House pledgers dislike the instanced house proposition

Aragon100 · April 2016

It would of course devalue their +1000 $ pledge but all would have a place called home.

This good idea would not affect anyone else since these houses will be invisible cause they are instanced.

This whole discussion is a good example what is so incredibly wrong with this game, if you let the players do the financing by as in this game buy houses they will do all they can to protect their investment, no matter if it will make the game a less successful one.

It is pure greed.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/easy-solution-to-housing-shortage.49104/#post-541632

Talonsin · April 2016

I think crowdfunding has seen its hey-day. Supporting a crowd funded game is the same thing as buying a lifetime sub to an MMO, to removes your ability to vote with your wallet and that is the only thing most developers understand.

Thomas2006 · April 2016

Housing shortage.. wtf are you guys even going on about? Have you seen the number of guild towns and the amount of player owned / run cities in the game? There is by no means any type of housing shortage except for in the major cities and this is going to happen no matter what unless they go with a instanced system.

The rate that they have been adding player towns and guild towns to the game its going to end up being a town every few inchs in the game.

Aragon100 · April 2016

Thomas2006 said:

Housing shortage.. wtf are you guys even going on about? Have you seen the number of guild towns and the amount of player owned / run cities in the game? There is by no means any type of housing shortage except for in the major cities and this is going to happen no matter what unless they go with a instanced system.

The rate that they have been adding player towns and guild towns to the game its going to end up being a town every few inchs in the game.

So your totally unaware that developers estimate there will be placed houses for approximately 20 % of the in game population?

Paying +1000 $ for a house isn't something all can handle.

Having a instanced option for lets say 30-40 $ would give the less real life rich part of the population an option they might handle.

But then you have the greed from the one's that pledged +1000 $ and developers do take notice of their words, more then they listen to the one's that only pledged for 45 $. So i doubt this good suggestion will ever become a reality.

UnseenDragon say this about the "house market" - [quote]

Apparently, I was not very clear in my question. It was if housing would be KEPT scarce. Again, Richard had said (I believe) 20% of the total playerbase should have housing. This would be largely those who earned it by pledging along with a small amount of extra plots available for in-game gold.

Originally it was stated that the intent was to keep housing rare and valuable. I'm really seeking if there has been a comment/statement about this changing it, or if this was still the marching orders. [endquote]

And this is Womby response to him - [quote]

That is correct. Lot deeds will be limited. Already it is no longer possible to purchase a village lot deed in the Add-On store. Currently the only way to get one of those is through a pledge. When the game launches a small number of lot deeds will be available for purchase through in game gold. The mechanism has not been decided - front-runners are lottery or auction. [endquote]

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/housing-and-plot-rarity.43936/

Aenra · April 2016

I too contested their thinking, and in public. Regardless of my opinion however, or yours come to that, the fact is that this is a boat long since sailed.

[mod edit]

Am worse than you. I got 550 in and honest to God, i feel it's not even worth my time running like a monkey, skipping all content, just so i can get my lot claimed. That's what you got to do btw, it's not automated.. you literally need run from marker to marker, then town to town, until you find one empty. Can't even be asked to do that, am that disheartened. You ever seen me on a crusade? Wondered why? Ship..long..sailed..

filmoret · April 2016

Yea then they will dislike the fact that housing area's are a lag fest because they aren't instanced.

Aragon100 · April 2016

filmoret said:

Yea then they will dislike the fact that housing area's are a lag fest because they aren't instanced.

Agree

Aragon100 · April 2016

These house pledgers comes up with all sort of excuses why they don't like instanced houses but playing the game with all the thousand's of small instances seem to be no problem at all.

Such hypocrisy.

Loke666 · April 2016

Can't they just instance the houses for any non pladges and leave the ones who payed for it in the open world?

Fully open housing is of course optimal but instancing of at least most the small houses do have advantages since it increases the performance a lot. But they can at least have some housing in the open world, just let those be more expensive.

