I do find it interesting to see the commentary wrt decay, since there has been ample discussion about how the removal of gear decay from MMOs is a contributing factor to the over-simplifications of the genre.
So I must say that I struggle to understand whether this is a problem with item decay, which I agree never works, or if it's commentary specific to SC because SC can do no right. Also, it was not confirmed that ships will just disappear. He said they need to be maintained.
This hasn't even been implemented and people are making assumptions about how it's going to work, lol. Classic.
2) Will there be a point where they can't be repaired at all? Yes and no. You can always repair the HP of a part to full after combat, but condition is unrecoverable.
so if condition is unrecoverable, then surely at some point it will reach 0 and be unusuable
Sounds kinda like DAoC armor and weapons. You can repair them only so many times before they break for good. This in it self is a good thing for any economy. The problem here is the fact they have sold ships for a few hundred to thousands of dollars (making millions) before disclosing this. This is dirty business considering many were looking at life time insurance on the products they bought now looking useless. In short, fraud, scam, charlatan. IMO if you have the ability to charge back your support of this game. Do it now while they still have money to give back.
This game is the most amusing game I've never played or will play. You seriously couldn't make this shit up. That 10k ship you bought? Enjoy re buying that a few months into launch (if it ever launches)! Woo! That sounds pretty fucking ace doesn't it?! ahahahahaha
Again I have to reiterate, are people buying ships or are those ships incentive rewards for pledges made? That's in the eye of the beholder.
I mean is a ship in a game worth $10k in real money? To me it isn't.. Like I said before if I were to fork over thousands it wouldn't be for a digital item, there would have to be a larger more sensible reason. Not that I view crowdfunding to be a sensible reason, I'd be looking at a rare Gibson or Rickenbacker personally. But my passion is music, not games...
I put my mouse over a ship it shows how much it sells for. I get some people backed this game to back this game. Some backed this game because they were buying a ship with lifetime insurance. After 100 mill in backed money, then they drop this bomb. If disclosed before people backed it np. Make it so only ships bought going forward have this new break rule and you break they game balance. I know if I had bought a ship (and thats how I would have looked at it) I would be charging back my credit card ASAP!
Like I said it's in the eyes of the beholder, as a none backer, I look at it all as rather ridiculous (the money being spent), but like I said this isn't my passion. In the end though this really depends on how backers view those "purchases". If they look at it as buying ships expect outrage, if they don't well outrage is less likely.
Im expecting outrage. My guess is when people get home from work and see this thread. Its gonna blow up, or a thread like this. IMO this comes across 100% shady even if they did this for the benefit of the game. Funny part is companies have gone crowd funded rout to not have development problems with investors but they only traded it for the voices of thousands that could impact a game even more. IMO how SC turns out could impact allot of games going forward that are crowd funded.
2) Will there be a point where they can't be repaired at all? Yes and no. You can always repair the HP of a part to full after combat, but condition is unrecoverable.
so if condition is unrecoverable, then surely at some point it will reach 0 and be unusuable
Sounds kinda like DAoC armor and weapons. You can repair them only so many times before they break for good. This in it self is a good thing for any economy. The problem here is the fact they have sold ships for a few hundred to thousands of dollars (making millions) before disclosing this. This is dirty business considering many were looking at life time insurance on the products they bought now looking useless. In short, fraud, scam, charlatan. IMO if you have the ability to charge back your support of this game. Do it now while they still have money to give back.
This game is the most amusing game I've never played or will play. You seriously couldn't make this shit up. That 10k ship you bought? Enjoy re buying that a few months into launch (if it ever launches)! Woo! That sounds pretty fucking ace doesn't it?! ahahahahaha
Again I have to reiterate, are people buying ships or are those ships incentive rewards for pledges made? That's in the eye of the beholder.
I mean is a ship in a game worth $10k in real money? To me it isn't.. Like I said before if I were to fork over thousands it wouldn't be for a digital item, there would have to be a larger more sensible reason. Not that I view crowdfunding to be a sensible reason, I'd be looking at a rare Gibson or Rickenbacker personally. But my passion is music, not games...
I put my mouse over a ship it shows how much it sells for. I get some people backed this game to back this game. Some backed this game because they were buying a ship with lifetime insurance. After 100 mill in backed money, then they drop this bomb. If disclosed before people backed it np. Make it so only ships bought going forward have this new break rule and you break they game balance. I know if I had bought a ship (and thats how I would have looked at it) I would be charging back my credit card ASAP!
