Why are my fellow avatars making the case for closed development?

Yes, I think you are right it basically comes down to binary thinking and other logical fallacies.

I would say that coupled with a lack of understanding or awareness that how a person feels is determined, in part, by how they think.

 

This needs to be on a wall, proclaimed to the world.

 

"Truly Fascinating!"

 

troll
trōl/
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling

1. 1.
   informal
   make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

 

Oh I don't consider myself a whiner... but I have been told I am mean and an arsehole... I've never tried to refute that.

 

Don't feed.

 

I sometimes resemble that statement !'

~Time Lord~

 

It's OK for people to be angry, frustrated and disappointed, right? Right from day one, I was strangely, almost immediately put off by the so called white knights. They actually, again strangely, gave me negative karma towards the game. I can't explain why. Maybe we should think about that before we call out "these people" as some kind of anti-SoTA. It can work both ways. Think about your impact first.

Anyway I'm not unsure if I am in the minority but I jumped headlong into the game based on some short snippets I read from the original Kickstarter. If I had come to the forums beforehand or had done some research, I doubt I would have tried the game.

Not because of "these people" who appear to often just seem genuinely aggrieved and disappointed with how things are turning out, but because the game is really really really nothing at all like any Ultima game I have ever played (and I have played it recently with all the changes that have taken place). As an elder statesmen I remember the Ultima games first time around and they had a profound effect on me. UO had an even greater impact, giving me what I never thought possible. I play many other games not at all like Ultima, every day of my life, but I didn't go in with the expectation that they would be.

I feel disappointed by this, greatly so. But I am now back mostly playing classic EQ on Project 1999 again. Moving on as it were with barely a whimper.

As it stands SoTA seems like a fairly competent but directionless hybrid of various social and solitary games and if it didn't have the Ultima thing attached to it, I would probably feel more warmth towards it. I think many here, even the staunch defenders, would not even have shown an interest were it not for the names involved. As a veteran of nearly 20 years of MMO gaming, this one feels currently fairly generic and I miss whatever the hook is supposed to be (happy to accept that it may be me).

I'm sure Port are making the best game they can, but one of the things mentioned in the OP struck a chord. I'm not convinced having such an open development has worked in it's favour. It's too much. Brave, heart on sleeve type stuff maybe, but...

 

I accept the cynic, because without them, there is no balancing view in order to see the center, which can only be seen more clearly from seeing through both views. Both teach the other what the middle is.
"The cynic is the hammer to the anvil of creation" !'

~Time Lord~

 

Baron, I think you're focusing too much on the most negative and obnoxious behavior. The vast majority of criticism/suggestion here is constructive and given with good and helpful intentions. The remainder needs to be ignored, not highlighted.

I'm always surprised that people react so quickly and strongly to obviously trolling or just plain stupid posts. "SOTA will suck forever!" someone posts ...... and then a ton of people dive in, needlessly defend SOTA, and give credence to the topic simply by recognizing it and responding to it.

BTW, "where's my cloth map" is NOT a stupid question. They're a couple of years behind announced schedule, they've done a poor job managing expectations for delivery timing, and this and other items should have been delivered a lloooonnnnggg time ago. Just because there are higher priorities doesn't mean that physical goods couldn't have already been made, signed and sent.

 

Thanks for mentioning this. The title and purpose of the OP was in part to explore if open development (like this) where we're seeing everything at it's lowest maturity level is more trouble than it's worth?

I've followed near every post, interview, video, and statement made by the development team. I've played every release, and still I don't feel that either their overall communication or their day to day communication is sufficient to prepare or explain what we're really doing here. I think the average gamer simply doesn't get it because it's so foreign a concept. Most players download or get a game from a store shelf and it's already "complete". Even "early access" is something that doesn't really do our game or the iterative process enough justice.

I have so many stories of my own bad reactions to the iterative process that only now I feel like I fully understand. For example, during one of the earliest release (I'll guess it was R3 or something), I went on the forums and said something like "I don't understand why we don't have the ability to sheath our weapons!" because at that time the player characters were all running around with swords in their hands, and I'd played other games like that before where there was no ability to sheath the weapon and so everything just ran around looking stupid. Well the post caused a big storm and generally as I remember it most of the community agreed, but when Chris read it he immediately posted a reply that was like "look, if you are this upset about not having a sheath animation then you should probably take a break for the next year and come back when the game is more complete" dismissing my feedback as something that didn't need to be discussed at that time and certainly didn't require anyone to be "upset about it".

From Chris's perspective, he probably had 1000 other things on his mind and considered a sheath animation one of many things they would eventually get to when it made sense from a resource and timing standpoint. But from my point of view I had no idea if R3 would lead to launch and this was getting close to the final build because they never explained or roadmapped expectations in a way that I could effectively digest. In other words, Chris wasn't doing anything wrong but neither was I, there was just a huge communication gap.

