CoE Dev's forcing backers to get less then what they paid for?

13

Comments

  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,275
    https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/18003/biggest-bombshell-of-them-all?page=1#31

    They closed the prior thread but another 6 page one has sprung up.  The root issue here is that they posted a 6 Kingdom cap for each server, but you just buy slots... not locked to a server.   I am sure they just assumed that everyone on the internet would just play nice and follow their unstated, but intended behavior.

    This bodes REALLY well for how their FFA  PvP gets implemented.  I mean... what could possibly go wrong there?


    I read through the first 2 pages of the originally posted thread.  Actually gave a very interesting insight on how the politics are developing.

    Already plenty of intrigue, backroom dealings, veiled threats and diplomacy.

    If they actually manage to deliver a functional game this could turn out to be pretty cool.


    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon


  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 1,812
    Kyleran said:
    https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/18003/biggest-bombshell-of-them-all?page=1#31

    They closed the prior thread but another 6 page one has sprung up.  The root issue here is that they posted a 6 Kingdom cap for each server, but you just buy slots... not locked to a server.   I am sure they just assumed that everyone on the internet would just play nice and follow their unstated, but intended behavior.

    This bodes REALLY well for how their FFA  PvP gets implemented.  I mean... what could possibly go wrong there?


    I read through the first 2 pages of the originally posted thread.  Actually gave a very interesting insight on how the politics are developing.

    Already plenty of intrigue, backroom dealings, veiled threats and diplomacy.

    If they actually manage to deliver a functional game this could turn out to be pretty cool.


    There are some posts in that thread that I found quite amusing.
  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,162
    Kyleran said:
    https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/18003/biggest-bombshell-of-them-all?page=1#31

    They closed the prior thread but another 6 page one has sprung up.  The root issue here is that they posted a 6 Kingdom cap for each server, but you just buy slots... not locked to a server.   I am sure they just assumed that everyone on the internet would just play nice and follow their unstated, but intended behavior.

    This bodes REALLY well for how their FFA  PvP gets implemented.  I mean... what could possibly go wrong there?


    I read through the first 2 pages of the originally posted thread.  Actually gave a very interesting insight on how the politics are developing.

    Already plenty of intrigue, backroom dealings, veiled threats and diplomacy.

    If they actually manage to deliver a functional game this could turn out to be pretty cool.


    There are some posts in that thread that I found quite amusing.
    Me too.
    The guy who was accused of being the source of the problem by jumping from server to server for example.

    'You aren't being nice to me and if you keep it up I will tell the teacher!"
  • Shas_TraitorShas_Traitor HanoiMember UncommonPosts: 8
    edited March 24
    The whole buying a kingdom with limited kingdoms per server does seem a bit pay to win if kingdoms are going to be as important as they seem to intend them to be.

    That being said it would be endlessly enjoyable burning down a kingdom that some idiot paid 10,000 dollars for and can never get back.

    One of the things I always enjoyed about most of the MMO's that I played was the relative equal footing I had with everyone else, where I had a different name and no doors automatically opened just because of it. I had to earn everything I received instead of having it just handed to me.

    But maybe that is just me, to each their own.
    Post edited by Shas_Traitor on

  • genaknoscgenaknosc Member UncommonPosts: 81
    It's not "pay to win" as all the fanbois will tell you repeatedly, because you can lose said kingdom you buy.

    The game is merely "pay to have a huge starting advantage over everybody else making it difficult to dislodge you from power."

    See the difference?
  • PeroxisPeroxis Member CommonPosts: 2
    Woah do people jump on a bandwagon.
    Yes i definitely rather support games like this than AAA titles. I want something meaningful and fun,  playing like a sheep doesn't satisfy me.
    I can understand people not wanting to back the game, but im way more worried about the community rather than devs ruining this game.  People don't seem to be able to take the goal of 'winning' out of their head its such a 2 dimensional goal.  Anything you gain in chronicles of elyria can be stolen and every advantage comes with disadvantages. People are really only paying for a headstart.

    They didn't force anyone to do anything, they got worried themselves that people backed so much they certainly didn't expect people to back multiple times.

    I don't think  the there is anything wrong with their intentions, do people actually prefer things being sugarcoat ed? I much rather companies being honest.

