That they removed the no npc drops, and non-auction house system they plan to use. The stall system is a pain in the ass to ever find what your looking for, I personally dispise games that use it. Only game I ever felt it was ok in was FF14, because they gave you a way to search them since they were all in a instanced zone, you could search from outside of it and then have the game help you find the one selling what you want. This was in 1.0 of ff14 but I am fairly sure it'll be in ARR as well.
Not going to happen. You will want to look elsewhere, for a game you may enjoy. There are a ton out there with the features you describe, so it shouldn't be difficult.
Personally I still feel the game is vaporware till we see an actual playable alpha or something. I personally dislike kickstarter it just seems like a scam since a large majority of the games are like CU, nothing but concepts and art and no actual game in any form to show yet. Yet people seem to throw money at them with no promise that anything will ever come of it.
That's the whole point of Kickstarter. It exists so that concepts that people like can be funded and made into products they want, rather than something which is the result of some corporation's "market research". I detest the current crop of games which have been made in this fashion.(That's pretty much everything which has come out in the last 7 years.)
It just boggles my mind that people feel starved for information, but then I've been buying boxes off the shelf with nothing more than what is printed on them for almost 30 years.
30 years ago things were different. There wasn't an Internet. You relied on previews in game magazines, word of mouth, or what you saw on the retail box. Also the games we played 30 years ago didn't require a monthly subscription.
Now we do have the Internet, so we expect to learn a lot more about a game before we buy it. And CU will be a monthly subscription game, so it's fair before committing to purchase it or donate to it that we find out what we will be getting and whether it's something we will want to pay for every month.
I get that there are more sources of information these days than when I was a kid. And that expectations have been raised, especially in the day of free trials. But between what is on CSE's website, the Kickstarter page, gaming sites, and boards like this one, it shouldn't be an ordeal to decide if you want to throw $25 at the game. If you are talking about a more substantial amount (>$50), then I can see wanting more than what you would have had on the retail box.
Personally, if the KS funds, I'll have spent more on this "idea" than all the games I've paid for in the past year and a half (not including presents for other people) combined. But I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to gaming at the current time, which makes it all the more hard for me to believe a hardcore gamer would even have to think twice.
Still, if we are just talking about what we woud like to know, I would like to hear about:
the world - is it totally open, or zoned for control, or something in between
the skill system - is it straight line, trunk-branch, totally free form, or something else
group size - will it be a set number (if so, what?), will there be multi-group formations, or just custom chat (or not)
collision detection - if yes, what form; if no, will tanks have an ability that forces an enemy to /face /target them
And lots of others already mentioned in this thread and elsewhere. The fun is that as a backer, I might get a voice in deciding the answers though.
What kind of information do you want to see revealed during these final 2 weeks?
I want to see what their preliminary alpha / conceptual plans are for the RvR map design. I want them to say "player killing focused" (objectives optional) or "objective focused" (player kills optional).
I also want to see their conceptual / notion ideas for class/group composition. I want to see them say "small, 3-5 player groups" or "large, 5-10 player groups". I want to see them provide notional characteristics of the 5 classes, and weapon selection.
I want to see them mention combat mechanics that they will include, and other notions they will evaluate. E.g. I want to see them say "spammy, low-duration / low-cooldown CC" or "potent, high cooldown CC". I want to see them say "auras, chants". I want to see them say "positional and chain abilities". I want to see them say "multiple resource pools", or not.
Even if they are only evaluating the notional ideas to test them, I think it will go a long way to demonstrate that they are including those ideas. These things will give a lot of confidence to potential pledgers beyond abstract ideas like "INTENSE COMBAT GUYZ".
I have my fear that the game won't make it. it is not even in alpha stage. They only have artwork.
When people has no image of how the game will be like, other than words (we all heard 'em before), they are not willing to pay.
Only dedicated PvP'ers will back this up. But most people are not attracted to wall of text and no content show-off.