Player and guild owned towns do add a lot to a game, but you don't have to have all shacks in the open world if your engine can't handle it. Instancing everything like in EQ2 ain't a good solution, a really rich and successful player should be able to have a house. Any poor noob shouldn't but they should still have some little place to stack their stuff and that doesn't have to be in the open world.

acidblood · April 2016

What about apartment style housing... i.e. Have a few buildings around town with an entrance door (read: portal) and instanced rooms that players can rent, or buy, for gold. That way everyone can have at least a small room with a bed, a few decorations, and a chest to call their own. If you want more than that, well that's what open world housing if for.

Aragon100 · April 2016

acidblood said:

What about apartment style housing... i.e. Have a few buildings around town with an entrance door (read: portal) and instanced rooms that players can rent, or buy, for gold. That way everyone can have at least a small room with a bed, a few decorations, and a chest to call their own. If you want more than that, well that's what open world housing if for.

That would work just fine but the one's that invested a lot of real life money when they bought their house to finance the game won't accept that since it would lower the price of their house investment.

That is the problem when developers decided to finance their game with a pledge system.

House investors greed will most likely make this game a less successful one.

Aragon100 · April 2016

Loke666 said:

Can't they just instance the houses for any non pladges and leave the ones who payed for it in the open world?

Fully open housing is of course optimal but instancing of at least most the small houses do have advantages since it increases the performance a lot. But they can at least have some housing in the open world, just let those be more expensive.

Player and guild owned towns do add a lot to a game, but you don't have to have all shacks in the open world if your engine can't handle it. Instancing everything like in EQ2 ain't a good solution, a really rich and successful player should be able to have a house. Any poor noob shouldn't but they should still have some little place to stack their stuff and that doesn't have to be in the open world.

I agree it would increase performance. But as said above the one's that invested real life money wont accept their investment going down if developers decided to make houses instanced.

Developers have decided to listen to these hi pledge investors and no one else.

Rnjypsy · April 2016

Oh wait, I know-instead of instanced housing for those who didn't pledge $1000 we can just have strategically placed bridge underpasses with warming trashcan fires and shopping carts. Won't that be fun and another toady effort to make the big spenders feel all special??

Kyleran · April 2016

Some folks in this thread seem to have a real dislike/envy of the "big spenders" (who helped get this game made in the first place).

They claim their personal interest is for the "good of the game" but is coming across more as simple jealousy that someone spent more and expect more for their greater support.

Solar_Prophet · April 2016

So glad I only pledged $20. What a joke this project has become. Go back to space and stay there, Dick.

Aragon100 · April 2016

SedrynTyros said:

Kyleran said:

Some folks in this thread seem to have a real dislike/envy of the "big spenders" (who helped get this game made in the first place).

They claim their personal interest is for the "good of the game" but is coming across more as simple jealousy that someone spent more and expect more for their greater support.

That's probably a valid sentiment in some cases, but when I look at the big picture of it all I think the pledge system is flawed. Part of what makes RPGs fun is that you get to escape into a virtual world and take on the role of a character that can do things you may never have the opportunity to do in your real life. You may be a peasant in the real world, but in the virtual world there's the opportunity for you to be a noble. What Portalarium has done is to bring real life financial success into the virtual world. So if you're rich in real life, you get to be rich in the game. If you're not rich in real life? Well, sorry. Hey you're used to being a peasant anyway so why should that change in Shroud of the Avatar, lol?

I think something important has been sacrificed with this pledge system and I think it's going to cost them players. But I guess we'll see.

Well said.

Aragon100 · April 2016

Kyleran said:

Some folks in this thread seem to have a real dislike/envy of the "big spenders" (who helped get this game made in the first place).

They claim their personal interest is for the "good of the game" but is coming across more as simple jealousy that someone spent more and expect more for their greater support.

Read Sedron Tyros well explained reply and i hope you start to understand why this game (hopefully none in the future) is so bad, not just the game itself but especially the standard they try to set.

When playing a game the ones with less real life money should of course expect to have the same in game fun as the one with a lot of real life money. When game companies like this one try to deliver more fun to the rich player then even you should understand that it is seriously wrong.

Tiamat64 · April 2016

The main issue is that companies discovered that holding back the fun to deliver to the richer people is how one can get more money from those rich people despite how they KNOW it hurts the overall health of the game.

It's not even a secret any more. R2Games just casually flat out stated in a public presentation that they were fully aware that it would hurt the player base and player retention of a game. In the end, however, business is business and overall profits are increased this way, integrity of the game be damned.