Over the next few years that gap lessened between Chris and I and probably the development team and the people that have been here participating in feedback and bug reports, and the expectations have changed as the game has improved month over month. At least, from the standpoint of some of the people that might be called "white knights". I don't think the communication of Poratlarium has changed much, but the actions over time have shown what's really going on here (slow and deliberate iterative development where player feedback is used to make a better game). But obviously not all people see it as that, perhaps because they're not paying the same attention, or perhaps because their particular feedback is not being actioned upon. But it's happening nonetheless.

My point though isn't to say that "these people" are entirely at fault for that, but more so to state that there is a high likelihood that many of the questions in the OP would not be asked if we had a closed development, simply because it's so much easier to wait for games to come out when they don't give you any communication at all. Just look at Underworld Ascendant, which was kickstarted, has ties to Ultima, and also has a closed development model. Do you really know anything about that game? In comparison to SOTA, the answer is a strong no. I backed that game and I couldn't really tell you how good or bad it looks, how mature the features are, if I think I'll like it or not, or how closely it compares to what was pitched during the Kickstarter.

If you look at Underworld Ascendant's forums, they're dead. If you look at all the information the devs have provided you probably don't know much more about the game today than you would if you started following the development two years ago. There's no outrage over this. In fact, check this out!

I can fit the entire reddit history for Underworld Ascendant right here:

Think about that for a second? Where are all the complaints? I mean, there's NONE. Where's all the conspiracy theories and the primal rage? Where's all the alt accounts and people that were "wrongly" banned?

The difference is that no one knows anything about this game, the design decisions they've made or changed, and therefore people are spending their time playing and arguing about things like SOTA, where there's never a shortage of people to troll, things to be upset about, or promises to reaffirm. SOTA's first impression was made 45 releases ago. While Underworld Ascendant is still a mystery behind a fog of "I can't wait for that to come out someday!"

It's just one thread, and I was talking about negative statements in multiple sources (not just on this forum). Most of my free time is spent in-game having fun. It just so happens that this week I wasn't able to play as much as I'd like but still had access to the forums. Lucky you!

 

Part of it is the Emperor's new clothes effect. If you've invested 5 figures into a game that flops hard, you're an idiot, you can sugar coat it a bit and say it was valiant effort or that you helped pushed the boundary of the medium or even that the game's excellence wasn't recognized in its time, but you still end up looking like someone that invested as much as many people make in a year into rare Pogs. Ergo, if anyone calls the game bad or likely to fail, they are effectively calling you an idiot. Once folks have invested in it on such a personal level, the BS this forum invites is inevitable.

Their title has around 45 people that are invested in the game for more than $1000, how many do we have?

 

I think this type of development breeds what we are seeing. It's real warts and all stuff and I do agree with you to a point. I think when you put your game out there, state it is now persistent, then I think there is a different attitude from gamers to that. We all know it's still alpha but it is there to buy and persistent. I may be wrong but I think many of the survival games that seem to be in constant development get a lot of negative press as well.

My example would be Pantheon. The only negativity I have heard about it are references to Brad McQuaid's drug history and about him going and spending all the funding. They have the game locked down and have used a big Twitch streamer showing off controlled gameplay to get people talking about it. Because of this I am really excited to see what is going on behind those closed doors. Maybe Port's way will be shown to be right. At the moment though it feels like the wrong decision.

 

I'm not sure how unique my experience is. I saw the announcement of the game in 2013, I like what read/saw, I like what was originally done UO and hoped this game would fill that void of me. Being a UO player, crafting, selling things and housing were a set expectation for me.

I backed it at a level to get myself a TF Village and it was at a dollar amount I was comfortable with. Once I made my pledge, I put it on the back shelf until I felt it was time to play and see. I logged on a couple of times in 2016 but didn't really get in until persistence. Once the land rush was upon us, I checked to see when I was slotted and headed out.

BTW, I personally thought the whole phased system based on how much you pledged sucked! I gave Portalarium a chunk of money and had zero chance to get a decent spot where I could setup a vendor. I ended up with a house in a small NPC town with zero chance of making a living selling things. I actually sold my TF Royal Founder Village deed for funds to purchase a space in Owls Head. Now I pay taxes.

So I set out to start working my character and living my life in the East Perennial Trail. A couple months in I found a guild that I really liked and started to play with them. I learned from them and started to grow my character. The next problem I saw was that learning to play this game is accomplished via trial & error or through tribal knowledge. So what did I do? I started posting tutorials videos so I could learn stuff and to teach others. (I started to participate in the community).

