please add six million dollar stretch goal to abandon dual scale map

Did you use a football analogy here? You realize that owners pay big money to compete against other owners who do the same right? Playing football in the NFL is not a right it's a privilege that people have to work very hard for, and despite that if they get injured it's "next man up". So I don't think that comparison works for you here.

But it's not terrible game design. You can still get a horse and you can still ride it. It's just like anything else in the game, you have to DO SOMETHING to get it. In this case, you have to pay another player some in game gold. That's not so different than going on a high level quest or paying an NPC for something.

You can argue that instead of horses it should be dragons in the stretch goal. I'd support that. But it's not bad game design. It's bad fan understanding.

 

I haven't read the whole thread and replied to everyone in general... I quoted you because it was the last piece of information I saw that was completely wrong ... the "if you want a horse mount you have to pay $$$" is wrong.

Please don't take my reply personal as it was directed at the general public and all the visitors so they understand that this is NOT a pay to win and it is NOT a game that requires you to pay for mounts and that is NOT the direction they're going.

Cheers!

 

He's arguing for the opposite of what you're saying he wants. You should really read more of the thread before commenting. I do that sometimes too.

 

I understood what you were saying ... but its not the defending / its simply that some folks can't be reasoned with / dense

 

The map idea reminds me of Mount and Blade. Although i would also love a single world to give me the freedom to track down some rogue players, I do think the dual map has its place and will work well. Remember its pre-alpha and as the game gains more support from new and existing members, issues will be ironed out and a better experience will evolve from it.

 

This is both on/off topic: But I'm very excited at this pricing model being used here.
Want new features, or unfinished features finished sooner than later? Vote with your money!

Want pet monkeys?
Create a stretch goal to add pet monkey minions to the game. Share the link with your friends, guild etc. And they too can vote with their money.

This on top of the Pay Once to Play, and then Add-On or buy expansions is great!

I tire of the forum-crybabies (not referring to anyone here bee-tee-dub), and with a Stretch Goal, you essentially cram a pacifier in their mouth that says 'Pay-Up, or Shut-Up!'

 

You missed the point of my analogy. My point is that even a poor team (in the NFL as you mentioned) will still compete even if it knows it will lose. It still has the exact same opportunity as the opposing team to compete regardless of how rich their management team is or how much political intrigue is going on the sidelines. They still have the same opportunity as everyone else. There is no metagame denying them the chance. Your suggestion of "no horses" denies people a basict asset for no other reason other than exclusivity.

Star Citizen handled this much better. They've offered a ship in the range of several hundred dollars (rediculously expensive) but hey some players want it. Which is great! But the ones who don't, or can't afford it; they still have the opportunity to earn it in-game later. It's just going to be extremely hard and the chances limited. Which is designed to parallel what is an enormous fiscal contribution in real life.

Your suggestion flat out said "no horses" for people who didn't contribute. Not "it'll be very rare for players who didn't contribute". So you're denying someone the ability to aspire towards an in-game goal that exists for others. It needs to exist for all. The is a complete item missing from the game. It's the equivalent of selling player towns now and not later or selling high level housing plots now and not later.

But my point was: "what if those players are no longer online"? With no ability to breed the mounts and only being able to trade the initial batch of horses that were seeded into the economy, it is possible that we might lose them from the system. That is my point. Why deliberately exclude something from the game and deny other players simply because they didn't contribute? I personally didn't contribute because I thought by upgrading a pledge that was 4 times my initial (and four times the price of a regular PC game by the way) that I'd be boosting the game's income so we'd see them. Then suddenly we get seperate goals...

Well... no. I'd argue that it should be a rare breed of horse so that people who contributed to the stretch goal are recognised for their efforts, not promoted for them. That IS bad game design. You're modulating the game and providing unique experiences based on your contribution. That's not a good idea.

Recognition is the key concept of pledging. Not promoting or categorising players. In-fact, even though this game isn't free to play, I think this article is becoming extremely relative to the microtransaction drive we're seeing behind this game if the exclusivity continues:

 

I only read halfway through page 2.

People need to stop complaining.

I am a early founder, at a higher pledge level. I do not plan to donate more, since I already put in a fair share. I am getting a tax free house and vender...thats sufficient. Now is that pay to win? Since I bought my house rather than played the game for maybe a year first to earn the house ingame? Maybe. Is a house unattainable without paying? No , everyone can get a house eventually if theres space. So its not pay to win.

As for horses/mounts/etc, why is there any issue with someone who has donated gets a mount in game? If you didn't donate, save up your 1000 gold or whatever a horse, head to the stables or find a player selling horses, and buy one in-game... Its simple. Different/unique mounts would be exclusive. When you buy a Honda, they dont give you a key to a Lambo...

If anyone played UO, and during the times the ancient smith hammers and tools came out...whomever has one, gets to charge a premium for their services...

Im sure they wont BLOCK lesser donations from getting mounts, they will just make it something you need earn in-game...

 

Multiple posts like this appear every release.

Look -- it's just not feasible given the way their instancing tech works.

I like the idea of a dual scale map largely because I want to get right into the action; one thing I liked about early Ultimas was the speed, you could get from one end of the world map to the other in a hurry. In modern games (even in SotA) I find that I'm spending a ton of time just walking from point A to point B and I get board.

In any case, much of the pain of the hexes is simply the time it takes for the damn things to load. Once they start optimizing things to get the load times down, much of the concern will start dissipating.

 

The stretch goal store, I think, is a failed experiment. Another team (including this one, if/when they do Episode 2) can learn a lot from what Portalarium has tried and seeing what did or didn't work...

 

Add a $10,000,000 stretch goal for Richard to come to each and every one of our homes to cook us breakfast.

It's just as likely to happen IMO.

 

I think the overland map will look great when it is complete, and be a good feature reminiscent of Ultima days. Seems that scene zoning (without existing to the overland map) should be implemented as an alternative for those who want to explore scene to scene without the added step.

 

What, and actually spend money to flesh out the world? We're not made out of scenes!

 

This is a game made of scenes.

 

I was being sarcastic. Portalarium can't or isn't willing to create enough scenes so that players can travel between them without the overland map. That's the point of the overland map; its a cheap solution to world building.

 

Kickstarter stretch goals for $1.5m: doubled the size of the world map (to 16000+ hex's) but with a commitment to add only 20 extra unique scene's.

So an extra 8000+ generic populated scenes and more hex's to travel across to get to them, luckily although no marker above NPC's heads when looking for quests the scenes are marked out on the overland map.
A better choice may have been halve the world size and add 40 scene's.

 

Mmm, I was disconnected from internet for a while, but I feel that some points here never change.

 

That's because the points raised are still important, unlike pink Llama's

 

Even if those points are set in stone?

 

Nothing is ever set in stone, everything is subject to change.