    The biggest issues are definitely the huge tthey making for themselves. Just think about how long DayZ has  been in alpha and  that doesn't have so many complex goals like this
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Chicago, ILMember EpicPosts: 5,744
    Would be funny if some of the heavy backers were gold sellers.

    "Change is the only constant."

  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,162
    Peroxis said:
     I much rather companies being honest.
    What are you doing with this company then?
  • RenoakuRenoaku Member RarePosts: 2,289
    edited April 9
    Would be funny if some of the heavy backers were gold sellers.
    The term Gold Seller shouldn't be frowned on as much as it is IMO, I wish there were a few games besides Entropia, and Diablo 3 which for awhile supported "Real Money Trading" in games was great, I don't think all RMT should be banned only "Illegal transactions" "Bots" "Cheaters and farmers", perhaps (Crow Fall), or (Star Citizen) Might have a form of Real Money trading by allowing people to trade outside of the game at their own risk, or allowing in game trading of Real Money Credits for items...

    Personally I don't see it as a bad thing, but what I hate is when I login to a game like Revelation Online, and all I see are a bunch of gold spammers, or people committing fraud / using bots then this is something I hate.

    But more and more games have started supporting (Real Money Trade kinda.)

    1.) EVE Plex
    2.) WOW, WOW Tokens
    3.) Arche Age, Plex

    And as far as COE, I have no faith in it I have more faith in "Star Citizen" and "Crow Fall" than this game, perhaps even Camelot unchained but I do like the way Crow Fall is being marketed more and I seem to hear more about it and see impressive Art Work.
    Post edited by Renoaku on
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    Peroxis said:


    They didn't force anyone to do anything, they got worried themselves that people backed so much they certainly didn't expect people to back multiple times.


    LOL that is such a joke.  They actually went and allowed their favorite member to buy not one but TWO of the Buy 2 King slots on the same server.  Because being the king of just 20% of the world just isn't enough. 

    By the way, nice to see a fresh face around.  Hope you stick around. I think you will find some of the discussions enlightening.
    Peroxis said:
     People don't seem to be able to take the goal of 'winning' out of their head its such a 2 dimensional goal.  Anything you gain in chronicles of elyria can be stolen and every advantage comes with disadvantages. People are really only paying for a headstart.

    1. Buy yourself up to a kingship (or multiple kingships in at least 1 case of a guy who spent 40k)
    2. Buy yourself a 3 month no wipe head start in a PvP territory control game with looting
    3. Use real money to buy IP
    4. Use IP to buy items such as:
    • land
    • buildings
    • resources (both common and uncommon)
    • mounts
    • siege weapons

    Feel free to have a different opinion but to me this is clearly one of the most over the top P2W games I have seen.

    Asm0deus

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • AkulasAkulas GoldcoastMember UncommonPosts: 2,074
    You have the ability to get a kingdom for free in game.

    This isn't a signature, you just think it is.

  • CostaniusCostanius NiedersachsenMember UncommonPosts: 185
    I agree that pledge packages are "pay to get a head start but also beta-test and report bugs".

    But most of You guys miss a very important point:
    Fulfilling and successfully playing a pledged title like king or any other noble will be all about player skill, YOUR real life social skills as a person about creating, managing and leading a community of players, from a few in a settlement as a local mayor up to hundreds and thousands as a king!
    You can be the richest king on the server when the game starts with exposition, if You don't have a community of other players to support You and work with You the pledged title can be lost easily and will be lost quickly. And rightfully so!
    If You can't lead other players and form a community around Your kindom/duchy etc. providing a pleasant gaming experience FOR OTHER PLAYERS You'll deserve to be removed from Your position. And this is intended to happen by game design!
    But if You have the social and management skills as a person and player to form, lead and manage a huge community of players, if You successfully deal with human conflict and bs from hundreds of players, provide guidance and protection to those below You and also have the creative skills to write an interesting lore and back story about Your kingdom You deserve to keep Your king title in my opinion!
    It will all depend on the community in the game and the players around You. Alone as a pledged king without any supporting players You won't get very far in this game!
    The more: Being a pledged king or other higher ranked noble will require a lot of time and dedication, like a second job, if You want to run and fill Your position successfully.

    So in fact a king pledge in CoE is "pay to test Your social, management, communication and community-building skills and to have another time-consuming job with no guarantee of succeeding and the risk of loosing everything or most of it if being unsuccessful".

    And this is the huge difference to the usual p2w titles!