That is what makes this KS fail.
Elite 2.2m from 25k people, and Star Citizen 2.1m from 35k backers managed it with artwork and no working game.
A five minute perusal of those two kickstarter pages will show how tangibly farther along they were in development than CU is at present. Their games were far enough along that they could actually demonstrate aspects of gameplay, their design pinned narrowly down enough that the lead devs could talk at length about specifics of how each system is working. Neither were 'just artwork'.
Personally, I too would like to hear specifics about classes, crafting, and customization.
The number one thing for me would be just how extensive the building system is going to be. Will it be like, say, Shadowbane, where we're literally constructing entire cities?
Aside from that, I think it is important for them just to release more specifics about, well, everything. Many people seem to be reluctant to pledge without more concrete details about what the game is actually going to look like.
Still, if we are just talking about what we woud like to know, I would like to hear about:
the world - is it totally open, or zoned for control, or something in between
the skill system - is it straight line, trunk-branch, totally free form, or something else
group size - will it be a set number (if so, what?), will there be multi-group formations, or just custom chat (or not)
collision detection - if yes, what form; if no, will tanks have an ability that forces an enemy to /face /target them
Good questions. Those are things I'd like to hear more about too.
Mark made some comments in the Kickstarter comments about collision detection the other day. He was favorable towards it if it didn't greatly impact performance. There was a suggestion (not sure if it was Mark's or a backer's) that CD might not be always on but that it would require a tank with a shield entering a blocking stance. It seems like whether there is CD or not will be one of those things that is determined later based on engine performance and backer feedback. You can probably find the exact quotes on one of the CU wikis.
Still, if we are just talking about what we woud like to know, I would like to hear about:
the world - is it totally open, or zoned for control, or something in between
the skill system - is it straight line, trunk-branch, totally free form, or something else
group size - will it be a set number (if so, what?), will there be multi-group formations, or just custom chat (or not)
collision detection - if yes, what form; if no, will tanks have an ability that forces an enemy to /face /target them
Good questions. Those are things I'd like to hear more about too.
Mark made some comments in the Kickstarter comments about collision detection the other day. He was favorable towards it if it didn't greatly impact performance. There was a suggestion (not sure if it was Mark's or a backer's) that CD might not be always on but that it would require a tank with a shield entering a blocking stance. It seems like whether there is CD or not will be one of those things that is determined later based on engine performance and backer feedback. You can probably find the exact quotes on one of the CU wikis.
Andrew's podcast last night mentioned that CD would be a decision based entirely on how it affects gameplay. I'm glad to hear the tech will not have an issue either way and that they will be considering the effect on gameplay, although he also said something like he (Andrew) is in favor of including physics effects (I assume CD is one).
Mark's podcast commented on group size. He said something to the effect that group size will be determined after they have fleshed out the classes and see how those fit together and what that dynamic requires. Sounds like there will be a set group size, but I think he may have mentioned something about flexible group sizes not being off the table (possibly my imagination).
Both of them had comments on the world, although both were quite vague. Andrew commented on how he hoped to make the world appear seamless to the player, despite being on multiple boxes at the server location. That doesn't mean it won't have zones of control, but at least they are shooting for a minimal amount of loading pages (that's one thing I hate about WAR, having to reload the map to switch between pairings). Mark was asked directly if there would be choke points, and his reply was essentiallly yes. He wants the world to be "interesting" and not just a giant flat plain.
I didn't see all of the interview with Mark, so I don't know if he said anything about the skills system, but he did not in the part I saw. Andrew definitely did not.
Comments
Not going to happen. You will want to look elsewhere, for a game you may enjoy. There are a ton out there with the features you describe, so it shouldn't be difficult.
That's the whole point of Kickstarter. It exists so that concepts that people like can be funded and made into products they want, rather than something which is the result of some corporation's "market research". I detest the current crop of games which have been made in this fashion.(That's pretty much everything which has come out in the last 7 years.)
