Q4 2017 Schedule Update

The problem is that Portalarium will say something like "we hope to release by the end of the year". Some people interpret that to mean that the game will be released by the end of the year and then they get flaming mad when it doesn't happen. They also get flaming mad when their pet aspect is not worked on, which would cause the release date to be pushed back.

 

I've been predicting march as 5 years since Kickstarter started - though I imagine there are numerous 5 year milestones around at that time if they need to shift a month or two

 

They just cannot release the game with its current issues the reviews would be terrible and the game would fail.

Perhaps less concentration on creating pixels to sell in the cash shop and more on sorting the core elements by the devs might have been a better use of their time sooner than now but that ship has sailed..

 

I see some problems here:
1. The Kickstarter pitch in itself was very vague. Many didn't know what SotA was going to be by just reading this pitch. So the devs released several videos to clarify what this game is about. In two videos it was said that SotA would basically be a SP experience with the option to play online. In one of those videos Richard Garriott spoke to Warren Spector and told him what SotA would be. When he mentioned "basically solo player" Warren was excited, because he thought that SotA would be a SP RPG first and foremost. And others thought this, too. As those videos were ment to clarify what SotA is, many believed this and thus pledged during the Kickstarter.
2. Even afterwards it wasn't corrected and said that SotA will NOT be a "basically SP game". Just suddenly the description changed and it was referred to as a MMORPG. The SP features got pushed back more and more, the game became more of an MMORPG and didn't feel at all like a SP game.

If the game never was meant to be a basically SP RPG then why didn't they say so? Why did they make the fans believe otherwise - at least the whole time the Kickstarter campaign went on? Without the money from the SP fans SotA would probably not have been funded as the game didn't receive much more money than they initially wanted. No wonder many feel cheated. Go over to the Kickstarter page and read through the comments. This is even worse than on Reddit.
Maybe the devs should have been much more clear with what SotA was going to be - maybe then the game could be viewed as something different but it didn't happen.

 

Thank you @Lord_Darkmoon, for this information.

Because of this, I think they have to do a lot of more stuff - and they will.

Just one point:
Which Single Player would need all this housing stuff ??? So with including housing it was clear, what direction it takes ...

I wondered about less players voting for Quest-, Journal- and Mapimproving, which is also an important part for the Solo Game...
I don't know, may be most people who likes questing aren't often at the forum?
At first I am playing a game for the story, not for lvl up endless ...

What I see is: the story received a lot of love the last releases as promised.
And I think until end of December, the whole storyline is fixed and in a very good state to explore it.

Well, is it important, who said what at which time?
I think, for Episode 2, all involved parties will have learned a lot and will do things better
And what we don't have to forget:
The first Episode wasn't just about the first Story Episode - but about all the basic programming for a great Storyline.

After resetting next Release I will play through the paths again to feel, if it is an interesting story to dive in
I think it is really important that a lot of players will do this to improve it until Launch (may be January, February, March, April ...)
And with the story is complete and improved, I don't see a problem for the Single Player mode, because the story is the mainpart of it.

So all Solo Players: play the story and fill the bug and feedback forum to make the story great! This is what we need

 

I don't want to take this off-topic but there were many discussions about questing, impact to the world and Single Player Experience. @Lord_Darkmoon is an advocate for these topics since the beginning but there were other players who since got silence or just left. The problem with this style of development is that features or designs get moved out but not officially cancelled / changed and sometimes things first go into obscurity and then vanish without proper explanation. This is why voices are raised.

 

If you actually go watch the video conversations that were referenced, Richard is talking about what he Hope they will be able to achieve with the game.
I will agree that many of those hopes have changed and not been fulfilled over the course of the last 4 years, but never were those hopes put forth as a promise, but have been so interpreted by some.

 

No mention of physical rewards from KS (original date Oct 2014) and no mention of offline improvements for the rest of this year. Offline is not a top priority? That is sad. This is not the game I backed during KS.

 

I think the videos expand on the given launch information, as in all kickstarters they have more interviews, videos, updates and awards added to keep interest.

I do not dispute that they marketed the game in a way that was to appeal to as many crowds as possible, including SP crowd.

BUT - I disagree that you can take those (two?) statements from the interviews (out of all interviews and all the statements they made) and boil the game down to "basically solo player".

That would require you to put on blinders and ignore all the multi-player statements they made (guilds/pvp/finite housing(haha)/etc.).


I don't know the full context of the video, but whilst I believe that players had the impression they would have a story worth playing through (solo-player), I don't see how you can boil the pitch of the game down to one quote.

They wouldn't need to say the game is not "basically an SP game" because everywhere else in the pitch said Multiplayer, multiplayer, multiplayer, multiplayer.


By all means, fight for the Story, Quests, and Solo-Experience. You just do yourself an injustice in your fight by trying to say the game was intended to be basically a solo-game that you can also play with friends. Because from day 1 that was never the entirety of the pitch.

Your thoughts, suggestions, criticisms are good - but sometimes they are hard to see because you throw that particular quote out as the definition of what SotA is - whilst appearing to ignore the entirety of the campaign, the other updates and interviews, and the answers in the very first section of the Kickstarter: What is Shroud of the Avatar?