By selling exclusive housing rights to big pledgers, Shroud of the Avatar almost positively gets more big pledges that total up more than they would have gotten from a larger amount of little pledges. That's how whaling works and if it didn't work so well, tons of companies wouldn't be doing it.

Sad times, really.

rodarin · April 2016

Lots of sides to these debates. But if they are trying to make it exclusive then keep it that way. If people cant handle it dont play. Bad argument but one that the makers of the game know and accept.

The major issue about these arguments its usually brought on by the participation trophy era kids who think they should get everything everyone else gets for 'nothing' (or at least something they PERSONALLY can do that doesnt take much time and effort).

Thats why MMOs 'fail' because it impossible to make a system that makes it 'fair' for everyone. So you have ot make a system that you (the developer) feels works best for the game and live by it. everyone is going to whine and cry anyway once you weed those guys out you hope the people you have left will stay.

People dont have to play every game that comes out, if the game doesnt cater to what you want dont play it.

Its always funny how people who arent going ot play for more than a month anyway always try and dictate how games should be.

Kyleran · April 2016

Aragon100 said:

Kyleran said:

Some folks in this thread seem to have a real dislike/envy of the "big spenders" (who helped get this game made in the first place).

They claim their personal interest is for the "good of the game" but is coming across more as simple jealousy that someone spent more and expect more for their greater support.

Read Sedron Tyros well explained reply and i hope you start to understand why this game (hopefully none in the future) is so bad, not just the game itself but especially the standard they try to set.

When playing a game the ones with less real life money should of course expect to have the same in game fun as the one with a lot of real life money. When game companies like this one try to deliver more fun to the rich player then even you should understand that it is seriously wrong.

Following your logic, should the ones who pay no money expect to have the same in game fun as those who pay "some" money? Should everyone have the same level of fun, regardless what they pay?

Might have worked that way once before, but this is a brave new world, and going forward they are going to be designed and cater to those who pay for them, and likely favor those who are willing to pay more.

Stop thinking in terms of right, wrong, fair, and unfair, think in terms of "makes money", make's more money, makes shitloads of money" and you'll get a better understanding of the future.

There will likely be those games that take a different path, trying for less money from a great number of players, but not every game of course.

Aragon100 · April 2016

Kyleran said:

Aragon100 said:

Kyleran said:

Some folks in this thread seem to have a real dislike/envy of the "big spenders" (who helped get this game made in the first place).

They claim their personal interest is for the "good of the game" but is coming across more as simple jealousy that someone spent more and expect more for their greater support.

Read Sedron Tyros well explained reply and i hope you start to understand why this game (hopefully none in the future) is so bad, not just the game itself but especially the standard they try to set.

When playing a game the ones with less real life money should of course expect to have the same in game fun as the one with a lot of real life money. When game companies like this one try to deliver more fun to the rich player then even you should understand that it is seriously wrong.

Following your logic, should the ones who pay no money expect to have the same in game fun as those who pay "some" money? Should everyone have the same level of fun, regardless what they pay?

Might have worked that way once before, but this is a brave new world, and going forward they are going to be designed and cater to those who pay for them, and likely favor those who are willing to pay more.

Stop thinking in terms of right, wrong, fair, and unfair, think in terms of "makes money", make's more money, makes shitloads of money" and you'll get a better understanding of the future.

There will likely be those games that take a different path, trying for less money from a great number of players, but not every game of course.

You really expect this game to become a success?

There decision to finance the game by selling houses to rich people and also deciding others shouldn't have one is most likely the number one feature why this game will fail.

Creating and financing games where players start the game differently/less/more fun will never be accepted by any large number of players.

And getting numbers are more important then creating a game for a few rich ones.

Rnjypsy · April 2016

Kyleran said:

Some folks in this thread seem to have a real dislike/envy of the "big spenders" (who helped get this game made in the first place).

They claim their personal interest is for the "good of the game" but is coming across more as simple jealousy that someone spent more and expect more for their greater support.

Just sad to see MMOs go boutique, but the way it is for now.