I still have a lot to learn and I'm enjoying myself. I guess in the end I did not have all of these rigid expectations of the game. I just wanted to get in and have fun. And that is happening so I'm a happy person. Do I agree with everything they are doing? No. Overall am I having fun? Yes. So I am happy.

I like the passion that people are showing and demanding of Portalarium. Community is important and critical to the success of this game. I cannot tell you how many people number one like of the game is how helpful people are.

Should this have been closed development? Yes and no. I wouldn't have made it available to as many people for R1. Making it available so early establishes/sets expectations which are hard to change. I would have limited the number of players earlier and expanded it at major milestones (quarterly or semi-annual releases). But that is just my opinion.

Hope to see you in game...
Elaina Strongbow

 

You actually bring up a very valid point here. But then you confuse it to be a trump card and use it as a weapon that essentially says anyone that spends more than the customary amount is an idiot.

Your argument is the same as any person that was born in the 1930's and doesn't understand video games at all. Why you wouldn't just take a hoop and stick and run down the street with it is beyond me! That doesn't cost even a nickle!

Oh you bought a brand new Cadillac and put new white walls on it? Well that makes sense and is clearly a sign that you're doing quite well financially.

Well, they also had $1.1 million less in funding and 9000 less backers during their kickstarter than SOTA did. What's your point again?

Oh yeah, that the Emperor has no clothes. That because people have so much invested in this game they can't see that reality. Which I said above was a good point and so I don't want to dismiss it entirely, but I also don't want that narrative to be seen as a reason to label this community as "toxic" or "wrong" or anything else, because that would be incorrect. The community as a whole does have a lot invested into this game, if not money then time (people do play it ya know) and the feedback they've given is being implemented by the developers, the bugs being reported are being fixed, and even more so because they want it to succeed and they continue to see it improve month to month.

SOME people that call the game "bad or likely to fail" are ignoring the above reality that the people in this community actually like the game because they're having fun and they see the likelihood that the game will continue to improve. To ignore that or dismiss that is to create a false narrative where "all the people that like the game are just giant whales that can't admit they're wrong". So sure, some of the people that spent a lot may be very biased towards the future in ways that people that no longer play the game or that didn't spend as much are not. But that doesn't make them wrong "no matter how you spin it", it just makes them engaged and supportive of future success.

Where I think you and others appear to misunderstand this community is that your attempts to provide feedback often start and end with the idea that the game we have created to date is not worth defending. By calling people that do defend it "white knights" in a derogatory way, you're taking the exact stance you're arguing against. In effect you're saying that if people can't take the constant and unproductive negative output then they obviously don't deserve to be taken seriously and trolling (even though you wouldn't call it that) is somehow justified.

 

In retrospect, I have no doubt that they should have been more closed with their development of this game.

I don't think going persistent had any impact on this however. The same people that didn't like the game prior to persistence are essentially the same people that don't like it now. (This is a general statement and I'm not saying this is 1 for 1, just generally that this statement is true)

The only part of the open development of SOTA that I would want to defend is the part where really great ideas from the community have made it into the game. POTs would be one example of that. We can argue all day long if the implementation of POTs was done well, and might even agree on parts that were not performed well. But the idea of players owning their own towns is a great one, and that would not have happened during a close development. There are many other examples like this where features and changes have been driven by community suggestions and while it's absolutely true that the community feedback has sometimes slowed down development, it's also true that it's made the game better and more robust overall.

If I could go back in time and change everything to closed development, I would, I think the devs would, and I think this would be a very different game. Better in some ways and far worse in others. The best thing it would do though is get off of the unrealistic expectations road that a handful of people have built for it.

 

That was a really nice post, Elaina.

I especially liked your analysis about how learning our game is very tribal. That's a great observation! I hadn't thought about it that way before, but you put it into really simple terms. I think our tribal system of knowledge is both a flaw in the design (because it's a huge learning curve for anyone, not just new people) but also a huge testament to our community's passion to succeed and overall good nature.

Well said!

 

I think that's correct. Anyone that backs more with their $ is generally optimistic or they wouldn't have pledged so much.

Yep!

I did also! I thought that first come to SOTA first served should have ruled that. All that did was make allot of rich investors richer and then selling the placement to re-coop what they invested. But maybe those higher investors wouldn't have pledged so much any other way. There's allot of pros and cons to that... mostly full of cons? LoL But that's the way the world is because we were never promised what we assumed was fact. Sux... yet.. but what can we do water under "and over" our bridge

Yep!.... I much more prefer the term "FanBoy"

Once a cynic, always a cynic? A leopard never changes it's spots? Tigers always wear striped suits? "Maybe" ~Time Lord~

 

Most, in my experience, prefer to be referred to as "Realists."

 

"Why are you trolling me @Rufus D`Asperdi " ...

~Time Lord~