 

I never said someone promised something.
I think it is good, that forum users tell us, why and how they are thinking in the way they are thinking about

 

To the best of my knowledge, that's a true statement. You've never so stated, and I've no reason to doubt your word.

 

But you can't dismiss it either.
If Richard Garriott would have said "SotA will basically be Ultima Online 2, a sandbox MMORPG but you can play it alone, too" and then suddenly it would have had a single-player focus with a neglected MMO-part, you guess what would have happened then

 

I think some people struggle with the idea that it's easier to add single-player onto an MMO than it is to add MMO to single-player.

 

I think he tried to pitch to both. And this game is far more SP-centric that Ultima Online was. UO didn't have much of a story or quest in comparison. I have never dismissed the solo-player experience, just that this is a Solo-Player game. I just watched the video, and he didn't call it "basically a solo player game".

What he said was:

He went on to say you could decide how solo or multi-player you want that experience to be by opting in/out of online play. The problem (blessing and curse) with UO was that the non-combat roles in the game became so popular and difficult to maintain. There really was no story grafted through it. With Ultima 5 we simulated a party so you had a foil to what you brought to the game personally.

I'm interested to experiment here. I don't think we will give you an AI companion party like we did in those, but we will let you play with your friends - remember this is not a committment, just a discussion we are having, but you might be able to look in their home and see their NPC in their home and say hey.
.....

So, at least we ARE getting companions despite this interview.

Ultimately it was called a selective multi-player game, not a selective solo-player game. And here were the promises:

Story more compelling than U4-U7. World more interactive than U7. Multi-player sandbox better than UO.

(And it was called selective multi-player, not selective solo-player.) And Selective multi-player isn't just a crock or marketing hype - whether you go for it or not, it is pretty cool that you can choose 4 or 5 people and adventure the world, RP, whatever - turn off the global channels and never see another avatar if you want. Just you and your friends. And then you can seamlessly transition to the full world whenever you want.

And we are getting more options offline than I expected - based on what I recalled from the kickstarter.

 

Well, I don't know about what kind of things, features or designs were changed in the past.

I think, there always will be differences between what was said and what was expected.
And I think it is good to talk about this. The way to talk about is something different.
May be a good idea to make a list of "promised" or "expected" features to talk about and how important these things are until game launch? And don't forget things came in and made it better.

My intention isn't to tell "what is right" or "who is wrong".
As an Ultima fan I like the gameworld and I like the possibility to give a little help as response for the fun.

I just focus on what I can do to help making the Storypart a better one:
Game testing, telling bugs and sharing my thoughts about "funbreakers" (bad mapsystem, missing Journal functions ...). If someone decides to consider my opinion, it's fine. If not - than not
That's okay.

If something in game keep fun from me, I try to get it back.
An example: the skills in earthtree for higher Strength and airtree for higher Dex were changed:
More time for the effect, but negative effects, too. I am not agreed with this decision.
So I decided, these skills aren't interesting to use any longer.
I lvled down to 40 and took the XP points to raise other skills faster I need more.
(Beside this: This is a good point of the system.)
And I hope, in future every Skill will give back 100% of the earned XP to be just flexible and fair.
If not, well, what a pity...

Because of this, it is really important that player talk about their feelings.
And it is also important to make clear, what can be expected - and what not.

 

Take a look at this video. At around minute 0:45.


But I think we are derailing this thread. So we should probably stop discussing this here. The ship has sailed anyway

 

Battle Mere is doing it the other way around. First the Dungeon Solo Game Exanima. And there they will finetune all from Combat to AI to Assets and NPC interaction and everything. Then they will develop Sui Generis with the Coding of the System they made from the Solo Game.
And the Solo Game will become one Dungeon of the MMO World.

 

Well nothing is finished just because we will release. I still believe offline single player can get love and I truly don't think it should be released at the same time as the online game. If people could get a grip on that happening and allow the online focus to get the love it needs, I believe single player offline would have a better chance.

If people give up and make it about an either or situation I feel it impacts the quality of both forcing a torn focus on both aspects of the game. If the battle for the offline supporters could wait for their offline game to get its focus and love later in 2018 perhaps it wouldn't be thrown in as best it can with devs trying to appease that audience too.

I say just request they stop doing that and focus on one at a time. Make the offline game later. Otherwise imo you lose some chance of redemption for the kind of features of the game you want to see for offline if you fight for both games being developed and released at the same time.

Stop the madness and let them get one game released first which is online and get your offline later with proper focus on it. If they appease you now it won't get you nearer to what you would like to see in offline. It will be a thrown together to appease and miss the mark anyway which is happening. Make the request and let them focus for the good of both games types. Rally the troops.

 

Maybe this is my last posting here - and this says much. I believe the worst things which can happen for a game are not bad reviews, but to lose the interest. And this is exactly what happened to me. However, I totally agree with you, dear @Lord_Darkmoon

 

Not promises in that one has recourse if they are not met. Certainly expectations that result in a loss of confidence if not met.