Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

A thread that say a lot about SOTA community and developers

Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
edited April 2016 in Shroud of the Avatar
To be able to place a house in this game you need to put up +500$. Many that have that kind of money have done just that. They will be able to place their house without working in game for it, they simply buy it from developers. 

The ones with the highest pledges will place their houses before anyone else, there is a time table for all these different pledges.
Such a pledge reward system will not just give the ones that could afford it a house to place day 1 of the game, they will also by developers get the right to place at the hot spots of the game before anyone else and that way secure the best spots for trading/selling their gear.

You can buy a house with in game money but you wont be able to place it a hot spots cause they are all taken by the one's that made the hi-money pledges.

House's are important in this game and house's are the feature developer's have put by far most time in.

Sir Frank over at SOTA forums asks the community this question -

"what % of population should be able to own land?"

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-of-population-should-be-able-to-own-land.48797/

It's interesting to read some of the answers -

Amber Raine's answer - [quote] "I am in the belief that those that can afford it, and are able to work for it, should be able to have it. So my thoughts, I believe everyone "should" have the potential to own land. Why potential? Land may run out, land runs out, obviously everyone can not own land. But, should they be able to have the chance? Sure.. very much so!

Hard work, preserverence, anyone who wants one "should" be able to have the possibility and potential dream to." [quote]



So you have here a game where some with real life money bought a house before the game started and placed their house day 1 of the game and other's should with hard work later in the game maybe be a land owner if not all the land have run out. 

To me that is elite game for the ones that can afford to put up +500$ and developers decided that was a good way to finance their game.



Baron Drocis Fondorlatos say - (quote) "No, everyone should not be able to claim a lot.

Lots are designed to be limited and rare. No more than 15% of the active player base should (ever) have direct access to housing. If they want to rent, fine." (quote)



The one's with enough real life money can if you pay rent to them maybe give you a small room in their mansion but remember you have to ask them nicely first.

Threads like the one Sir Frank put up over at SOTA forums tell me there is a elite of rich people that for real life money bought their house before the game started and now they want to be assure that these investment's will continue to be rare so they can later on sell it with good profit.

Beaumaris wrote - [quote]Surprised that so many feel that housing is for the elite only. Housing is a major feature of the game. Housing is not like a rare sword or magic ring we have found in adventures that we might expect others to not be able to get. Housing is what people do in this game. The feature is equally on par and has received as much development attention as the adventure side of the game. No successful game limits a major feature to 0.1% of its audience. Rare housing here or there, ok. But making the feature inaccessible to the masses, hmmm....[quote]


Couldn't agree more. If this is the financial system of the future then MMO gaming will be dead. Giving the upper head to the one's with enough money is a severe miscalculation by these devs. I am glad they seem to loose the race and the game is about to become a utter failure. =)


Edit: Remember when skillbased PvP and consequences like full loot came up over at SOTA forums then the carebears screamed in rage that elite PvP players like the old UO PvP players shouldn't have a role to play in SOTA cause they could affect their ingame gameplay negatively, they might need to aquire some skills, LOL. But giving the rich pledgers a buy to win sollution like these house pledgers is very much ok by both developers and these carebears. 









Post edited by Aragon100 on
«1

Comments

  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Future of MMO and fundraising - the more money pledged the more fun you will get in game.

    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/and-this-is-why-the-land-rush-is-going-to-be-a-joke.49025/page-4



    Envy made this reply - [quote] You know what wouldn't be fair?

    To expect someone who has put $10,000+ into the game then not to be able to place their deed first and where they want to.........you know as they were always promised.

    I will say it again.....no one knows where the 'best' location will be. For all we know it could be a little NPC village or a PoT in the middle of nowhere. Who would have ever thought that Yew Gate (Fel) would have been one of the most expensive places to live in UO. As for the large towns, personally I wouldn't thank you for living in Ardoris.