    -----------------------------------
    Life is too short to play bad games.

  • HeraseHerase LondonMember RarePosts: 878
    Peroxis said:
    Woah do people jump on a bandwagon.
    Yes i definitely rather support games like this than AAA titles. I want something meaningful and fun,  playing like a sheep doesn't satisfy me.
    I can understand people not wanting to back the game, but im way more worried about the community rather than devs ruining this game.  People don't seem to be able to take the goal of 'winning' out of their head its such a 2 dimensional goal.  Anything you gain in chronicles of elyria can be stolen and every advantage comes with disadvantages. People are really only paying for a headstart.

    They didn't force anyone to do anything, they got worried themselves that people backed so much they certainly didn't expect people to back multiple times.

    I don't think  the there is anything wrong with their intentions, do people actually prefer things being sugarcoat ed? I much rather companies being honest.

    The biggest issues are definitely the huge tthey making for themselves. Just think about how long DayZ has  been in alpha and  that doesn't have so many complex goals like this
    Eh? You do realise once people can just pay for the best role and everything in the game, all the meaningfulness is lost right? This is no different than what quite a few AA companies do, tbh it's worst, at least with AAA companies you may get cheaped out of £60, here they're taking £10k.

    Doesn't matter if it's a headstart, you shouldn't be able to pay for anything that gives you a lead or power in any game, the whole purpose of a game is to play it, not skip. Also just becuase you can lose it doesn't change the rules, and anyway losing it in this game isn't an easy task. Based on their own website it will take time before you can even being to dethrone someone and even if you do, they have the chance of getting it back.

    No one was forced into buying the packages, you're right, but the changes to what they bought, were forced upon them. People paid and told they were getting X, then told X will be downgraded to Y. This isn't a case of they knew what they were buying into.

    This is far from being honest, like I said you can't get people to pay for something then change the rules after you already took the money. 


  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196
    Costanius said:


    And this is the huge difference to the usual p2w titles!
    Yeah most of them don't allow you to spend $40,000 to gain such a massive advantage.

    CoE takes it to a new level.
    Asm0deus

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • WellspringWellspring Charlotte, NCMember RarePosts: 455
    Peroxis said:


    They didn't force anyone to do anything, they got worried themselves that people backed so much they certainly didn't expect people to back multiple times.


    LOL that is such a joke.  They actually went and allowed their favorite member to buy not one but TWO of the Buy 2 King slots on the same server.  Because being the king of just 20% of the world just isn't enough. 

    By the way, nice to see a fresh face around.  Hope you stick around. I think you will find some of the discussions enlightening.
    Peroxis said:
     People don't seem to be able to take the goal of 'winning' out of their head its such a 2 dimensional goal.  Anything you gain in chronicles of elyria can be stolen and every advantage comes with disadvantages. People are really only paying for a headstart.

    1. Buy yourself up to a kingship (or multiple kingships in at least 1 case of a guy who spent 40k)
    2. Buy yourself a 3 month no wipe head start in a PvP territory control game with looting
    3. Use real money to buy IP
    4. Use IP to buy items such as:
    • land
    • buildings
    • resources (both common and uncommon)
    • mounts
    • siege weapons

    Feel free to have a different opinion but to me this is clearly one of the most over the top P2W games I have seen.

    Worst part is, they're in complete denial of the P2W label. If you're going to pre-sell nobility ranks and items in a cash shop, at least own it.
    --------------------------------------------
  • genaknoscgenaknosc Member UncommonPosts: 81
    Costanius said:
    So in fact a king pledge in CoE is "pay to test Your social, management, communication and community-building skills and to have another time-consuming job with no guarantee of succeeding and the risk of loosing everything or most of it if being unsuccessful".

    And this is the huge difference to the usual p2w titles!

    Which will be substantially easier for the people shelling out 10's of thousands of dollars to get an advantage early on, because they start out instantly with a kingdom they control and can work at sustaining rather than having to fight from the ground up, on day one, to make it happen.

    So what you're really saying is, but too daft to notice how much weaker you made your point all on your own, is that the people who don't pay 10's of thousands of dollars to get kingdoms from the start are at an even larger disadvantage than in other P2W games because all of the management and communication and community building required to achieve controlling a kingdom puts them ever farther behind the folks who just bought one.
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,275
    edited April 11
    Besides, if you are willing to pay $20K for a kingship, why not drop some out of game cash payments to ensure the loyalty of other nobles?

