Final Wipe and Lot Selection

You may feel it was a bad decision to allow players to pledge to higher tiers for earlier placement - but it was a known decision. Pledge higher, get earlier lot selection. But they feel entitled to do it, because they are entitled to do it. There is no injustice here - if you are a Developer you might pledge to Citizen to get ahead in the placement for row lots. If you are a citizen you might go Edelmann/Knight/Knight Marshal/Lord and even higher if you really want a particular village lot.

^^ This was an early quote of course, now village lots are located in towns and cities as well, but you can still claim smaller lots with a larger deed.

You see things like this in a few places:

^^This is nothing new, and it it has been the basis for many pledgers. You may not like the system, but it is the system that has been in place all along and the one we have been using. More Pledged Money gets you an earlier lot selection, as does Royal Founder or Founder status. There is even a disclaimer to Knights that there's no guarantee of a water village lot - Village waterfront lots available to Village, Town or City deed holders with higher value pledges having lot selection over lower value pledges.

 

Wouldn't it be highly entertaining for the devs to add in some choice location plots when it came down to that last group in the land rush.

Speculation does have it's risks.

 

I just wanted to add that you are NOT paying for a "desired" lot. You are paying for a deed to a lot of that size that can be used somewhere in the game world and are guaranteed a spot in an NPC or PRT. If you pledge/bought an add-on deed so you can get a specific lot then you are going to be disappointed.

The lot selection order has been known for a while. I pledged a year ago and saw this information before I pledged. It was being discussed then about how some viewed the ability to claim a lower lot was unfair, but that has been the known process for a long, long time. Many people knew this and pledge to a higher tier to guarantee a better selection of the lot size they actually want. When I first pledged I thought a village lot would be plenty for a solo player like myself so I worked my way to Lord level over the past year to increase my CHANCES of getting a better village lot with my lord tax-free town lot.

I have been playing with the town sized lot lately and like the flexibility of the that size lot so I may place it on a Town Lot if I find one in an area I like when my placement slot occurs. If not I have the flexibility to choose a village lot. I (and several others) have pledged to the level they have in order to have that flexibility as per how the process was laid out. Changing the order (as has been suggested by some) or disallowing higher deeds claim lower deeds at this point would create more backlash and problems than they will have just leaving it the way it was originally laid out over a year ago.

 

That isn't the issue.
The issue is everyone in a higher tier being able to take lower tier lots. Not that that get to choose first.
Put another way: If lot selection was limited to exactly what was purchased, rather than being able to poach a lower tier lot, would all those poachers still be happy with getting exactly what they paid for?
No, no they would not, because that would be fair.

 

If you're going to quote me - please quote the rest of the post please which includes, from as early as kickstarter:

Lot selection is not limited to exactly what was purchased, and despite using terms with negative connotations like poacher to define people who pledged higher getting a broader selection of lots (I still don't see the difference between Navigator upgrading to Developer and Developer upgrading to Citizen for an a better chance at their favorite row lot) - there's nothing wrong with a Baron choosing to live on a village lot.

Village lots are available to all deed holders at or above village level, with higher pledges getting earlier selection. I understand you don't think it is fair for someone to upgrade from Knight to Lord to get an earlier pick at Village lots, but it has been this way for nearing 3 years.

 

Yep, and it's going to be an absolute public relations DISASTER on July 28, 2016. (so I can quote myself later, and have a good "i told you so" moment)

 

I was wondering: If I start right after the final wipe, will I:

A) be able to enjoy the story or will it change until "release" so that I did experience not the "real" story so far?
B) rush through the story if my hero has reached master levels so that the story does provide no challenges anymore?

 

I think the bigger disaster (without a highlight, capitalize, italisize, bold and underline) would be the one that is going back on a promise, not honouring it.

Like if they let Ancestors choose at the same time as Developers, or if Benefactors placed at the same time as Royal Founders. That would be bad PR. Honoring a promise to players who pledged higher to get their pick of lots first is not really the same level.

But I can respect that nothing new is coming to this conversation so I'll just drop it.

 

I've thought about both of those options a lot.

A) I don't believe the story will change. However, the mechanics SUPPORTING the story will change, so it won't necessarily be the same experience.

B) This is the other main reason I will be playing the story offline.

 

I'd say both of those will be true, to a degree, Lord_Darkmoon. The whole story won't be done, so you'll have to either re-do it with another character, or just accept that as a consequence of seeing it early.
Out leveling content will be the norm, given the "decay only applies at death" current design goal for restricting progression. Or put another way, I think players will be less likely to take risks when they know death is so punitive.

 

Higher level tiers being able to take lower tier lots is specifically permitted, and the fact that it encourages people to increase their pledge level is good for the funding of the game.