    So for those who are constantly whinging about the whole process............... you can either:
    • Accept the situation for how it is on the basis life is so much better that way.............Or
    • Spend thousands of dollars so you too can be the first to enter the lottery of where to place [endquote]

  • flizzerflizzer Member RarePosts: 2,455
    How about just don't play the game?  Plenty others to choose from. 
  • RnjypsyRnjypsy Member UncommonPosts: 64
    Totally agree.  Don't play the game, make sure all  your friends know not to play the game, and leave these wallet warriors to their unsullied neighborhoods where they can kill each other and trade useless crap  to their hearts' content......all 20 of them. 
  • xpowderxxpowderx Member UncommonPosts: 2,078
    I am glad I play LOTRO instead of this utter CRAP.  As with the couple of commenters above me.  Just dont support or play the game.
  • laxielaxie Member RarePosts: 1,122
    Crowdfunding is in an uncomfortable spot right now. No one really knows what it represents.

    Backers are not developers nor publishers of the game - in many cases they put down their money and have little input.

    At the same time, crowdfunding is not the same as donating. There is definitely an expectation of delivery there. In many cases is it akin to preordering a set of products.

    I think until there are clear outlines of what a backer is, you will get confusions such as this one. If someone puts down 10.000$ instead of 20$, do they get a larger voice? Is the game catered to them? If 100 people put down majority of the funding, do they get to decide to make the game exclusively for them?

    Personally, I believe it is in everyone's long term interest to make game progression not dependent on money invested - even if you are on the big investing end of the spectrum. The question is, who should be the one to make the decision.
  • RusqueRusque Member RarePosts: 2,785
    I think the fact that you cannot write-off a crowdfunding pledge as a donation means that it should be treated as pre-ordering a product.

    Also of note, I totally forgot this game even existed or rather is being worked on. I fully expect this to be another laundry list of promised features that fails to deliver. So I guess they'll get to enjoy their plots of land without all those pesky players running around.
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    Rusque said:
    I think the fact that you cannot write-off a crowdfunding pledge as a donation means that it should be treated as pre-ordering a product.

    Also of note, I totally forgot this game even existed or rather is being worked on. I fully expect this to be another laundry list of promised features that fails to deliver. So I guess they'll get to enjoy their plots of land without all those pesky players running around.
    Except that when you donate something, there's no chance of getting anything in return.

    Pledging for a game is taking a chance - and as long as that's clear, I don't think we need much in the way of consequences.

    Unless it can clearly be established that no significant effort was made towards developing a game - and imagine the mess of trying to put that sort of thing into writing.
  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 3,098
    Its a terrible slippery slope these developers are walking on. Not just in this instance, I mean the several companies that have used "crowdfunding" to justify blatant and imo almost immoral p2w systems in their games.
    ....
  • RusqueRusque Member RarePosts: 2,785
    DKLond said:
    Rusque said:
    I think the fact that you cannot write-off a crowdfunding pledge as a donation means that it should be treated as pre-ordering a product.

    Also of note, I totally forgot this game even existed or rather is being worked on. I fully expect this to be another laundry list of promised features that fails to deliver. So I guess they'll get to enjoy their plots of land without all those pesky players running around.
    Except that when you donate something, there's no chance of getting anything in return.

    Pledging for a game is taking a chance - and as long as that's clear, I don't think we need much in the way of consequences.

    Unless it can clearly be established that no significant effort was made towards developing a game - and imagine the mess of trying to put that sort of thing into writing.
    Yeah, I agree, I was just speaking to the fact that people do call them donations.
  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,545
    Basically, for those who call them donations, they aren't donations.
  • GoromhirGoromhir Member UncommonPosts: 463
    edited April 2016
    flizzer said:
    How about just don't play the game?  Plenty others to choose from. 
    yes i really hope that 99.9% of possible players do that instead of wasting time and money on this game that looks worse than anything i saw for $4.99 or less on steam in the past 15 years. 