Like I said it's in the eyes of the beholder, as a none backer, I look at it all as rather ridiculous (the money being spent), but like I said this isn't my passion. In the end though this really depends on how backers view those "purchases". If they look at it as buying ships expect outrage, if they don't well outrage is less likely.
Im expecting outrage. My guess is when people get home from work and see this thread. Its gonna blow up, or a thread like this. IMO this comes across 100% shady even if they did this for the benefit of the game. Funny part is companies have gone crowd funded rout to not have development problems with investors but they only traded it for the voices of thousands that could impact a game even more. IMO how SC turns out could impact allot of games going forward that are crowd funded.
I should say that he NEVER SAID THAT SHIPS WOULD DISAPPEAR!!! That was never mentioned. He said some items will degrade over time and may need to be replaced, but mentioned ships separately and NEVER said they would disappear. He said they would need to be maintained and they should show wear, or that a Manufacturer might release an upgraded model, but NEVER said they would need replacement.
After 100 mill in backed money, then they drop this bomb. If disclosewd before people backed it npthis new break rule
NEW break rule? You DO realize that you have been reading a 2013 dev quote that could potentially have changed 10 times since then, do you not?!
Have fun
my concern with this is that people would have pledged / not pledged on a comment, your talking about quite a serious effect on ships to change something as important as this is a massive faux pas.
its not like the design/look of the ship that doesn't really matter as pretty as some may/may not look your still get the ship as it was designed. but, its fact you have bought a ship you were led to believe would last you forever (lifetime insurance) that turns out it wont.
And yes the post was a few years back, but i find it odd that nowhere do they tell you that ships are not permanent but will in fact be destroyed (timeframe is not important fact is destroyed today / tomorrow next year is still destroyed). Surely they should have renamed the insurance 'ships lifetime insurance' then at least they have a get-out . To me if i buy a product, lets say a house (cause gawd know some people have put enough cash in to buy a cheap house/flat) and then 1/2 way through construction they change the materials from a permanent brick to a semi-permanent wooden construction would that stink .... I would like to see how many people would accept this 'because its in early development and the builders can change their mind at any time'
When you buy an idea, fine, when you buy a product thats not fine. Depending on which side of fence you sit, (and yes we know you love SC) this will be the argument... Are you a backer by buying a ship, or are you a customer as your buying a product, for me the line is when it was pure kickstart / idea your a backer, the moment there is more meat on the bone your buying a designed product then you cease to be backing and idea but in fact buying a product
To finish my link was only to reinforce the point made in the OP that you asked for proof of this being said, i linked said proof so the OP point was a valid one.
This game is the most amusing game I've never played or will play. You seriously couldn't make this shit up. That 10k ship you bought? Enjoy re buying that a few months into launch (if it ever launches)! Woo! That sounds pretty fucking ace doesn't it?! ahahahahaha
yeah, I find all the negative interest in this game creepy and fascinating at the same time. I dont understand why people just dont simply go play a different space sim and just ignore this game. Its not like this is the only option out there
We get it you said it a dozen times, you want us all to stop posting about sc and what we see and how bad the concept mod you guys are playing.
But once again, that is what we all do on game forums, comment on games that are good, bad, or looks like the original DF and how the dude ran it into the ground.
But yeah i get it you and cr want us to shut it. He shows that over on his forums by banning and attacking anything said about his design flaws.
@Quazal.A Pray tell, where does that developer mention ANYTHING about a ship being destroyed permanently by wear? So you have to re-buy it as the thread title claims.
This game is the most amusing game I've never played or will play. You seriously couldn't make this shit up. That 10k ship you bought? Enjoy re buying that a few months into launch (if it ever launches)! Woo! That sounds pretty fucking ace doesn't it?! ahahahahaha
yeah, I find all the negative interest in this game creepy and fascinating at the same time. I dont understand why people just dont simply go play a different space sim and just ignore this game. Its not like this is the only option out there
We get it you said it a dozen times, you want us all to stop posting about sc and what we see and how bad the concept mod you guys are playing.
But once again, that is what we all do on game forums, comment on games that are good, bad, or looks like the original DF and how the dude ran it into the ground.