I am still waiting for a reason to give him my money.
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
And here it is: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained/posts/456223
Especially at 8:06 in the video.
I get that there are more sources of information these days than when I was a kid. And that expectations have been raised, especially in the day of free trials. But between what is on CSE's website, the Kickstarter page, gaming sites, and boards like this one, it shouldn't be an ordeal to decide if you want to throw $25 at the game. If you are talking about a more substantial amount (>$50), then I can see wanting more than what you would have had on the retail box.
Personally, if the KS funds, I'll have spent more on this "idea" than all the games I've paid for in the past year and a half (not including presents for other people) combined. But I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to gaming at the current time, which makes it all the more hard for me to believe a hardcore gamer would even have to think twice.
What kind of information do you want to see revealed during these final 2 weeks?
I want to see what their preliminary alpha / conceptual plans are for the RvR map design. I want them to say "player killing focused" (objectives optional) or "objective focused" (player kills optional).
I also want to see their conceptual / notion ideas for class/group composition. I want to see them say "small, 3-5 player groups" or "large, 5-10 player groups". I want to see them provide notional characteristics of the 5 classes, and weapon selection.
I want to see them mention combat mechanics that they will include, and other notions they will evaluate. E.g. I want to see them say "spammy, low-duration / low-cooldown CC" or "potent, high cooldown CC". I want to see them say "auras, chants". I want to see them say "positional and chain abilities". I want to see them say "multiple resource pools", or not.
Even if they are only evaluating the notional ideas to test them, I think it will go a long way to demonstrate that they are including those ideas. These things will give a lot of confidence to potential pledgers beyond abstract ideas like "INTENSE COMBAT GUYZ".
A five minute perusal of those two kickstarter pages will show how tangibly farther along they were in development than CU is at present. Their games were far enough along that they could actually demonstrate aspects of gameplay, their design pinned narrowly down enough that the lead devs could talk at length about specifics of how each system is working. Neither were 'just artwork'.
Personally, I too would like to hear specifics about classes, crafting, and customization.
The number one thing for me would be just how extensive the building system is going to be. Will it be like, say, Shadowbane, where we're literally constructing entire cities?
Aside from that, I think it is important for them just to release more specifics about, well, everything. Many people seem to be reluctant to pledge without more concrete details about what the game is actually going to look like.
Good questions. Those are things I'd like to hear more about too.
Mark made some comments in the Kickstarter comments about collision detection the other day. He was favorable towards it if it didn't greatly impact performance. There was a suggestion (not sure if it was Mark's or a backer's) that CD might not be always on but that it would require a tank with a shield entering a blocking stance. It seems like whether there is CD or not will be one of those things that is determined later based on engine performance and backer feedback. You can probably find the exact quotes on one of the CU wikis.
DAOC Live (inactive): R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R6 Healer
Andrew's podcast last night mentioned that CD would be a decision based entirely on how it affects gameplay. I'm glad to hear the tech will not have an issue either way and that they will be considering the effect on gameplay, although he also said something like he (Andrew) is in favor of including physics effects (I assume CD is one).
Mark's podcast commented on group size. He said something to the effect that group size will be determined after they have fleshed out the classes and see how those fit together and what that dynamic requires. Sounds like there will be a set group size, but I think he may have mentioned something about flexible group sizes not being off the table (possibly my imagination).
Both of them had comments on the world, although both were quite vague. Andrew commented on how he hoped to make the world appear seamless to the player, despite being on multiple boxes at the server location. That doesn't mean it won't have zones of control, but at least they are shooting for a minimal amount of loading pages (that's one thing I hate about WAR, having to reload the map to switch between pairings). Mark was asked directly if there would be choke points, and his reply was essentiallly yes. He wants the world to be "interesting" and not just a giant flat plain.
I didn't see all of the interview with Mark, so I don't know if he said anything about the skills system, but he did not in the part I saw. Andrew definitely did not.