I don't blame Mark for going this route. He wants to make sure the funds are their before he throws his 2 mil and someone else's mil away. He thinks their is an audience for the niche game but this gives reassurance
MarkJacobsCEO City State EntertainmentMemberRarePosts: 649
Originally posted by Ramonski7
Dunno. If all he has is ideas floating around and is expecting his Kickstarter supporters to help mold his vision then isn't he risking a repeat of what happened during his reign of DAoC? I mean correct me if I'm wrong but I remember clearly that it was the players and the devs listening to the players that screwed up DAoC.
But what's truly disheartening is the decision to focus solely on PvP while short changing PvE players, especially when you throw in crafting and structure building features. I mean don't get me wrong. I'm not speaking of the PvE'ers who's bread and butter is raiding. WAR proved that having that kind of PvE is counter-productive if your game revolves around PvP. But it seems that unintentionally, the potential playerbase for CU that is all for PvPing are lumping PvE (non raiders) with PvE (raiders) and saying if you don't like it, leave.
So now we're at a point where I believe more clarification is needed. If the PvE aspects of CU is not going to revolve around supporting PvE raiders (something I fully support) and also will not support PvE warmongers (those that enjoy a more supportive role in PvP) then they have effectively alienated a huge portion of support for CU. I mean, yes, both kinds of PvE'ers need varied content to maintain their interest. But while PvE raiders desire content on the tailend of the leveling journey, PvE warmongers desire content during that journey to max level.
It really wasn't a decision made to short change PvE players (though the effect is the same, I can't argue that) but rather what a small team could do on $5M. I could create some really crappy PvE and say "Look boys and girls, we have PvE!" but that would be nonsense. If I add PvE leveling tracks, I need to also balance all the skills/abilities/spells/etc. in the game for PvE and that will restrict a lot of what we can do with them. OTOH, my team and I can focus on make the RvR great without worrying about how things can be used in PvE. They can spend more time on the models, effects, etc. because all that content that would have been needed is now not needed. Yeah, I know, it does restrict the game's subscribers and it may restrict even too much for this KS but if I'm going to ask people to donate to help make a game, it's going to be a game that I know a small team can do and do well. I'm not desperate enough to lie just to raise $2M. If I wanted to do that, I'd could go to a VC, lie and get a lot more.
There will definitely be NPCs in the game, there have to be but in terms of content that PvE-oriented players can level by killing, grab items by looting, etc. Camelot Unchained won't have that not because I hate that stuff (I don't) but because I do not believe that a small team can do that and hope to create a game that will last. I do think we can do that with RvR.
Dunno. If all he has is ideas floating around and is expecting his Kickstarter supporters to help mold his vision then isn't he risking a repeat of what happened during his reign of DAoC? I mean correct me if I'm wrong but I remember clearly that it was the players and the devs listening to the players that screwed up DAoC.
Who said DAoC was screwed up in the first place? It's by far the best PvP MMo ever released. If that's not good enough for you... It's still even going fairly well. If I'd have to say what took DAoC downhill, it'd be the major lack of advertisement, and inevitably its growing age.
The fact that Jacobs listen to his players is one major reason they should back him up. And he's not born yesterday either. I doubt he'd be the type to listen to utterly dumb feedback.
Things related to the tech stack that will build CU:
Render engine that showed 10,000 charcters on screen without frame rate loss (March on Oz Model)
Multiplayer/Networking/Accounts/Physics demo using multiplayer elments of March on Oz models.
.. And.. Obsidian is backing them.
That's only the last few days of kickstarter updates...
MarkJacobsCEO City State EntertainmentMemberRarePosts: 649
Originally posted by Eaderbreca
Originally posted by Ramonski7
Dunno. If all he has is ideas floating around and is expecting his Kickstarter supporters to help mold his vision then isn't he risking a repeat of what happened during his reign of DAoC? I mean correct me if I'm wrong but I remember clearly that it was the players and the devs listening to the players that screwed up DAoC.
Who said DAoC was screwed up in the first place? It's by far the best PvP MMo ever released. If that's not good enough for you... It's still even going fairly well. If I'd have to say what took DAoC downhill, it'd be the major lack of advertisement, and inevitably its growing age.
The fact that Jacobs listen to his players is one major reason they should back him up. And he's not born yesterday either. I doubt he'd be the type to listen to utterly dumb feedback.
You give me too much credit. I listened to the guy who told me "Mark, I promise you ToA will not affect RvR, you have my word on that." and I've been paying for that ever since.