But yeah i get it you and cr want us to shut it. He shows that over on his forums by banning and attacking anything said about his design flaws.
yeah it was a struggle to read and understand what you just said in fact I am still not clear.
moving on
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This game is the most amusing game I've never played or will play. You seriously couldn't make this shit up. That 10k ship you bought? Enjoy re buying that a few months into launch (if it ever launches)! Woo! That sounds pretty fucking ace doesn't it?! ahahahahaha
yeah, I find all the negative interest in this game creepy and fascinating at the same time. I dont understand why people just dont simply go play a different space sim and just ignore this game. Its not like this is the only option out there
We get it you said it a dozen times, you want us all to stop posting about sc and what we see and how bad the concept mod you guys are playing.
But once again, that is what we all do on game forums, comment on games that are good, bad, or looks like the original DF and how the dude ran it into the ground.
But yeah i get it you and cr want us to shut it. He shows that over on his forums by banning and attacking anything said about his design flaws.
yeah it was a struggle to read and understand what you just said in fact I am still not clear.
moving on
Which is exactly the problem you have. But I still like some of the posts you make.
Again I have to reiterate, are people buying ships or are those ships incentive rewards for pledges made? That's in the eye of the beholder.
I mean is a ship in a game worth $10k in real money? To me it isn't.. Like I said before if I were to fork over thousands it wouldn't be for a digital item, there would have to be a larger more sensible reason. Not that I view crowdfunding to be a sensible reason, I'd be looking at a rare Gibson or Rickenbacker personally. But my passion is music, not games...
People keep repeating this nonsense but consider this ...
Would you be "pledging" those 2,500+ dollars if that money wasn't tied to those ships. Put another way, why offer to give away ships as "incentive" if the true intent is an altruistic "pledge."
Bottom line ... players are "buying" those ships. Without those ship offerings there would be no "pledges."
Again I have to reiterate, are people buying ships or are those ships incentive rewards for pledges made? That's in the eye of the beholder.
I mean is a ship in a game worth $10k in real money? To me it isn't.. Like I said before if I were to fork over thousands it wouldn't be for a digital item, there would have to be a larger more sensible reason. Not that I view crowdfunding to be a sensible reason, I'd be looking at a rare Gibson or Rickenbacker personally. But my passion is music, not games...
People keep repeating this nonsense but consider this ...
Would you be "pledging" those 2,500+ dollars if that money wasn't tied to those ships. Put another way, why offer to give away ships as "incentive" if the true intent is an altruistic "pledge."
Bottom line ... players are "buying" those ships. Without those ship offerings there would be no "pledges."
This is a "purchase" not a "pledge."
Period.
WHat you think or I think means nothing to the point I was making, it's what the overall backer base feels that matters there, like I said it's up to how they see it (eye of the beholder). Are they buying ships or are they pledging... I don't think that's nonsense, I think it's the only really pertinent question to ask..... Everything rides on that, as how they view it will most definitely guide their reaction.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Again I have to reiterate, are people buying ships or are those ships incentive rewards for pledges made? That's in the eye of the beholder.
I mean is a ship in a game worth $10k in real money? To me it isn't.. Like I said before if I were to fork over thousands it wouldn't be for a digital item, there would have to be a larger more sensible reason. Not that I view crowdfunding to be a sensible reason, I'd be looking at a rare Gibson or Rickenbacker personally. But my passion is music, not games...
People keep repeating this nonsense but consider this ...
Would you be "pledging" those 2,500+ dollars if that money wasn't tied to those ships. Put another way, why offer to give away ships as "incentive" if the true intent is an altruistic "pledge."
Bottom line ... players are "buying" those ships. Without those ship offerings there would be no "pledges."
This is a "purchase" not a "pledge."
Period.
WHat you think or I think means nothing to the point I was making, it's what the overall backer base feels that matters there, like I said it's up to how they see it (eye of the beholder). Are they buying ships or are they pledging... I don't think that's nonsense, I think it's the only really pertinent question to ask..... Everything rides on that, as how they view it will most definitely guide their reaction.
But the ships aren't decaying to a point of being destroyed. There's nothing said about that.
People keep repeating this nonsense but consider this ...
Would you be "pledging" those 2,500+ dollars if that money wasn't tied to those ships. Put another way, why offer to give away ships as "incentive" if the true intent is an altruistic "pledge."
Bottom line ... players are "buying" those ships. Without those ship offerings there would be no "pledges."
This is a "purchase" not a "pledge."
