The Character Slot Debacle: Proposal - a Buyback Program.

you say that as if mmo's were the first and only games that used health bars....rpg's use them. hell, even tabletop dnd uses health as a basis of life. no need to muddy the waters more than they already are.

then keep reading - i haven't, and probably won't (due to a lack of time) updated the OP... no, it isn't greed.

i'm seeing an issue that the devs put themselves into, and offering them a way out. my wants are not actually a part of this proposal. my actual wants, are not relevant and i'm keeping them out of the conversation entirely.

do not assume that i was even a part of the first debate you are speaking of. i wasn't even a registered member at that time, on the forums.
also, multiple times i have NOT spoken against shared reputation, in fact i have said that i am for it. if you are going to argue something, at least get it right.


----
@enderandrew
the thread is not about lots and slots, even though those were two examples i provided in the OP - those examples have been beaten down at this point so lets let them die - but the issue still remains, a buyback/tradeback program of some assets in the pledges would be beneficial.. clearly i, as the one who stated slots for lots, should not be the one to decide price for everyone - but the costs:values ratio should be fair. a mild version of it already exists, melting down add-on purchases between wipes, so i do not see an issue with going to the next step, only that once melted down you can't get them back (and i'm ok with that).

----

that could work, when they start selling the slots ont he store anyway, just get a mail with a token to rightclick once purchased.. but for now... see this too is muddying the issue, it isn't about the slots per-se, although they were the catalyst for my op.

 

As I've said since my initial response, I think it provides zero benefit to Portalarium.

It bears an opportunity cost since that dev time is taken away from something else and it opens the door to players now demanding buy back programs for every single item across all the tiers that they don't want.

I agree with some of your other posts, but I think this is frankly a really terrible idea and it is trying to solve a problem that frankly doesn't exist.

 

I've never seen meaningful evidence that they promised a single slot as a permanent feature, unless I'm missing something. Whereas they unquestionably promised up to 3 slots depending on your pledge level. So that's a pretty big difference in terms of what they "owe" to players.

 

Well I have to inform you then. When SotA was introduced, it was a one slot char choice. This was because it would force you to play you. This was the reason why Richard wanted the virtue system in the game. Its all hindsight now and the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater and us backers that wanted a pure RPG game are now left with the results..

 

Understood completely that it all started with one slot. The question is, was there an explicit promise that a single slot would be maintained? I mean, there is a real difference between saying:

1) In post-mortems or wherever, "We think this game should have X feature, this is my vision"; and
2) In the pledge store: "You are purchasing Y feature".

Anyway, that is DLMB-type analysis on my part and meaningless since multiple slots are here to stay.

Some *ahem* Chicken Littlers (may rhyme with "smaldrmadhr" but any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental) want to pose this as a Sky Is Falling issue, but it isn't. We'll be OK.

 

well I could reply with the same, was there an explicit promise that the extra char would be maintained. It is what was given to us. In my case it was a single slot, in your case it was a multiple char slot. Who is right and who is wrong? its subjective. Lets let sleeping dogs lie lol.

 

Technically true. Of course imposing that requirement would turn American contract law on its head. When you offer X for sale, and someone pays for X, it is assumed that X will be delivered. It's not up to the whim of the seller to revoke the promised goods/service.

The pledge page says: "You will be able to have second additional character". I think that's a promise Port will keep, don't you?

 

well you could really say, "any alteration of the contract" would be the same as what you said. So we are both right? It does not matter if give or take, its the alteration right? for instance I could give you a cartload of manure, but do you want it?

 

You're getting into unilateral contracts which are unenforceable, but Yes!!! please give me manure for fertilizing purposes. Not that we need any more fertilizer in this thread!

 

LOL well I take it you got my meaning then.

 

I respect you because you're able to pull off the contradiction of being a nice guy who wants to eat people. Otherwise I'd be dead to you. And then you'd probably eat me.

 

budner, I respect you to because you stand up for what you believe also. *cheers* to healthy debate!

 

I'm not worried about attracting anyone, thats not my job . Thats up to portalarium

 

again, its not my problem. I have to much stress on me the way it is.

 

I disagree. Being able to swap to a different set of maxed out skills (and possibly a different location) is going to be extremely useful.

 

Some have rent free land deeds as part of their pledges, and I'm not seeing any fuss about that. It seems to me there is a clear precedent.

 

Rich adults but I see where you are coming from.

If the game mechanics don't provide a way to obtain things seen in game by in game means then people will give up. The point of a game for me is to achieve. Achieve is obviously a loose term that can mean anything for anyone.

I personally understand why I'll never get a castle in game (It's a pledge reward) but people looking in from the outside may wonder why it's impossible to own what others own.

New players will need to see a game being created for the sake of a beautiful game and not for the constant churn of the add-on store.

I'm currently disturbed that all ornate items are Add-on store only. This creates a beauty selection bias that only paying Avatars can have luxury and playing avatars will live in a slighlty dull version of the game.

Dangerous.

 

I don't know if this helps, but I found an ornate halberd yesterday. If only it was a pitchfork.

 

This is interesting because I always thought the exact opposite: that the only "undangerous" things that could be sold in the add-on store were prettier versions of things otherwise available in-game. If the exact same things were sold I think too few people would buy them. Do you have other ideas on what could be sold?

 

Obviously they can't sell items in the store that are identical to things that you can craft in the game. Sales would be very poor. Similarly, they can't sell items in the store that look worse than things that you can craft in the game. Sales would be non-existent. That leaves two options:
1. Sell items in the store that cannot be obtained in game. That causes resentment.
2. Sell items in the store that can be obtained in the game, but look prettier.

I think they made the right choice.