    Hell they can arrange marriages of their real life children to ensure mutual cooperation. ;)
    Post edited by Kyleran on

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon


  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHMember RarePosts: 8,676
    Personally I think these so called king backers are just throwing their money away.  The chances of this title ever producing the game they have proposed are not very good.   Even Star Citizen has a far better chance.


  • ZionBaneZionBane Member UncommonPosts: 328





    Means they should have hard caps on the numbers already.  Unless they just didn't bother to think caps in advance were needed or like someone else said they now want the lay-a-ways and hold outs to put up their money asap instead of waiting to see how the game is developing before fully committing.


    So there will be a 144 "Countries" per kingdom, that's 144 "Governors" of whatever they will be called, filled with solders, shop keepers, farmers, and adventures.. 12 Duchies, also, filled with standing armies, citizens, and adventures, and one King, who also will have their own legions, but also the fidelity of all those beneath them.  

    And someone thinks they will be able to burn all that to the ground?

    I'll give, they may be able to get away with a siege on the kings castle, but.. there is no way they will be able to destroy the whole kingdom.

    Also, why would anyone want 2 Kingdoms?

    I would imagine that even if every purchase was honored, the kingdoms would need to be on separate servers, as a single king cannot rule two lands, otherwise it becomes One Ginormous Kingdom, not two separate ones. I suppose a better package deal would be, a King and a Promised Heir to the Throne, when the first King Dies (After all, Death is Real in this game), but, it's also not a one shot deal, so even if an Assassination was done, dying in this game, just shortens your life span, it would not kill you outright.

    So, with that, trying to remove a King would be a massive ordeal, harder then trying to remove a King in real life. I would also bet that, dethroning a King would not be an easy task, and assuredly not one that some peasant or common adventure trying to win at life by killing rabble monsters, After all, if these nobles have 10 Grand to Put into a game before it even goes life, and I would bet, they have more money at their disposal to put into the game after it goes life to ensure their position on top of the worm pile remains unchallenged.

    That's gonna give them a ton of clout, which is fair, they are Kings after all. I don't see a problem with it.. it's a game of life, and in life, people with money win.

    As for me, I don't think I will be worrying about the kings and queens, they never mattered that much in other games I played, I don't think this will be any different, and I would bet, most of their game time will be taken up with politics and drama, and if that is what they enjoy, more power to them, as for me, well, when the game goes live, my plan is.. gonna be something along the lines of "run around and kill things" like every other game I have ever played.
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,196

    ZionBane said:








    Means they should have hard caps on the numbers already.  Unless they just didn't bother to think caps in advance were needed or like someone else said they now want the lay-a-ways and hold outs to put up their money asap instead of waiting to see how the game is developing before fully committing.




    So there will be a 144 "Countries" per kingdom, that's 144 "Governors" of whatever they will be called, filled with solders, shop keepers, farmers, and adventures.. 12 Duchies, also, filled with standing armies, citizens, and adventures, and one King, who also will have their own legions, but also the fidelity of all those beneath them.  

    And someone thinks they will be able to burn all that to the ground?

    I'll give, they may be able to get away with a siege on the kings castle, but.. there is no way they will be able to destroy the whole kingdom.

    Also, why would anyone want 2 Kingdoms?

    I would imagine that even if every purchase was honored, the kingdoms would need to be on separate servers, as a single king cannot rule two lands, otherwise it becomes One Ginormous Kingdom, not two separate ones. I suppose a better package deal would be, a King and a Promised Heir to the Throne, when the first King Dies (After all, Death is Real in this game), but, it's also not a one shot deal, so even if an Assassination was done, dying in this game, just shortens your life span, it would not kill you outright.

    So, with that, trying to remove a King would be a massive ordeal, harder then trying to remove a King in real life. I would also bet that, dethroning a King would not be an easy task, and assuredly not one that some peasant or common adventure trying to win at life by killing rabble monsters, After all, if these nobles have 10 Grand to Put into a game before it even goes life, and I would bet, they have more money at their disposal to put into the game after it goes life to ensure their position on top of the worm pile remains unchallenged.


    Except they already allowed one backer to buy 2 kingdoms... on the same server.   Money talks in pay to win designs like this.