Period.
WHat you think or I think means nothing to the point I was making, it's what the overall backer base feels that matters there, like I said it's up to how they see it (eye of the beholder). Are they buying ships or are they pledging... I don't think that's nonsense, I think it's the only really pertinent question to ask..... Everything rides on that, as how they view it will most definitely guide their reaction.
But the ships aren't decaying to a point of being destroyed. There's nothing said about that.
Well I can't say I'd be surprised the OP was yet again spinning half truths to stir stuff up, if that's the case there should be no issue at all..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Again I have to reiterate, are people buying ships or are those ships incentive rewards for pledges made? That's in the eye of the beholder.
I mean is a ship in a game worth $10k in real money? To me it isn't.. Like I said before if I were to fork over thousands it wouldn't be for a digital item, there would have to be a larger more sensible reason. Not that I view crowdfunding to be a sensible reason, I'd be looking at a rare Gibson or Rickenbacker personally. But my passion is music, not games...
People keep repeating this nonsense but consider this ...
Would you be "pledging" those 2,500+ dollars if that money wasn't tied to those ships. Put another way, why offer to give away ships as "incentive" if the true intent is an altruistic "pledge."
Bottom line ... players are "buying" those ships. Without those ship offerings there would be no "pledges."
This is a "purchase" not a "pledge."
Period.
WHat you think or I think means nothing to the point I was making, it's what the overall backer base feels that matters there, like I said it's up to how they see it (eye of the beholder). Are they buying ships or are they pledging... I don't think that's nonsense, I think it's the only really pertinent question to ask..... Everything rides on that, as how they view it will most definitely guide their reaction.
You are attempting to reduce this to a level of "preference" or "opinion" when nothing could be further from the truth. Again, would those same people be "pledging" 2,500+ dollars to the development of a virtual game if that ship was not being offered in return. If the answer is yes, then you would have a point. But we all know better than that don't we. We all know, for a fact, that if those ships were not tied into that "pledge," that "pledge" would not be forthcoming. These players are viewing an item, liking what they see, and buying that item based on a price attached to it. That is fact. Anyone, or anything attempting to distort that fact, is simply not being honest with themselves, or others, and complicit in the furtherance of that deceptive tactic.
And, how may I ask, is this any different than real life, as we all have to replace our stuff all the time. Why, do you think we have people and factories that make replacement parts?
Despite what some people think, video games are not real life.
Again I have to reiterate, are people buying ships or are those ships incentive rewards for pledges made? That's in the eye of the beholder.
I mean is a ship in a game worth $10k in real money? To me it isn't.. Like I said before if I were to fork over thousands it wouldn't be for a digital item, there would have to be a larger more sensible reason. Not that I view crowdfunding to be a sensible reason, I'd be looking at a rare Gibson or Rickenbacker personally. But my passion is music, not games...
People keep repeating this nonsense but consider this ...
Would you be "pledging" those 2,500+ dollars if that money wasn't tied to those ships. Put another way, why offer to give away ships as "incentive" if the true intent is an altruistic "pledge."
Bottom line ... players are "buying" those ships. Without those ship offerings there would be no "pledges."
This is a "purchase" not a "pledge."
Period.
WHat you think or I think means nothing to the point I was making, it's what the overall backer base feels that matters there, like I said it's up to how they see it (eye of the beholder). Are they buying ships or are they pledging... I don't think that's nonsense, I think it's the only really pertinent question to ask..... Everything rides on that, as how they view it will most definitely guide their reaction.
You are attempting to reduce this to a level of "preference" or "opinion" when nothing could be further from the truth. Again, would those same people be "pledging" 2,500+ dollars to the development of a virtual game if that ship was not being offered in return. If the answer is yes, then you would have a point. But we all know better than that don't we. We all know, for a fact, that if those ships were not tied into that "pledge," that "pledge" would not be forthcoming. These players are viewing an item, liking what they see, and buying that item based on a price attached to it. That is fact. Anyone, or anything attempting to distort that fact, is simply not being honest with themselves, or others, and complicit in the furtherance of that deceptive tactic.
LOL yes you know what others are thinking, get over yourself... Back to ignoring laced...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Again I have to reiterate, are people buying ships or are those ships incentive rewards for pledges made? That's in the eye of the beholder.
