Sorry not again but I have to re stretch goal remedy

Ok, so it is clear we are not in short supply of good ideas, so... where are we going and how do we get there?

Do we need to take a poll on which stretch goals are preferred, assuming the investment levels are not telling the whole story? If someone does this, please make it multi-select and include the option to remove the stretch goals for now.


I try to stay optimistic about things, but I would rather have no stretch goals at the moment and just get a self-sustaining game with a solid foundation as soon as possible.

 

I like your ideas A LOT...the one addition I'd want tacked on is that new stretch goals MUST have additional functionality that you retain as someone that invested in the stretch goal.

If whatever you're buying is free for everyone else when the stretch goal is met, then there's no value there. So for example, if horses are horses and they can be used for farm work, that's great! But if everyone gets that functionality when the stretch goal is met then we're right back in the same place we were before. You have to create stretch goals that say "If you pledge, you get something of value that people that don't pledge will not get". Otherwise, people will just wait it out and pay nothing.

 

I saw Starr say this directly in that thread. He said if we eventually get mounts in a future episode for example, then the baby horses will grow up and become functional horses.

The added functionality of other items has to be handled carefully. We want to create incentive, but we don't want to become pay to win (combat bonuses).

 

I disagree, to an extent. I believe that there must *NOT* be additional functionality that is not available in-game. What you are paying for in the Stretch Goal Store items (beyond helping fund the goal itself) should be the same as what you would get in the Add-On Store after the goal is met. These are 1) items with a unique appearance, compared to what is available with in-game funds, and 2) quick access to a higher (but not highest) tier of goods.

So for the horses, each of the breeds available in the Stretch Goal Store should have a unique appearance which will not be available to purchase in the game. The ones in the current store are (my apologies to whoever picked them) *horrible* choices. Plain white, black, brown, grey, etc are not *unique*. I want an Appaloosa, a Gypsy Vanner, an Arabian, etc. Those specific horses, with whatever special appearance they grant, will not be available. The bonuses for those items (such as a special emote, like /prance), might not be available at all in-game, but would only be granted to the item/mount once the goal was met.

Those who did not help fund the goals would not get the same mounts that we do, and the base ones would be slower and lack the special emote, but they can purchase mounts with in-game currency and use them. The highest tiers will still be available to us all, which will likely be faster than the stretch goal mounts (but hopefully those can be upgraded, so we keep the unique appearance). I don't want to "buy the best", either from the Add-On Store or the Stretch Goal Store; there should be something to aspire too in-game, otherwise it really is pay-to-win.

 

Another couple things to offer are Stretch Goal Certificates (one-time credit purchase) and a Recurring Stretch Goal Certificate. This would basically be a subscription to the stretch goal store that provides you credits to spend in the Stretch Goal Store. You can then buy items from the Stretch Goal Store with those credits, or save them for items added in the future. You might be surprised how many people would be willing to keep a recurring charge so they can buy a new houseboat, or be the first to have a limited pair of elven boots.

 

Basically this brand new interview gives a very good insight how Darkstarr did see the new stretch goals:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/news/1772-shroud-of-the-avatar-community-modding-garriott-interview




Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

 

Darkstarr's conclusion is that people don't want these stretch goals. But that side-steps the fact that maybe they just don't want them as they've been presented. I would argue that people actually want all of these things greatly, but unlike the pledges that continue to sell, the stretch goals do not give players unique and valuable experiences.

Would the pledges have as much interest if this game had instanced housing? That's essentially what the stretch goals offer, instanced items. If they were truly unique items and they were limited (ala housing) then we'd see them met very quickly.

EDIT: To be perfectly clear. A unique item is not a brown horse vs. a grey horse. That's just not something people are going to be interested in. Whereas if you offered a horse that went faster or a horse that could plow a field....and these are exclusive abilities that will not be found later (much like you can't get a Keep or Castle Lot later) then people would pony up the dough. Pun intended.

 

I don't know Darkstar, but lets not make this personal. There are many ways to position arguments and this position may just be one of convenience. We are not married here, lets not over analyse and make assumptions. The fact is that the stretch goals are not working great, and since the statement was made that they will happen anyway without funding, they may never be successful.

 

No, please don't think I'm attacking Darkstarr personally or otherwise. I was responding to a quote in the article that was linked above....

 

Your quote was convenient, my statement was meant generally, but I needed a context.

 

Forgive me for using the quote from your post again, but please allow to clarify my perspective.