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • ZionBaneZionBane Member UncommonPosts: 328
    edited April 26










    ZionBane said:

















    Means they should have hard caps on the numbers already.  Unless they just didn't bother to think caps in advance were needed or like someone else said they now want the lay-a-ways and hold outs to put up their money asap instead of waiting to see how the game is developing before fully committing.










    So there will be a 144 "Countries" per kingdom, that's 144 "Governors" of whatever they will be called, filled with solders, shop keepers, farmers, and adventures.. 12 Duchies, also, filled with standing armies, citizens, and adventures, and one King, who also will have their own legions, but also the fidelity of all those beneath them.  

    And someone thinks they will be able to burn all that to the ground?

    I'll give, they may be able to get away with a siege on the kings castle, but.. there is no way they will be able to destroy the whole kingdom.

    Also, why would anyone want 2 Kingdoms?

    I would imagine that even if every purchase was honored, the kingdoms would need to be on separate servers, as a single king cannot rule two lands, otherwise it becomes One Ginormous Kingdom, not two separate ones. I suppose a better package deal would be, a King and a Promised Heir to the Throne, when the first King Dies (After all, Death is Real in this game), but, it's also not a one shot deal, so even if an Assassination was done, dying in this game, just shortens your life span, it would not kill you outright.

    So, with that, trying to remove a King would be a massive ordeal, harder then trying to remove a King in real life. I would also bet that, dethroning a King would not be an easy task, and assuredly not one that some peasant or common adventure trying to win at life by killing rabble monsters, After all, if these nobles have 10 Grand to Put into a game before it even goes life, and I would bet, they have more money at their disposal to put into the game after it goes life to ensure their position on top of the worm pile remains unchallenged.








    Except they already allowed one backer to buy 2 kingdoms... on the same server.   Money talks in pay to win designs like this.






    Technically then, it would still be one Kingdom (IE: Ruled by a Single King), just double sized.

    Does anyone know the actual advantage of this, or does this end up being a Gold Porsche? 

    (IE: A Porsche made of gold is nothing more then display of wealth, because the weight of the gold slows it down and makes it pointless as a sports car, or it's just a gold paint job, and does nothing more then look pretty, take your pick on how you want to interpret it)
    Post edited by ZionBane on
  • KinadinKinadin Apple Valley, MNMember UncommonPosts: 10
    You get to try and keep 23 dukes from overthrowing you instead of 11? It's a bit like buying a high end sports car.  Sure that half million dollar machine looks good and is capable of insane handling, but if you don't know how to handle it you're going to wrap it around a telephone pole soon. 
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,440

    Mendel said:

    The title of this thread is a bit misleading to me.   Backers donate; customers pay.  The developers may have made promises to encourage backers and may be about to unravel those promises, but no one is getting 'less than they paid for'.  The correct semantic statement should be 'less than they expected'.

    I find it fascinating when the guy on the corner you just gave money to went straight to the liquor store and you are outraged.  Crowd-funding provides exactly the same fiscal and legal safeguards as panhandling.



    Therein lies the problem that needs to be resolved before crowdfunding spirals further outta control.

    There's no precedence set.  There needs to be one.  Obviously the fact that these games are often played in multiple countries presents an issue, but some judge somewhere really needs to pull the door open on this to start building a framework with which to hold developers responsible and protect consumers.

    image
  • TimEisenTimEisen Columnist Member RarePosts: 2,972

    Ozmodan said:

    Personally I think these so called king backers are just throwing their money away.  The chances of this title ever producing the game they have proposed are not very good.   Even Star Citizen has a far better chance.




    I'm going to guess there are 3 kinds of them. Super rich people that give no ****s because they can. Guilds that combined money and people that plan to make a return by using their kingdom to sell gold. 
    I used to role-play a Warrior Priest now I role-play a writer.
    "Basically if a Ninja Turtle used it, or close to it, I like it."
  • OrdanskaOrdanska Member CommonPosts: 16
    This is all TLDR

    But the one thing I saw was the comment in 2 servers, there isn't just 2 servers.

    Therefore the 13 they have sold so far still have kingdoms. The whole point is they closed the king tier to ensure no one will lose their kingdom.

    They have always said its limited kingdoms per a server and that server selection is in order of purchase.
    Domain selection is based on ip. 

    So the king I am pledged to was the first to pledge so he will pick his server first, but he has lowest ip amongst the eu kings so he will pick his kingdom last.
Sign In or Register to comment.