I mean is a ship in a game worth $10k in real money? To me it isn't.. Like I said before if I were to fork over thousands it wouldn't be for a digital item, there would have to be a larger more sensible reason. Not that I view crowdfunding to be a sensible reason, I'd be looking at a rare Gibson or Rickenbacker personally. But my passion is music, not games...
People keep repeating this nonsense but consider this ...
Would you be "pledging" those 2,500+ dollars if that money wasn't tied to those ships. Put another way, why offer to give away ships as "incentive" if the true intent is an altruistic "pledge."
Bottom line ... players are "buying" those ships. Without those ship offerings there would be no "pledges."
This is a "purchase" not a "pledge."
Period.
WHat you think or I think means nothing to the point I was making, it's what the overall backer base feels that matters there, like I said it's up to how they see it (eye of the beholder). Are they buying ships or are they pledging... I don't think that's nonsense, I think it's the only really pertinent question to ask..... Everything rides on that, as how they view it will most definitely guide their reaction.
You are attempting to reduce this to a level of "preference" or "opinion" when nothing could be further from the truth. Again, would those same people be "pledging" 2,500+ dollars to the development of a virtual game if that ship was not being offered in return. If the answer is yes, then you would have a point. But we all know better than that don't we. We all know, for a fact, that if those ships were not tied into that "pledge," that "pledge" would not be forthcoming. These players are viewing an item, liking what they see, and buying that item based on a price attached to it. That is fact. Anyone, or anything attempting to distort that fact, is simply not being honest with themselves, or others, and complicit in the furtherance of that deceptive tactic.
LOL yes you know what others are thinking, get over yourself... Back to ignoring laced...
That would be your best option because you can't argue with fact.
Btw, to your credit that is about as close an answer as one can give in a debate to admitting wrong without actually saying "I am wrong." Kudos go out to you for that.
Way to ruin a game before its even released, I would honestly just "Remove Your Funding" if its legally possible at this point because the developers are changing aspects of the game which you were not aware they were going to do and "Intentionally Driving The Project into the ground is what you could say."
Perhaps Derek was right about Star Citizen after all? Who knows?
However what I can say instead of doing the route they are taking with ships that have to be "Replaced to new models", and "Ships that can never be repaired" That is going to kill the game instead lets look at a korean aspect of the game.
. Make a deeper crafting system, and enhancement system where "Each Ship" has parts which can be upgraded.
. Make the game so that "Modules" Like in EVE Online can be Over Heated, and destroyed, or damaged
. Make Damaged Ships be able to be repaired to original, but costs "In Game Currency."
. Make certain specific module crafting have to have "Cash Shop Parts" If Desperate for money.
. Make "Insurance" so it covers modules, and ships being lost, the exception is over-heating them insurance will not replace that specific module then if it is destroyed or needs repair.
Over-All I am glad I only put like $20 into this game to try it, and it was unplayable too much lag likely due to the high end requirements at the time, but honestly I am expecting less and less from this game when they go and do things like this.
^ Read the "Description of the original "Kick Starter" they said "No Pay 2 Win" if they make changes to this so that any other tier ships the same such as 2.0 / 3.0 can win fights then you should seek a possible lawyer in my eyes if you care about your money.
The problem is that most money was directly paid to them through their site after their kick-starter.
Again I have to reiterate, are people buying ships or are those ships incentive rewards for pledges made? That's in the eye of the beholder.
I mean is a ship in a game worth $10k in real money? To me it isn't.. Like I said before if I were to fork over thousands it wouldn't be for a digital item, there would have to be a larger more sensible reason. Not that I view crowdfunding to be a sensible reason, I'd be looking at a rare Gibson or Rickenbacker personally. But my passion is music, not games...
People keep repeating this nonsense but consider this ...
Would you be "pledging" those 2,500+ dollars if that money wasn't tied to those ships. Put another way, why offer to give away ships as "incentive" if the true intent is an altruistic "pledge."
Bottom line ... players are "buying" those ships. Without those ship offerings there would be no "pledges."
This is a "purchase" not a "pledge."
Period.
WHat you think or I think means nothing to the point I was making, it's what the overall backer base feels that matters there, like I said it's up to how they see it (eye of the beholder). Are they buying ships or are they pledging... I don't think that's nonsense, I think it's the only really pertinent question to ask..... Everything rides on that, as how they view it will most definitely guide their reaction.
