Discussion in 'Release 34 Feedback Forum' started by Mitara, Oct 16, 2016.
Always add options, not subtract. The rule No.1 of every gamedev out there.
That truly is a personal statement. I bought Witcher III when it came out and I played it ~20ish hours and quit. Tried it again, played it 20 hours and quit again. But I put a good 120 into Fallout 4 before I was done and 100ish into Dragon age III, I finished both of them and loved them. I probably have 1000+ hours in SOTA now and still love it (ish).
How does 'this' subtract from anything?
More seriously, though this game was meant to be an RPG with multi-player options.
That is easily summarized in the opening statement of the kickstarter, "Lord British returns to his fantasy RPG roots with Shroud of the Avatar, hearkening back to his innovative early work."
The first few bullets are all about RPG:
Players adventure in an interactive world were choices have consequences...weaving their own story INTO the immersive world.
Selective Multiplayer game. Single-Player Offline is the first mode mentioned. ...story driven content.
...can be played as an offline DRM(?*) free solo experience or online
... Play the way you want to play.
(* No idea what DRM means here - anyone know? Thanks @Sir_Hemlock still perplexing as DRM would eventually preclude offline play in many ways if Portalarium stopped supporting the game.)
The last bullet I noted bugs me as I can't map my keys or mouse buttons to the way I want to play. I get stopped dead in my tracks by being placed in combat and have to pick auto-attack in order to move again using my mouse. ALT and SHIFT are locked off for bad and unknown reasons.
This game is not an RPG with multiplayer features.
The dev's greatest concerns are about MMO!
housing and decoration
lots + deeds
What do these have to do with the primary bullets about the game? Nothing. As a matter of fact I see nothing about these in any of the bullets describing the game to be built unless I was supposed to infer that from the opening paragraph of "...multi-player capabilities beyond combat akin to Ultima Online..."?
Don't get me wrong,
I like combat making sense and want to see PVP be fun, but not at the expense of never getting hugely complex combat skill trees.
I could careless about the player economy - sorry it has nothing to do with the story and I have no idea how it is going to work in the SPO version of the game - too much thought and control has been placed on this to make it fun or feasible in my opinion.
Regional economies? Still can't understand why time and effort is put into this not-gonna-happen concept.
I love my house and I want to decorate it with things I find in the world.
I think lots and deeds are being horribly mismanaged and will result in a ton of resentment for players who will feel like they'll never get a deed to use on open lots in the world. With expansions 2-5 I see no reason to be concerned that we need deeds to restrict land usage as it is likely there will be more lots than players eventually. Additionally POTs should be 100% under governor control and deeds should not exist for those.
Now I'll cover crafting. Don't confuse the "economy" with crafting. Crafting should make sense. We should be using a more realistic amount of resources to make items and the system should be fun and not punishing. Rarity should be assured by unique results and huge successes, not complete destruction of items and low durability. Instead of items needing COTOs they should last for several months of real-world time, requiring repair kits from crafters, and eventually being retired to be replaced with another crafted item. MONTHS, not a week or two of heavy play - MONTHS. 3-6 MONTHS. A crafter should be able to supply hundreds of adventurers not be run ragged constantly replacing gear for 20 players every couple of weeks, nor should they be selling at a consistent loss. Oh, oops I moved into the economy portion.
So, yes, I completely agree with @Lord_Darkmoon and I think you are amazing for sticking in there so long when clearly what was highlighted as the main goal has been ignored so long that I challenge anyone to see how SPOffline is going to be feasible as a play-style within the current MMO systems - instead it will take major systems being hugely gutted and replaced to make it happen.
As I write this the game is precisely two years past the original estimate for availability and I think it is clear why. The original goals have taken a back seat to making an MMO. Directly from the kickstarter: "A fantasy role-playing game that will focus more on player choices and discovery than on level grinding." Show me where grinding doesn't matter. Show me where choices are more important to our avatar than grinding?
My suggestion is to create an island like hidden Vale. This island would be free to play. Everyone would have a house to start, some clothes, some armor and weaps... lots of stuff. There would be adventuring scenes, resource scenes, encounters and etc. Basically the whole environment sans quests. People would be able to enter the real game by purchasing same when and if they are ready. Perhaps some crafted items, clothes, armor would accompany them as they leave the docks permanently for the game experience, never to come back to this beginner island. They could stay forever on the free island if they so choose, decorating their house, dancing in the streets, even leveling up, but leaving would be the start of the real game.
From my recollection
DRM is 'digital rights management'
Due to DRM complaints during Shrouds kickstarter campaign from backers concerned their game may become unplayable if Portybabe closed down 'servers' (in addition to R. Garriott's desire to play and test the game while traveling during flights etc) a decision was made to implement the independent offline SP mode.
If this were to happen i would be gone immediately and permanently.
Lol i think a lot of people would be. Myself included.
That being said .- Lack of interest? I guess its relevant. Ive got 500 + hours in since the final wipe, (and i started a few weeks after that) And im still fully amused. It has its slow spots for sure, but enough long term goals to keep someone relativly busy. That being said, im continously bringing in new players from other games that are loving it so far. So *shrug* i mean by time the new buddies and such are hitting point im at, there will be more content, or more pvp and better balance. I think everyone likes to scream abandon ship as soon as they feel slightly bored. There is DEFINITLY a lot of people that are sitting and waiting for development, but all that im sure is taken into account. Its an alpha. Its no secret where they are in the development, future plans, etc etc.. theres lots to come before they consider an actual release. Honestly the player base will stay low till then, and as long as they put a long properly untill that point.. there really is no need for concern IMO.