On projects with a great many tasks, to make progress, tasks are prioritized with just a moment of consideration. In the grand scheme of things, the stretch goals are not nearly as important compared to making combat fun, get crafting working, get overland map functioning as intended, and creating the primary content in place, etc ... So, when I said it may have been a position of convenience, I mean that it is easy to dismiss them to a lower priority by saying they are not as important as the other things to the community. Since we were not in the office when that was decided, we have no way of knowing and should probably not read to much into it.

I am just pleased that the train is still on the tracks and not getting overwhelmed by feature creep.

 

Yeah, nobody here wants feature creep. But let's face it, it's here already. Each release the devs have to cut down on actual development to goal (which is fine). And what was supposed to be an October 2014 launch of the game (originally) is now scheduled for "later" as that date keeps moving down the road (which again is fine).

What's not fine, to me, is that we have this ability to obtain more revenue but we're not (in my mind) being honest about the potential, or aggressive enough in the implementation. I'm not talking about "pay to win", I'm just talking about unique and limited value worth contributing to.

For all I care the stretch goals can be for Episode 2! I just want to see real value there for the people that actually contribute. That's the only thing that's wrong with these stretch goals, the people that contribute get the shaft.

 

Just a comment about ranking or finding relevance about some of the items in the stretch goals. I can see Chris Spears' point, that horses were never intended as part of the design initially until players started asking for it.

After venturing around in the game, I have to wonder if I'd ever even ride a horse. It's not an open world, and getting from one end of a scene to the other doesn't take long at all. The overland map has one speed. Slow.

But I don't think it's up to us to prioritize which stretch goals to meet or not. People have invested in all of them to a small degree. I think once they made the goal, I'm not so sure they can change it simply based on our opinions. Legally, they're probably stuck.

 

Yes, that would have been nice but...
A) That is not what it says in general in the Pledge Store, it doesn't really matter what they say elsewhere if the store says something different then it will still prevent sales. As I said, that sentence in the store prevents people from paying for stretch goals.
B) That is not what it says in specific about horses in the stretch store
"Prior to meeting this stretch goal, these horses will act a non-combat pets. If this stretch goal is met, players will be able to ride non-combat horse mounts in game!"
C) Even if it was true for Horses doesn't make it true for unknown "Additional functionality will be added if the stretch goal is met." which are in the other stretch items.
and finally...
D) Since I have read that topic in both forums but didn't recognize such a clarification I did a search on DarkStarr for "horse" this is the only relevant find:
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...tretch-goal-store-megapost.11465/#post-191642
"Once the goal is met we will begin work on the functionality and all the items purchased would gain some function related to the goal. For instance the foal from the Mounts stretch goal would grow into a horse that you could then ride. "
Which is the exact same message. Nowhere can I find a statement from any dev that those would get added functionality even if the goal is not met.

Agreed, you are right those were bad examples. Didn't think that one through. Just picked the first that came to mind.
Maybe something like "no port tax" or "see currents" or "buy ships for 2% less" or something.

 

They could always refund money, give the option of taking the refund or the item in the stretch goal (without the added functionality), or allow people to apply it to the add-on store, or create an incentive to add it to the new stretch goals (assuming there were new stretch goals).

There are a lot of options available that would allow them to "change" the rules of the game.

 

I have never heard or seen this claim before. I agree that it is not correct.

---------------------
This part goes out to everyone reading this thread. I don't think the devs have to be so careful with new stretch goals as many people seem to expect. The devs are not too careful with pledges. You can get all kinds of things that you can't get in the add-on store and that you won't be able to get in the game ever. Tax-Free lots anyone? Yet we're not squabbling about that.

It seems fair to me that if you have 250k stretch goal that could allow for as much as 12.5k horses to be introduced to the game, that's making horses amply available to the community. There's no need to give horses away for free once the stretch goal is met.

 

Now you are over analyzing. Take the comment S.L. made in the exact context it was made. He didn't see the goals as a success, because people, in the forums, were not interested.

There is nothing to interpret. It is 1:1.

All the current counter-arguments are simply: He is right, from his perspective, and level of enthusiasm put into them, but couldn't they be presented in another way that DOES get people excited about them.

Again, nothing to infer from his comments, they are straightforward.

 

Don't lawyer me bro!

 

You're right. Sorry I wasn't thorough in my response. A refund would be their only recourse before they could actually change the stretch goal. At least that's the way I see it.

The likelihood of a refund..........at this stage.......

Probably pretty doubtful, but you never know, it could happen.

 

Perhaps they could allow people to reallocate their stretch goal contributions, rather than a refund. Maybe someone already said that and I didn't read close enough.

At least that could possibly get the ball rolling. I mean, has Portalarium expressed a need for feedback about this topic? Or are they doing all they can to get the game functional before moving into that subject? Maybe no one has the answers, but it would be nice to know.