You are attempting to reduce this to a level of "preference" or "opinion" when nothing could be further from the truth. Again, would those same people be "pledging" 2,500+ dollars to the development of a virtual game if that ship was not being offered in return. If the answer is yes, then you would have a point. But we all know better than that don't we. We all know, for a fact, that if those ships were not tied into that "pledge," that "pledge" would not be forthcoming. These players are viewing an item, liking what they see, and buying that item based on a price attached to it. That is fact. Anyone, or anything attempting to distort that fact, is simply not being honest with themselves, or others, and complicit in the furtherance of that deceptive tactic.
LOL yes you know what others are thinking, get over yourself... Back to ignoring laced...
That would be your best option because you can't argue with fact.
Btw, to your credit that is about as close an answer as one can give in a debate to admitting wrong without actually saying "I am wrong." Kudos go out to you for that.
Exactly! And FACT is that there is no mention of ships decaying to a point of destruction. That is, literally, fact. It was never mentioned that ships would disappear.
You are attempting to reduce this to a level of "preference" or "opinion" when nothing could be further from the truth. Again, would those same people be "pledging" 2,500+ dollars to the development of a virtual game if that ship was not being offered in return. If the answer is yes, then you would have a point. But we all know better than that don't we. We all know, for a fact, that if those ships were not tied into that "pledge," that "pledge" would not be forthcoming. These players are viewing an item, liking what they see, and buying that item based on a price attached to it. That is fact. Anyone, or anything attempting to distort that fact, is simply not being honest with themselves, or others, and complicit in the furtherance of that deceptive tactic.
LOL yes you know what others are thinking, get over yourself... Back to ignoring laced...
That would be your best option because you can't argue with fact.
Btw, to your credit that is about as close an answer as one can give in a debate to admitting wrong without actually saying "I am wrong." Kudos go out to you for that.
Exactly! And FACT is that there is no mention of ships decaying to a point of destruction. That is, literally, fact. It was never mentioned that ships would disappear.
One thing I will never do is argue against fact, and run away when it is pointed out to me. If that is, in fact, the truth then I will concede the point to you and others reiterating the same.
One thing I will never do is argue against fact, and run away when it is pointed out to me. If that is, in fact, the truth then I will concede the point to you and others reiterating the same.
This will be the last time I ever respond to one of your posts, I wasn't running away from this debate I'd gladly continue it with anyone else, even the OP...
But you oh you...We've had far too many circular arguments to ever want to have another . Add in the fact that you feel it's fact that you know another's motivation to purchase anything, it's a clear waste of time... as usual it would go no where.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Is this a for real? This sounds to me like milking the ship market with a cash shop. CIG never cease to amaze me with their ability to include more and more ridiculous "features" into their non existing game.
Is this a good idea? Only implemented for a cash shop to sell ships after release? Another feature that will never make it into the final game?
[mod edit - , also edited title slightly]
A lot of people like the mechanic of item degradation. You see people advocating for it because it improves player made crafting and economy. I'm not that read in on SC systems, but if there isn't the ability to craft or trade items to fix or otherwise replace them (in game, not cash shop), then I'd say it was a mistake.
Comments
Have fun
So I must say that I struggle to understand whether this is a problem with item decay, which I agree never works, or if it's commentary specific to SC because SC can do no right. Also, it was not confirmed that ships will just disappear. He said they need to be maintained.
This hasn't even been implemented and people are making assumptions about how it's going to work, lol. Classic.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I should say that he NEVER SAID THAT SHIPS WOULD DISAPPEAR!!! That was never mentioned. He said some items will degrade over time and may need to be replaced, but mentioned ships separately and NEVER said they would disappear. He said they would need to be maintained and they should show wear, or that a Manufacturer might release an upgraded model, but NEVER said they would need replacement.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
its not like the design/look of the ship that doesn't really matter as pretty as some may/may not look your still get the ship as it was designed. but, its fact you have bought a ship you were led to believe would last you forever (lifetime insurance) that turns out it wont.
And yes the post was a few years back, but i find it odd that nowhere do they tell you that ships are not permanent but will in fact be destroyed (timeframe is not important fact is destroyed today / tomorrow next year is still destroyed).