Again , ive said it before. The largest problem is simply we burn through content faster then they can development. It makes it feel slow, when really its pretty standard consdering the level of work going into each and everything (Except them answering my crit question. Looking at you Chris). If your bored, go take a break, seriously. Thers not enough here to keep everyone 100%, and its not intended to quite yet. That being said, i would be curious to know the amount of active players total, and compared to a month ago, and a month from now.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Yeah, DRM was all I could find, just not seeing how that applies to being able to be played offline.... ESPECIALLY if their servers were gone. DRM requires a check-in of some kind or a horrid third-party app that stops working properly a few years down the road keeping people from being able to play anyway because the DRM module broke. Then if we are lucky someone else will create a patch that we can put in the game folder to remove the DRM and be able to play again. That's why it perplexed me.
Actually your post was your personal experience. I was referring to the market interest. I havent played Witcher 3, or any other RPGs for that matter, but im in sota, because i enjoy this game as well. Just because we enjoy the game, does not change the market.
Yes, well, most of us are aware to that because of Darkmoon and you.
But seriously what do you expect them to do now?
Crush the mmo part that is already out there and then what?
How is this supposed to make anything better?
Most people that are (still?) here are here for different shades of an mmo.
I expect the SP mode to get the same love the MMO part gets.
If it is not possible to create a true SP experience in SP online, then the offline part should at least get this.
By this I mean a totally new and SP-like UI. No chat window but instead a great looking, atmospheric dialogue-window. True companions whose skills, inventory and gear we can manage. Visible consequences to our choices. Scenes that can change - even cities. Sleeping to advance time. Make camp. Better conversations (no repeatable answers which makes NPCs act like robots). Events like a murder occuring right in front of us or a thief running out of a shop. Fill the mostly empty scenes with things we can discover. No player housing with their ugly decorations copied to the offline part. Every NPC shoud get his/her home. Areas that are empty when in offline mode should be filled with interesting stuff...
Yes this would mean A LOT of extra work for the offline part but so be it. There has been a lot of work put into the MMO part, so it would only be fair to do the same with the offline part.
Ok, from a marketing perspective, comparing SOTA to Witcher 3 is goofy. How many people were playing Witcher 3 in alpha 6 months before its release? What condition was Witcher III in 6 months before its release?
This was about a year before release... Looks very similar to the released game in terms of graphics, gameplay mechanics, quests, UI, dialogues... Many things were still missing for sure and I am sure there were tons of bugs but still, it looks very similar to the released game... even a year before release.
Also keep in mind that Witcher 1 was very crappy at the release. For several months, I regretted buying the collector edition. The game didn't turn into a golden jewel of Czech Republic until they ravamped and launched the enhanced edition, which blew everyone's mind. By the time they're in Witcher 3, they already have the tech and resources to get much ahead than their competitors.
It does no one any good to say that we shouldn't have an offline single player just because Witcher 3 is out there. Instead, we should look into Witcher 1, 2, 3 and many other offline single player games and see what features can the dev team adapt (not a bonehead copying) in order to enhance SotA game play experience.
If you run out of things to do in SotA, then maybe it's a good time to seek out external inspiration and share it back to our good folks here for more discussion.
Hard to make that determination from a video, easy to make it look great. The videos for SOTA that our players made make it look great. That would take us to the next argument:
"Now CD Projekt has revealed some interesting numbers behind the making of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt in its summary of the first half of 2015, including that it cost a whopping $81 million to make"
Pol / Sota only has 10 million at this point.
If people expectations are that a 10 million dollar game is going to compete with a AAA title that spent 81 million then they need to make adjustments. I have complete faith that Lord British is going to provide us the best bang for the buck game he can with the resources he has.
Its hasnt stopped me from putting thousands of house into SOTA over the past 10 months... Witcher 3, even with 81 million into it only took probably ~30 hours of my time.
No one expects SotA to look like the Witcher 3. A lot oft the money was used to create the graphics and the cutscenes... But creating compelling quests should not be a matter of much millions of dollars...
Also The Witcher 3 sold 20 Million copies although it doesn't have housing
After watching this video and looking at some videos from SotA, I wonder how they will "sell" the quest-part of the game... When marketing starts will showing quests be a part of this? Because the quests I did were like running around for half an hour, finding an NPC, looking at some IRC chat, reading the same sentences again and again while trying to find the right keyword... I would not say that this is very convincing for someone who wants to play Sota because of the "single player narrative" or because of "over 40 hours of story in an interactive world where their choices have consequences, ethical paradoxes give them pause, and they play a vital part in weaving their own story into the immersive world and lore surrounding them"...
As much as I understand your position let me tell you two things. I know you are aware of them but I will point them out anyway.
At first the mmo part still didn't get enough love. By far still not enough.
Secondly the mmo part is the part that brings the money. Who the hell will spend money for items that are mainly vanity items and available in offline mode anyway.
This may be true, yet the single player part already brought in money and helped kickstart the game in the first place. As I said in another thread, I am sure that the Kickstarter campaign of SotA would have failed without the SP fans. So they were good enough to help fund the game but not good enough for their favourite part to get the same love as the MMO part?
I want a game that was like U1-U9. I spent good money for that. I also want a fun multiplayer environment. MMO's, however can be developed after release for years and never be what the players and the dev's want it to be. The RPG needs attention at this point while the MMO can establish a baseline.
Again, the kickstarter was all about an RPG with rich story and player's affecting the world - where choices matter and level grinding isn't important. We do not have that at all yet and that was the premise and the promise.
Separate names with a comma.