Aragon100 · April 2016

SedrynTyros said:

Jean-Luc_Picard said:

If you take your average monthly fee MMORPG, which costs $15 every month which means $180 every year, that's also fun for those who have money and no fun for those who don't have it, yet I never saw people complain about that.
In SotA, everyone can log in, for much less than that.

So what are subscription based MMORPGs? Entertainment for the rich? So all games should be free so the freeloaders can have their fun?

$15 per month compared to $1000 up front for a mansion ... yeah, no difference there!

I think bringing real life finances into the game in this way is a bad idea, but for those who disagree I sincerely hope you enjoy it. I just hope you won't fool yourselves into believing this dynamic isn't going to negatively impact the game.

Aye, i agree. A financial system as this will in the long run make the game less successful. All players should start the game at equal terms.

postlarval · April 2016

The devs have stated that there will be exactly as many lots as lot deeds sold. That means if you pledged at the $275/$375/$450 level you get a row lot deed (rent free) for a row house in a city. For $550/$570/$575/$800 you get a village lot deed (rent free). Everyone else at $1200 and above gets a town or bigger lot deed based on how much they spend.

There are currently 4,486 deeds issued. How many get used is up in the air, but I can't imagine many who will pass up a lot when they pay no rent, even if they are going to live in a POT.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11NTsnRRN9zcDVwv-d15dYcdSf8UC4LtRNXuC5hzLBhU/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=1933397109

Everyone below $275 and all newcomers at launch will have to buy lot deeds with in-game currency and those deeds have rent attached to them that must be paid (I think weekly). You'll have to grind your heart out to get the deed, but there will be no guarantee of a lot to place it on until one frees up.

Portalarium is in a bad place because many people will pass on the game due to this and they also can't free up additional lots after selling their backers rights to limited housing. An uprising either way.

That's what happens when you let a bunch of drunken monkeys run a company.

Kyleran · April 2016

Aragon100 said:

Kyleran said:

Aragon100 said:

Kyleran said:

Some folks in this thread seem to have a real dislike/envy of the "big spenders" (who helped get this game made in the first place).

They claim their personal interest is for the "good of the game" but is coming across more as simple jealousy that someone spent more and expect more for their greater support.

Read Sedron Tyros well explained reply and i hope you start to understand why this game (hopefully none in the future) is so bad, not just the game itself but especially the standard they try to set.

When playing a game the ones with less real life money should of course expect to have the same in game fun as the one with a lot of real life money. When game companies like this one try to deliver more fun to the rich player then even you should understand that it is seriously wrong.

Following your logic, should the ones who pay no money expect to have the same in game fun as those who pay "some" money? Should everyone have the same level of fun, regardless what they pay?

Might have worked that way once before, but this is a brave new world, and going forward they are going to be designed and cater to those who pay for them, and likely favor those who are willing to pay more.

Stop thinking in terms of right, wrong, fair, and unfair, think in terms of "makes money", make's more money, makes shitloads of money" and you'll get a better understanding of the future.

There will likely be those games that take a different path, trying for less money from a great number of players, but not every game of course.

You really expect this game to become a success?

There decision to finance the game by selling houses to rich people and also deciding others shouldn't have one is most likely the number one feature why this game will fail.

Creating and financing games where players start the game differently/less/more fun will never be accepted by any large number of players.

And getting numbers are more important then creating a game for a few rich ones.

A host of ftp titles survive on the spending habits of a very small percentage of their playerbase, 1 to 2% by some accounts.

Their decision to sell overpriced housing which many if not most players won't give a care about will not make or break this title.

Dullahan · April 2016

Talonsin said:

I think crowdfunding has seen its hey-day. Supporting a crowd funded game is the same thing as buying a lifetime sub to an MMO, to removes your ability to vote with your wallet and that is the only thing most developers understand.

Have to disagree. I think ez-money crowdfunded games have seen their hey-day, but until we actually see a wider variety of titles hitting the market, there is plenty of people out there who will pledge. There are still plenty of games that are bringing in millions via crowdfunding as we speak.

The difference in the future will be that developers will have to work harder to convince potential backers that they have both a solid plan and the capability to deliver on their promises.

Howdy, Stranger!

House pledgers dislike the instanced house proposition

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

House pledgers dislike the instanced house proposition

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV