Stretch Goal Confusion

Put their money where their mouth is? Who is the responsible one here, the developers or the players? This seems like it's now scattering the game focus. They add insignificant things players don't want. They reward those who back specific features rather than the whole project itself. Am I the only one who feels it's becoming convoluted and that players are becoming defined by their initial contributions? Not their actual in-game success or abilities?

It's a twist on the goals as well. The original goals were encouraging more people to pledge but everyone received equal reward, the stretch goal. Now we're asking people to pledge in addition to their actual game pledge.

Star Citizen has goals too, that have all been met so far and continue to grow, without any additional and direct pledge. Instead the money is generated from new backers or from microtransactions on the store. Not direct and additional pledges.

 

So you want to eat the cake but you don't want to pay for it? Mounts are a stretch goal that focuses on the people that want it bad enough to pay for it. I don't see anything wrong with that. I think that's a fair way to develop this game.

And I have some idea about what Star Citizen does and doesn't do. I understand that the stretch goals are inclusive of everyone. But make no mistake, they have an add-on store that has things that players don't get unless they pay for them. The way SOTA designed the stretch goals is similar to that. Just like in Star Citizen if I don't fork up the dough, I don't get my own pirate ship (cutlass). There's no stretch goal in SC that gives all players a pirate ship.

At least in SOTA you have the option to get a horse for $20 if you want one.

 

Stretch goals are for the purpose of funding the addition of features in the game that are for all players. Perqs for helping to fund it are unique in some way, but that does not negate the goal of adding a feature for everyone. This has been said many times by many people. But since some are unwilling to believe it, ask the question of the devs. The Q&A thread is open for the next one. https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...of-june-6th-dev-q-a-thread.11516/#post-193121. Ask the question.

Whatever the stretch goal was that you guys are talking about in SC, maybe all players didn't get a pirate ship, but did all players get anything? What was the goal? What was it people were contributing to? Was it nothing more than purchases? If so, then it was not a stretch goal.

 

Sorry for the confusion, I was in some ways comparing apples to oranges. SC didn't have a pirate ship stretch goal, they sell pirate ships in their add on store.

The point I was making is that SC sells things that you can't get if you don't buy them. A stretch goal doesn't have to be for the benefit of everyone, there's no rule that says that anywhere. So what I was saying is that just like SC, SOTA also sells things that are limited to the people that buy them and the new stretch goals are an example of that.

 

Ok, so ask them. If your question is one of the 5 most popular and gets asked, confusion ended. If it's not chosen this week, ask again next week.

 

I did, it's posted there now. You may want to go like it for me otherwise it will be passed up and they won't answer it.

 

Yup, just did that. I hope it's chosen, or the one Rufus asked with different wording because I will be as happy as I can be to see an end to this particular debate.

 

I think rufus worded his better than I did. Either way, I just want an answer too.

 

No not at all. I just want all these insane amounts of rewards and contribution segregation to calm down and stop being so exclusive.

No. And that is the difference. If you don't purchase the Cutlass, you can still acquire it in game later. Those who pledge earlier essentially have unlimited access to it thanks to the insurance. It's a perk. It's not a unique cutlass that no-one else can have. And that's my point. It's not exclusive.

 

You'll be able to get mounts in game later if the goal is unlocked. You just won't get these specific foals.

 

Right, mounts...but are they really going to say "we're not making a foal we're making a furry foal, it's completely different!" I just can't see them doing that.

Even with Elves, I can't see them saying "and now everyone can be Elven, yay!" Why should other people pay for everyone to get that benefit? It doesn't make sense at all to segregate the money like that if you're not going to get exclusive rights to what you're putting money into.

 

That's an excellent point. But as I just replied to someone else...it doesn't make sense to segregate the money if you're not going to have exclusive rights to what you're buying. Otherwise, SOTA should be doing what SC is doing and just make the entire pool of money contribute to the next stretch goal.

But this is where I think people are missing the point. I'm a Baron 3 which means I've spent a ton of money. So why would I ever contribute to a new stretch goal where all I got was some stupid baby horses? I wouldn't. The only way that I'm going to put more money into this game is if I can get more stuff that is going to be truly rare and valuable to have. I'm not going to put money into the game so that YOU can ride mounts.

 

Reskins of exclusive items is not uncommon in the industry. The three foals in the store appear to be reskins of the same model.

The add-on store also has a Black Cat pet for sale. I'm sure they'll have other colors of cats available in game.

 

THEY DO! But do you know what isn't written next to the black cat?

THIS:

Btw, I went back into all of Darkstarr's recent forum posts and I can't find him saying anything about this question so it should be very interesting to see how they respond.

 

Horses should be the most common mount. If they tell people that no one else can ever have a foal/mount for all 5 episodes, that would be silly. I can understand those 3 specific breeds of foals being exclusive. Forcing all future mounts to be non-horses somewhat penalizes the early adopters because later mounts would actually be cooler (unicorns, griffons, whatever).

 

They could always get away with giving original foal owners the ability to "create" more foals. Then the functionality stays with players, stays initially with those that paid into the stretch goal, and the integrity of the stretch goals stay in tact.

There's absolutely no reason to make "more" horses in another way as it only undercuts your business model for future stretch goal's.

 

Boy you love to fight. Once a stretch goal is added it is in the game for everyone. That person will have to pay in game gold for the mount or item they want. They won't be able to get the unique pets, mounts and items from the stretch goal store. That's the items not the game functionality. It's nice to see you complaining about something other than PvP! Still complaining though. All this info is in the dev mega post from Chris and Starr if you want to go find quotes but remember everything that can be bought with real money can be earned in game. Otherwise you've hit a pay to win issue. The only benefit to buying things now is to help fund the game feature and get the special early backer items.

 

That's sounds more like you want the abilty to breed & sell rares to new players. Life is not all about ripping off other people with overpriced items.

 

That's incorrect on a number of levels.

And truth be told I don't really "like to fight" so much as I have a want to see justice get its due.

 

You mean something like the art of making beer?

I think I know quite a few players that would be upset if their beer making ability was suddenly undercut by another ability that did essentially the same thing.

I could also see the foals that are available in the stretch goal store being the ONLY pure bred horses in the game. This would allow players that didn't contribute to the stretch goal to "find" and tame wild horses, which would perhaps be common, but would never be as good as the pure bred foals from the add-on store. And when I say "never as good" I mean that they would be much slower and therefore far less valuable.