests...

yes I'd say pretty much we put a finger on the wound here...

 

I agree feedback of all kinds are needed in this process. The only problem I have with a significant portion of the "negative" feedback is it tends to fall to things that are core features laid out in the kick starter. Portalarium clearly said specifics about the game such as selective multi player, overland map with instanced areas, etc. etc. So when I pledged to the game I did it knowing what I was getting myself into and despite not being a fan of a particular feature. I was not a big fan of the overland map as I prefer a seamless world. I still pledged because so many other features appealed to me, but I still knew that there will be an overland map. That was not going to change, so I would never give feedback to get rid of the overland map, rather I would give feedback on how to map the overland map a more enjoyable experience for me.

Too much of the negative feedback focuses on those core features instead of accepting them as core features and suggesting what might improve them. With all the the focus on combat right now which is a good thing the majority of the negative feedback is "I hate the system" or "I prefer the traditional system or an action combat system" Folks the deck system is the system, it probably will not look the way it does now, we have an opportunity to suggest things to improve it but I highly doubt it will be scraped completely and be something standard.

 

maybe thats because we are like you, we'll still play but think the core features are bad... in the end what matters is that we have a cool game.

We can't expect everyone to read the forums so its a community manager job to jump in those threads and CONFIRM that some things are not going to be changed.

Rather we let them ferment and think they're going to decompose to dust, magically, without the addition of fire.

*Poof*

 

releases
It's not my intention to single others out, but I read a few comments that were just off the wall but I refrain from calling them down in public. While normally I would not give them much attention, I just felt it had to be pointed out what these releases are. If people want to give constructive criticism and opinion, that's cool, but at least keep in context-as Lord Beaurmaris so eloquently pointed out. The ill informed coupled with the unrealistic expectations had to be addressed, and it's not like the information about what to expect with the releases wasn't made known. Hell, I'm pretty new to SotA, but even lil old me found some info in the provided link, but it seemed that some thought they were jumping into a finished game. I'm wondering what new things some will expect in R10, even though it states that there won't be many new things-just a good polish.

 

Oh its ok... the subject was taboo way before anyone so eloquently pointed out. You just seem to attract such situations.

I'm going to start drawing diagrams here