Surely they should have renamed the insurance 'ships lifetime insurance' then at least they have a get-out . To me if i buy a product, lets say a house (cause gawd know some people have put enough cash in to buy a cheap house/flat) and then 1/2 way through construction they change the materials from a permanent brick to a semi-permanent wooden construction would that stink .... I would like to see how many people would accept this 'because its in early development and the builders can change their mind at any time'
When you buy an idea, fine, when you buy a product thats not fine. Depending on which side of fence you sit, (and yes we know you love SC) this will be the argument... Are you a backer by buying a ship, or are you a customer as your buying a product, for me the line is when it was pure kickstart / idea your a backer, the moment there is more meat on the bone your buying a designed product then you cease to be backing and idea but in fact buying a product
To finish my link was only to reinforce the point made in the OP that you asked for proof of this being said, i linked said proof so the OP point was a valid one.
This post is all my opinion, but I welcome debate on anything i have put, however, personal slander / name calling belongs in game
where of course you're welcome to call me names im often found lounging about in EvE online.
Use this code for 21days trial in eve online https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=d385aff2-794a-44a4-96f1-3967ccf6d720&action=buddy
I suppose it would be new if you only started reading about the game features today, lol
But once again, that is what we all do on game forums, comment on games that are good, bad, or looks like the original DF and how the dude ran it into the ground.
But yeah i get it you and cr want us to shut it. He shows that over on his forums by banning and attacking anything said about his design flaws.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
YOU claim that. Not the dev.
Have fun
moving on
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
People keep repeating this nonsense but consider this ...
Would you be "pledging" those 2,500+ dollars if that money wasn't tied to those ships. Put another way, why offer to give away ships as "incentive" if the true intent is an altruistic "pledge."
Bottom line ... players are "buying" those ships. Without those ship offerings there would be no "pledges."
This is a "purchase" not a "pledge."
Period.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You DO realize that this is the very definition of "flip-flopping?"
Your attempt to justify the act does not change the fact that you are, in essence, making his very point.
But the ships aren't decaying to a point of being destroyed. There's nothing said about that.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You are attempting to reduce this to a level of "preference" or "opinion" when nothing could be further from the truth. Again, would those same people be "pledging" 2,500+ dollars to the development of a virtual game if that ship was not being offered in return. If the answer is yes, then you would have a point. But we all know better than that don't we. We all know, for a fact, that if those ships were not tied into that "pledge," that "pledge" would not be forthcoming. These players are viewing an item, liking what they see, and buying that item based on a price attached to it. That is fact. Anyone, or anything attempting to distort that fact, is simply not being honest with themselves, or others, and complicit in the furtherance of that deceptive tactic.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
That would be your best option because you can't argue with fact.
Btw, to your credit that is about as close an answer as one can give in a debate to admitting wrong without actually saying "I am wrong." Kudos go out to you for that.
Perhaps Derek was right about Star Citizen after all? Who knows?
However what I can say instead of doing the route they are taking with ships that have to be "Replaced to new models", and "Ships that can never be repaired" That is going to kill the game instead lets look at a korean aspect of the game.
. Make a deeper crafting system, and enhancement system where "Each Ship" has parts which can be upgraded.
. Make the game so that "Modules" Like in EVE Online can be Over Heated, and destroyed, or damaged
. Make Damaged Ships be able to be repaired to original, but costs "In Game Currency."
. Make certain specific module crafting have to have "Cash Shop Parts" If Desperate for money.
. Make "Insurance" so it covers modules, and ships being lost, the exception is over-heating them insurance will not replace that specific module then if it is destroyed or needs repair.
Over-All I am glad I only put like $20 into this game to try it, and it was unplayable too much lag likely due to the high end requirements at the time, but honestly I am expecting less and less from this game when they go and do things like this.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/comments
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description
^ Read the "Description of the original "Kick Starter" they said "No Pay 2 Win" if they make changes to this so that any other tier ships the same such as 2.0 / 3.0 can win fights then you should seek a possible lawyer in my eyes if you care about your money.
The problem is that most money was directly paid to them through their site after their kick-starter.
Exactly! And FACT is that there is no mention of ships decaying to a point of destruction. That is, literally, fact. It was never mentioned that ships would disappear.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
One thing I will never do is argue against fact, and run away when it is pointed out to me. If that is, in fact, the truth then I will concede the point to you and others reiterating the same.
But you oh you...We've had far too many circular arguments to ever want to have another . Add in the fact that you feel it's fact that you know another's motivation to purchase anything, it's a clear waste of time... as usual it would go no where.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I self identify as a monkey.