OTOH, you are right about the lack of advertisement but really, what killed it was WoW. SI sent our numbers up and it held, ToA sent our numbers up (less than SI and the bump didn't last as long) but it was a slow decline until WoW and then we lost 30% of our subs 3 months post WoW-launch. That was one of the main reasons we went with NF. We knew what was coming and we tried to come up with something different to excite the player base.
Dunno. If all he has is ideas floating around and is expecting his Kickstarter supporters to help mold his vision then isn't he risking a repeat of what happened during his reign of DAoC? I mean correct me if I'm wrong but I remember clearly that it was the players and the devs listening to the players that screwed up DAoC.
But what's truly disheartening is the decision to focus solely on PvP while short changing PvE players, especially when you throw in crafting and structure building features. I mean don't get me wrong. I'm not speaking of the PvE'ers who's bread and butter is raiding. WAR proved that having that kind of PvE is counter-productive if your game revolves around PvP. But it seems that unintentionally, the potential playerbase for CU that is all for PvPing are lumping PvE (non raiders) with PvE (raiders) and saying if you don't like it, leave.
So now we're at a point where I believe more clarification is needed. If the PvE aspects of CU is not going to revolve around supporting PvE raiders (something I fully support) and also will not support PvE warmongers (those that enjoy a more supportive role in PvP) then they have effectively alienated a huge portion of support for CU. I mean, yes, both kinds of PvE'ers need varied content to maintain their interest. But while PvE raiders desire content on the tailend of the leveling journey, PvE warmongers desire content during that journey to max level.
It really wasn't a decision made to short change PvE players (though the effect is the same, I can't argue that) but rather what a small team could do on $5M. I could create some really crappy PvE and say "Look boys and girls, we have PvE!" but that would be nonsense. If I add PvE leveling tracks, I need to also balance all the skills/abilities/spells/etc. in the game for PvE and that will restrict a lot of what we can do with them. OTOH, my team and I can focus on make the RvR great without worrying about how things can be used in PvE. They can spend more time on the models, effects, etc. because all that content that would have been needed is now not needed. Yeah, I know, it does restrict the game's subscribers and it may restrict even too much for this KS but if I'm going to ask people to donate to help make a game, it's going to be a game that I know a small team can do and do well. I'm not desperate enough to lie just to raise $2M. If I wanted to do that, I'd could go to a VC, lie and get a lot more.
There will definitely be NPCs in the game, there have to be but in terms of content that PvE-oriented players can level by killing, grab items by looting, etc. Camelot Unchained won't have that not because I hate that stuff (I don't) but because I do not believe that a small team can do that and hope to create a game that will last. I do think we can do that with RvR.
I may be wrong but I'm going to try.
I mean you've said from the get go this will be a niche game, and not one catered to try to do everything in one game. Games like that do everything okay, but no one part really well. (Broad brush strokes rather than depth)
i for one am excited, because this is going to be so different from a lot out there. Do people not realize the are a dozen high funded big gaming company broad strokes mmos out there in the market. Why would we try to add another to that mix?
focusing on the rvr side and not pve will allow for a freedom of creative thought in this game that few others have achieved
perhaps if this game not having pve progression is make or break for you, than perhaps you aren't part of the target niche. I would urge you however to consider that the markets full of pve mmos, and to give one trying to do something different a chance
I don't want PvE. I'd much rather play with and against other people. DAOC's RvR was epic and the foundations of it are being brought into CU. The guy behind DAOC and its initial form is building CU. He says he wants to listen to backers during design and has already shown that he's willing to listen. That's enough for me to back CU right there. I simply want to see this game get made.
And Mark commented earlier in this thread abut how TOA happened...makes me like him more. TOA was a gigantic boost for PvE folks, but kinda sucked arse for RvR folks. It FORCED you to do tons of PvE just to be competitive. I just wanted to RvR. I see CU, somewhat, as an opportunity to really take the Tri-realm concept to the next level for those who really enjoy/will enjoy it, while at the same time extracting the (to me/us) extraneous stuff that really didn't significantly add to the DAOC experience.
That's not to say I didn't have some fun in some PvE. I did...killing PvE'ing players in DF lol. PvE was always only a means to and end for me. It was a way to get what I needed to compete in RvR.
Anyway, back to the original question: they haven't shown a ton so far but it's still early in the KS and they haven't been lazy when it somes to providing updates. I suspect (and Mark has said as much) that we'll be seeing more actualy game stuff in later updates. We're a week into a month-long KS and people are already wanting to see so much. And I thought *I* was impatient.