    This whole project in its current form is a shame. Its almost impossible to turn this current project into something lets say like "The Elder Scrolls Online" for example. 

    And i doubt writing "LORD BRITISH!" on every commercial will turn the graphic engine and all the outdated combat animations into something that looks like 2016..... 

    I know many Ultima Online players,  now in their 40-50is that saw the video of this game and were shocked, myself included.

    If Richard Garriott really wants to set a Monument himself, then not with this software....

  • Solar_ProphetSolar_Prophet Member EpicPosts: 1,960
    And that's why SotA is pay to win garbage. 

    I also quit FFXIV because of the simply absurd state of housing in it. First off, there are no houses to buy. Wait, what? How the hell do you run out of instanced housing? What is the point of instancing it, then? Running out of instanced housing is unacceptable. 

    Second off, if you don't own a home, you're locked out of features like raising plants, breeding chocobos, and the like. I'm sorry but if you have mechanics like that in game, you don't tie them to an item with a finite supply. That's just piss poor design, and it's not fair. They're basically saying that my $15 /mo isn't worth as much as that of the person who has a house and can access all content. 

    Yes, I know that a guild house will allow access to those features. But I shouldn't have to join a guild to access what is essentially non-group content. 

    Thirdly, even if housing were available, it's too expensive. 35 million for a small house? I don't even think I've made ONE million yet! The prices are completely, for lack of a better word, unrealistic. 

    Ugh, sorry for the rant. It's a touchy subject for me. 

    AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!

    We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD. 

    #IStandWithVic

  • Good_ApolloGood_Apollo Member UncommonPosts: 55
    Aragon100 said:
    Future of MMO and fundraising - the more money pledged the more fun you will get in game.
    [endquote]
    The precise reason the community should have never forced the subscription model into obscurity. Aside from P2W and invasive cash shops, an equal playing field was the bog standard benefit of a subscription model. But no, $15 is too much money to spend for a game you play hours a day. >_>

    Welp, this is what we get, folks. The money is still going to come from somewhere, the only difference is that now it's an uneven playing field by default.
  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    Here is another example on how this self-proclaimed good community treat a new guy that have a negative view on the game -

    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/to-much-time-and-updates-and-i-have-the-same-feelings-about-the-game.53005/page-3


  • whilanwhilan Member UncommonPosts: 3,472
    Aragon100 said:
    Here is another example on how this self-proclaimed good community treat a new guy that have a negative view on the game -

    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/to-much-time-and-updates-and-i-have-the-same-feelings-about-the-game.53005/page-3


    Looked fine to me, not sure what I was supposed to see. I did see him saying (i'm assuming it's a him) combat/AI and animation were terrible but the only thing he said was it should be closer to Age of Conan not actually what was wrong with it.  There were a few people who said he was trolling but that happens on this forum to, so it's people being people. Oh he did use the word this game sucks, so not exactly the model new guy either.

    Most of the time they were asking him to clarify what the issues were, and then him turning around and saying, No i won't because then you'll just use it against me.

    The post did prove that generally that community is a good community. Which I don't think (and I could be wrong) was your intention...If it was, good job.

    Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.

    Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.

    image

  • Aragon100Aragon100 Member RarePosts: 2,686
    edited June 2016
    whilan said:
    Aragon100 said:
    Here is another example on how this self-proclaimed good community treat a new guy that have a negative view on the game -

    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/to-much-time-and-updates-and-i-have-the-same-feelings-about-the-game.53005/page-3


    Looked fine to me, not sure what I was supposed to see. I did see him saying (i'm assuming it's a him) combat/AI and animation were terrible but the only thing he said was it should be closer to Age of Conan not actually what was wrong with it.  There were a few people who said he was trolling but that happens on this forum to, so it's people being people. Oh he did use the word this game sucks, so not exactly the model new guy either.

    Most of the time they were asking him to clarify what the issues were, and then him turning around and saying, No i won't because then you'll just use it against me.

    The post did prove that generally that community is a good community. Which I don't think (and I could be wrong) was your intention...If it was, good job.
    I dont agree with you. I agree with Ashlynn (PAX) over at SotA forums that say -

    [quote]

    lol@the usual suspects dogpiling the guy and treating him with utter contempt.

    [endquote]

    I guess your a SotA fanboy so i can understand you feel the need defending the community.

    Telling a guy that is new to their forums he is a troll when he have negative concerns on the game he payed for is not being the nice community they call themself.

    They are deliberately trying to minimize his points as someone that haven't understood. It is the hi-money pledgers forum elite that do their best to discredit the guy just cause he had a negative approach of the game in his thread.


  • jonp200jonp200 Member UncommonPosts: 457
    edited June 2016
    When you really think it through, it really is utter crap.  Why shouldn't someone be able to enjoy player housing.  It's digital land.  Maybe the peons get instanced housing and those that want to spend gazillions of real money get static housing?  Honestly, I'm personally more than a little burned out on the whole crowd-funding paradigm. Greed..... I just funded my last game for a time (Crowfall - Glad I did) and am also pretty jaded when it comes to MMOs at present too. 

    I backed SOTA too remembering fondly the Ultima games of my youth - This isn't remotely like any of them and I have been largely disappointed by it and the development team.  I can't comment on the more recent builds, as I haven't had a version installed for a few months. I don't see myself spending any significant time in the game even after the "official release" (Whenever that happens.  Bet it happens before a certain "Space Sim" I'm not playing that either and got a refund)

    MMOs are really all about communities after all.  Playing SOTA at this point would almost be like stowing away on a cruise ship and watching all of the rich people eat, drink, and enjoy themselves while you sleep in the engine room; not a great vacation. Not one I want to go on.

    All of this started with the so called, "free to play" movement.  Guess what?  Nothing in life is free and the free to play model rarely bears out.  The majority of us are better off paying a sub.  Think about it. $15 a month; less than going to a movie for an entire month of entertainment and it levels the playing field.  Everyone gets the same content for their $15 and the developer gets a level income-stream. Yes, I realize this is dead.  There is too much money to made on micro-transactions and the model is a death sentence for a game at least as the sole payment model.

    The irony? We welcomed this with open arms (Well, many of us did) and now we're complaining about it.  Get used to it.  The whole genre has changed.  Maybe that's why I find myself going back to more single-player games.  I'm having a hard time getting invested in much else.

    Seaspite
    Playing ESO on my X-Box


  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited June 2016
    What's most interesting to me is how the attitudes you've quoted reflect real life.

    The players who put down $500+ feel the need to protect and expand their influence throughout the game by severely limiting who has access to land and houses.  They wish to be part of the elite of this game world.  It's a natural tendency of humans to gain this we elites vs. these peasants mentality.  We have an American presidential candidate right now that epitomizes this view (not trying to get a political debate started at all, just using a prominent example).

    In the end, this kind of system only truly "works" for those in that elite camp- the best that can be done for the "peasants" in that kind of system is to flood their senses with marketing and propaganda that makes them feel as if the system isn't working against them (when it truly is).  Developers, being omnipotent beings of game worlds they develop, have the unique ability to curb or even destroy and prevent these types of systems in an effort to offer access to these features to all players (roughly) equally.  

    To echo what others have said: if the developers don't accomplish the task of curbing or preventing such a system from existing in their game world, don't support that team.  It is the most surefire way to get the point across that the general gaming public isn't interested in stratifying the player base according to the size of their wallets.

    image
  • AlbatroesAlbatroes Member LegendaryPosts: 7,671
    edited June 2016
    hi
  • VicodinTacoVicodinTaco Member UncommonPosts: 804
    So you got two options.  Work for it in real life.  Or work for it in game.

    OUCH FEEL THE BERN
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 9,002
    Yep, it's actually a digital purchase.  They just say donation to make you feel better.  If I put 10,000 into a game I would expect some perks too.

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited June 2016
    jonp200 said:
    All of this started with the so called, "free to play" movement.  Guess what?  Nothing in life is free and the free to play model rarely bears out.  The majority of us are better off paying a sub.
    I think this statement is worth highlighting.  For those who find crowdfunding schemes like this one (provided the developers don't do anything along the way to curb and/or prevent such a traditional feudal system in-game based on out-of-game expenditure) deplorable, the best response is to subscribe to an MMORPG that includes a premium subscription.

    Nothing in life is free, and the free to play system will cost you, either in terms of microtransactions or suffering from an artificially inflated grind and/or piecemeal gaming experience.  These publishers are not adopting the strategy out of goodwill.  Supporting the subscription system with your wallet can send a message to publishers looking at funding future titles: namely, there are more than enough gamers willing to pay a monthly subscription to avoid being stratified and receive the entirety of the game's vision upfront and without strings.

    image
  • shadow9d9shadow9d9 Member UncommonPosts: 374
    Goromhir said:
    flizzer said:
    How about just don't play the game?  Plenty others to choose from. 
    yes i really hope that 99.9% of possible players do that instead of wasting time and money on this game that looks worse than anything i saw for $4.99 or less on steam in the past 15 years. 

    This whole project in its current form is a shame. Its almost impossible to turn this current project into something lets say like "The Elder Scrolls Online" for example. 

    And i doubt writing "LORD BRITISH!" on every commercial will turn the graphic engine and all the outdated combat animations into something that looks like 2016..... 

    I know many Ultima Online players,  now in their 40-50is that saw the video of this game and were shocked, myself included.

    If Richard Garriott really wants to set a Monument himself, then not with this software....

    You act like graphics mean something.  Have you missed the whole indie revolution of the past 5 years?  Amazing, amazing games.  Graphics mean nothing.

    ESO is awful.  Graphics won't help that.

    I haven't played this game yet, but graphics will have no effect on how good the game is to me.
  • LIOKILIOKI Member UncommonPosts: 421
    shadow9d9 said:
    Goromhir said:
    flizzer said:
    How about just don't play the game?  Plenty others to choose from. 
    yes i really hope that 99.9% of possible players do that instead of wasting time and money on this game that looks worse than anything i saw for $4.99 or less on steam in the past 15 years. 

    This whole project in its current form is a shame. Its almost impossible to turn this current project into something lets say like "The Elder Scrolls Online" for example. 

    And i doubt writing "LORD BRITISH!" on every commercial will turn the graphic engine and all the outdated combat animations into something that looks like 2016..... 

    I know many Ultima Online players,  now in their 40-50is that saw the video of this game and were shocked, myself included.

    If Richard Garriott really wants to set a Monument himself, then not with this software....

    You act like graphics mean something.  Have you missed the whole indie revolution of the past 5 years?  Amazing, amazing games.  Graphics mean nothing.

    ESO is awful.  Graphics won't help that.

    I haven't played this game yet, but graphics will have no effect on how good the game is to me.
      Based on this logic we would all be playing/developing MUDS.

  • GaendricGaendric Member UncommonPosts: 624
    edited July 2016
    shadow9d9 said:
    You act like graphics mean something.  Have you missed the whole indie revolution of the past 5 years?  Amazing, amazing games.  Graphics mean nothing.

    ESO is awful.  Graphics won't help that.

    I haven't played this game yet, but graphics will have no effect on how good the game is to me.
    But he is not you. Your taste is not his taste. Looks like graphics mean something to him.
    For many people graphics are a part of immersiveness, especially for MMORPGs. 
    Good for you though if you don't need it, you can enjoy more games. 
    None the less, can't argue about other people's tastes and preferences.

    As to the main topic:
    Sad to hear this, takes the game off my radar.
    Not playing p2w games. 

Sign In or Register to comment.