 

A) They have said that the three starting stories will be complete by final wipe just not all of them in a polished form. So there isn't going to be any missing of the "real" story.
B) This could be a problem. That's why people will either concentrate on the story offline or use a new second character for the story online to experience with friends (who do the same) once its all released and polished.

 

Hmmm... ok. I think it is unfortunate that our heroes may be too "strong" for the storyquests to provide challenges when they are finished. But then I will play the story offline after the quests are finalized.

If the quests are basically finished but not polished after final wipe, maybe our feedback on the quests will change them somewhat... So the "final" experience could be different from the experience after final wipe...

 

This is a good question that I didn't see answered in this thread. I saw that May 2nd seemed to be a cut off for some pledge upgrades, but it's not clear which ones. For me, housing seems like it will be necessary to enjoy the game. As of R23, I haven't been impressed enough with general gameplay to upgrade to ancestor for the tax free lot (which, for me, seems like the only enjoyable way to do housing). I'm willing to give the next couple of releases a shot to see if it's worth that purchase price (e.g. that I'll actually stick with the game for a bit), but it would be nice to know what the specific cut-off date is that I would need to make that decision.

Also, I gotta say, watching this from kickstarter on, while I can appreciate the desire for 'non-traditional' development, the approach has really not been communicated well. I've been disappointed with several decisions made regarding development (don't cry for me argentina, lol), including this launching the game, but not calling it a launch. I think for many players of persistent online games (perhaps I'm wrong) 'launch' is the time where you are able to begin your persistent character development. That seems to be what is occurring at 'final wipe', regardless of what systems are in the game at that time. Even from a simple marketing perspective, from a company I assume wants to make money, how are they going to explain this to their potential customer base?

"Is the game out yet?"
"No, it has not been launched."
"Great, so I can be on equal footing with everyone when it starts!"
"Yes...except for those that have been leveling, exploring, adventuring and resource collecting for months. Also, there's 10 housing lots left."

This launch that's not a launch seems like a clever way of not having to be accountable for a development timeline. Because you can play it, but of course 'that' feature's not in it yet, because it hasn't launched. It's confusing at best, particularly to the 'new' customers they may want to 'pull in' who have not followed the development of this game. Maybe there's something to be said for publishers having some reign over developers (shocking!).

It'll be interesting to see if we learn anything from this wild west period of crowd funding.

 

There will always be people who start playing the game much later than others. I'm sure every day even WoW has new people playing it for the first time. As for the housing supply (strictly speaking the deed supply), that will be carefully managed so that home ownership is relatively rare. That is a core and intended part of the game design. Nevertheless there will be plenty of deeds available for purchase through in game currency at or after launch (an extra 30% on top of all the deeds accounted for through pledges and real money sales).

The whole "persistence=launch" thing is no more than opinion, and has no basis in fact. By definition the game is launched when the developers say it is launched, regardless of opinion.

 

You're absolutely right. They can define it however they like. Whether or not consumers of the game agree with that definition and shine to it will be interesting to see.

 

Agreed on the launch points. The gaming press is already referring to July 28th, 2016 as launch, and will do so forever, I suspect.
Great question regarding how are they going to explain it.
And what I've personally learned from this crowd funding? Don't do it again, ever.
So, on that front, I've got Portalarium to thank for saving me a whole bucket load of cash in the future.

 

I hadn't seen that yet, but it doesn't surprise me. They really need to consider some of these decisions from a marketing perspective. I'm no expert, but I think if you are straying from the norm, you need to have a simple, logical, and compelling reason you are doing so and why it is superior to what has been done in the past. This sort of message would help current and future customers, I think.

 

one of the reasons i funded was to get the experience of it.
another reason i funded, was i had faith that this particular core group of devs would keep their S&#^ together, and so far they have.
another reason i funded was how this is a game designed around the ideal of ultimas and ultima online, while still maintaining its own sense of self.
yet another reason i funded this was the touted level of 'living in' immersion will be much higher than most games where you are motivated to 'log in' instead - and it already has that.


so for points 1 3 and 4, my funding project was a success. and point 2, is still in progress while looking optimistic.

once point 2 is finalized, i'll actually have an educated opinion on if i should fun again this way or not, by then my funding experience will be whole.

 

It still comes down to player perception. They can play the legalese game (Don't lawyer me, bro!) with the verbage, but it does come down to how the players respond and play the game. It's not a bad thing if this is considered a "launch" if it's a good game. The problem with keeping it in Early Access is the continued stigma that the label has, and it doesn't get rid of the craptastic amount of negative Steam reviews.

I'd prefer they actually waited and launched properly, but that's the Dev's call. The critics will make their own decisions.