Dunno. If all he has is ideas floating around and is expecting his Kickstarter supporters to help mold his vision then isn't he risking a repeat of what happened during his reign of DAoC? I mean correct me if I'm wrong but I remember clearly that it was the players and the devs listening to the players that screwed up DAoC.
But what's truly disheartening is the decision to focus solely on PvP while short changing PvE players, especially when you throw in crafting and structure building features. I mean don't get me wrong. I'm not speaking of the PvE'ers who's bread and butter is raiding. WAR proved that having that kind of PvE is counter-productive if your game revolves around PvP. But it seems that unintentionally, the potential playerbase for CU that is all for PvPing are lumping PvE (non raiders) with PvE (raiders) and saying if you don't like it, leave.
So now we're at a point where I believe more clarification is needed. If the PvE aspects of CU is not going to revolve around supporting PvE raiders (something I fully support) and also will not support PvE warmongers (those that enjoy a more supportive role in PvP) then they have effectively alienated a huge portion of support for CU. I mean, yes, both kinds of PvE'ers need varied content to maintain their interest. But while PvE raiders desire content on the tailend of the leveling journey, PvE warmongers desire content during that journey to max level.
It really wasn't a decision made to short change PvE players (though the effect is the same, I can't argue that) but rather what a small team could do on $5M. I could create some really crappy PvE and say "Look boys and girls, we have PvE!" but that would be nonsense. If I add PvE leveling tracks, I need to also balance all the skills/abilities/spells/etc. in the game for PvE and that will restrict a lot of what we can do with them. OTOH, my team and I can focus on make the RvR great without worrying about how things can be used in PvE. They can spend more time on the models, effects, etc. because all that content that would have been needed is now not needed. Yeah, I know, it does restrict the game's subscribers and it may restrict even too much for this KS but if I'm going to ask people to donate to help make a game, it's going to be a game that I know a small team can do and do well. I'm not desperate enough to lie just to raise $2M. If I wanted to do that, I'd could go to a VC, lie and get a lot more.
There will definitely be NPCs in the game, there have to be but in terms of content that PvE-oriented players can level by killing, grab items by looting, etc. Camelot Unchained won't have that not because I hate that stuff (I don't) but because I do not believe that a small team can do that and hope to create a game that will last. I do think we can do that with RvR.
I may be wrong but I'm going to try.
I don't know, maybe I missed something while I was playing DAoC. But I could fully level and maybe find some cool loot without stepping into RvR or participating in a raid. This was before any expansion packs. And when I felt ready to fight for my realm, I could. One reason was because loot tables were not set for each mob, but a universally random loot table which included ALL mobs. That meant that a lowly wolf cub could drop a epic as well as a max level mob.
But if you're going the route of no loot drops or limited drops, then I see where you're coming from. All I can say is good luck in your endeavor and I'll be waiting for you at the finish line. And if you get there,I'll be purchasing my copy to experience what your current take on RvR has to offer.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Comments
It really wasn't a decision made to short change PvE players (though the effect is the same, I can't argue that) but rather what a small team could do on $5M. I could create some really crappy PvE and say "Look boys and girls, we have PvE!" but that would be nonsense. If I add PvE leveling tracks, I need to also balance all the skills/abilities/spells/etc. in the game for PvE and that will restrict a lot of what we can do with them. OTOH, my team and I can focus on make the RvR great without worrying about how things can be used in PvE. They can spend more time on the models, effects, etc. because all that content that would have been needed is now not needed. Yeah, I know, it does restrict the game's subscribers and it may restrict even too much for this KS but if I'm going to ask people to donate to help make a game, it's going to be a game that I know a small team can do and do well. I'm not desperate enough to lie just to raise $2M. If I wanted to do that, I'd could go to a VC, lie and get a lot more.
There will definitely be NPCs in the game, there have to be but in terms of content that PvE-oriented players can level by killing, grab items by looting, etc. Camelot Unchained won't have that not because I hate that stuff (I don't) but because I do not believe that a small team can do that and hope to create a game that will last. I do think we can do that with RvR.
I may be wrong but I'm going to try.
Mark Jacobs
CEO, City State Entertainment
Who said DAoC was screwed up in the first place? It's by far the best PvP MMo ever released. If that's not good enough for you... It's still even going fairly well. If I'd have to say what took DAoC downhill, it'd be the major lack of advertisement, and inevitably its growing age.
The fact that Jacobs listen to his players is one major reason they should back him up. And he's not born yesterday either. I doubt he'd be the type to listen to utterly dumb feedback.
(¯`v?¯) Sophie Breca (?.?¯`?.*?¯`*
`*.?.*? Streamer at MMORPG.com
(\__/)?.?.* DAoC PC Staff?)?.*?)
(="."=) (?.? twitter.com/SophieBreca (?.?
(")_(")youtube.com/user/sophiebreca
facebook.com/user/eaderbreca
Things they have shown of CU so far:
Cocept Art
Tuatha De Danann (TDD) render
Viking render
And they looked pretty sweet...
Things related to the tech stack that will build CU:
Render engine that showed 10,000 charcters on screen without frame rate loss (March on Oz Model)
Multiplayer/Networking/Accounts/Physics demo using multiplayer elments of March on Oz models.
.. And.. Obsidian is backing them.
That's only the last few days of kickstarter updates...
You give me too much credit. I listened to the guy who told me "Mark, I promise you ToA will not affect RvR, you have my word on that." and I've been paying for that ever since.
OTOH, you are right about the lack of advertisement but really, what killed it was WoW. SI sent our numbers up and it held, ToA sent our numbers up (less than SI and the bump didn't last as long) but it was a slow decline until WoW and then we lost 30% of our subs 3 months post WoW-launch. That was one of the main reasons we went with NF. We knew what was coming and we tried to come up with something different to excite the player base.
Mark Jacobs
CEO, City State Entertainment
I mean you've said from the get go this will be a niche game, and not one catered to try to do everything in one game. Games like that do everything okay, but no one part really well. (Broad brush strokes rather than depth)
i for one am excited, because this is going to be so different from a lot out there. Do people not realize the are a dozen high funded big gaming company broad strokes mmos out there in the market. Why would we try to add another to that mix?
focusing on the rvr side and not pve will allow for a freedom of creative thought in this game that few others have achieved
perhaps if this game not having pve progression is make or break for you, than perhaps you aren't part of the target niche. I would urge you however to consider that the markets full of pve mmos, and to give one trying to do something different a chance
MMO history - EVE GW2 SWTOR RIFT WAR COH/V EQ2 WOW DAOC
Tuktz - http://www.heretic.shivtr.com/
I don't want PvE. I'd much rather play with and against other people. DAOC's RvR was epic and the foundations of it are being brought into CU. The guy behind DAOC and its initial form is building CU. He says he wants to listen to backers during design and has already shown that he's willing to listen. That's enough for me to back CU right there. I simply want to see this game get made.
And Mark commented earlier in this thread abut how TOA happened...makes me like him more. TOA was a gigantic boost for PvE folks, but kinda sucked arse for RvR folks. It FORCED you to do tons of PvE just to be competitive. I just wanted to RvR. I see CU, somewhat, as an opportunity to really take the Tri-realm concept to the next level for those who really enjoy/will enjoy it, while at the same time extracting the (to me/us) extraneous stuff that really didn't significantly add to the DAOC experience.
That's not to say I didn't have some fun in some PvE. I did...killing PvE'ing players in DF lol. PvE was always only a means to and end for me. It was a way to get what I needed to compete in RvR.
Anyway, back to the original question: they haven't shown a ton so far but it's still early in the KS and they haven't been lazy when it somes to providing updates. I suspect (and Mark has said as much) that we'll be seeing more actualy game stuff in later updates. We're a week into a month-long KS and people are already wanting to see so much. And I thought *I* was impatient.
then there is too much noise about it
"The monster created isn't by the company that makes the game, it's by the fans that make it something it never was"
+1
All other MMO's are about PvE. I'm tired of it. If I want PvE I go play a SP game.
Big ass RvR fights are awesome.
I'm happy they go this route instead of making EA ruin another great MMORPG (War Online any1?)
I don't know, maybe I missed something while I was playing DAoC. But I could fully level and maybe find some cool loot without stepping into RvR or participating in a raid. This was before any expansion packs. And when I felt ready to fight for my realm, I could. One reason was because loot tables were not set for each mob, but a universally random loot table which included ALL mobs. That meant that a lowly wolf cub could drop a epic as well as a max level mob.
But if you're going the route of no loot drops or limited drops, then I see where you're coming from. All I can say is good luck in your endeavor and I'll be waiting for you at the finish line. And if you get there,I'll be purchasing my copy to experience what your current take on RvR has to offer.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."