How about give development experiences to the people who have already paid for it first
How about give development experiences to the people who have already paid for it first
Well…I hope the purchase of dev-time will not be needed to have something that feels unique.
I hope there will be possibilities to discover ancient and unknown recipes in the depths of some dungeons.
I hope you can use research to e.g. cure diseases other parts of the world see as doom.
I hope the game will offer enough complexity and adjustability that not all settlements will look alike.
I hope you can built your castle with ingame systems and the size/complexity will just depending on your wealth and the skill of your architects....e.g. by using a kit of hundreds of castle parts you can stick together as you please.
If something is currently not a planed feature maybe some kind of "feature-funding" could be made to make it a feature. If e.g. building a custom castle is currently not planned let the devs define a realistic sum needed to make it a feature and everyone interested can make some kind of tip/purchase to make it happen. Depending on the time it takes to reach the sum the feature will be added earlier or later to the game.
Count of "Wulfsbargen" in the Duchy "Avaland" within the Kingdom "Tryggr". If not explicit mentioned the above opinions are mine alone and do not reflect those of my Duchy or Kingdom.
I am very much opposed to them selling more bespoke digital items, that take development time, when they have so little to show of the game itself.
You know what would do the most to help raise funding? And I mean, like gangbusters, off the charts, impact?
Actually showing off the game.
How about we focus on that, instead of finding ways for them to raise money without having to do that?
They can sell more once they start implementing the current ones imo. All you are going to get with this suggestion is the studio taking on way too many DE's than they chop in half the DE quality for everyone so they can implement them all.
I don't know anymore.
that would be a no for me
when i look at the time it is taking to approve names which i imagine to be comparatively simpler and less time consuming to do than approve design experiences and their corresponding names this proposal is something that i don't think would be a good idea
I have a count who is still trying to get a name approved and his 5th submission just got rejected yesterday - the non compliant name is "Aliycium"
they won't tell him what is wrong with all of his variations so he'll be blindly submitting version #6 shortly without knowing what the exact criteria that disqualify his submissions are, and hoping it gets approved
now fast forward and apply these kind of mechanics to design experiences
What I don't understand about most of these replies are the hard and fast no's when the reasons given are either already addressed in my post or a hard no is given with a stipulation for a reasonable condition that possibly could and should be met for a yes.
Yes I know it is a long wordy post and that is my failing for not being able to convey my thoughts more concisely, but people are just forming opinions, not bothering to read properly and either making assumptions or putting words in my mouth.
One of the biggest assumptions everyone is making is that this has to happen right now. I never said that, in fact I never even set a time frame, merely suggested it as a POSSIBILITY.
I regret even bring it up for discussion as I knew this would happen, no one wants to discuss, just preconceived opinions, based completely on assumptions and most likely not even reading what I have posted, let alone putting some effort in to arriving at a feasible compromise that is mutually beneficial for all.
I hoped for too much.
Oh and @Dleatherus.. really? You can't see what the problem with that name?
May as well lock or delete this thread, since it is unlikely to be read and discussed seriously
Well, then let me clarify my stance.
I don't want it, ever, even as a possibility.
No matter when it might happen, it will still take time away from development.
Now, since you don't like that answer, let me approach it from a different angle.
I don't want more and more curated content being added by the players buying things before the game even starts, because that is what the whole freaking point of the game is.
Virtually everything you suggested is supposed to be the impetus for the engaging world, driven by player actions, where we can shape culture, and lore, and reputation, etc. with our in game actions, and you want to take that and make it another thing that can just be bought.
So no, I dont want expanded design experiences.
I don't want them for manpower reasons, because they would take too much time away from actual development to create.
I don't want them for "ethical" reasons, because they don't have enough game to show to justify people spending this money on more fluff.
I don't want them for gameplay reasons, because I think making them common cheapens the intended gameplay.
Does that address your concerns adequately, or would you like to tell me again how the only reason I said no was because I didnt read your post?
Posted By HajimeSaikou at 03:30 AM - Thu Jan 16 2020
May as well lock or delete this thread, since it is unlikely to be read and discussed seriously
Personally, I've enjoyed reading the discussion on the topic.
"If we wait until we are ready, we'll be waiting for the rest of our lives..." code: CD83B4
About the OP: many things could be fun to have, but right now CoE must focus on creating the core game.
As for that name:
Posted By Dleatherus at 4:54 PM - Wed Jan 15 2020
I have a count who is still trying to get a name approved and his 5th submission just got rejected yesterday - the non compliant name is "Aliycium"
they won't tell him what is wrong with all of his variations so he'll be blindly submitting version #6 shortly without knowing what the exact criteria that disqualify his submissions are, and hoping it gets approved
While I don't know the reasons of SBS, that name, although spelled differently, it's very close to the word "Elysium".
"What does the word Elysium mean? This word came into Latin from the Greek Elysion. In classical mythology, Elysium, or the Elysian fields, was the home of the blessed after death, the final resting place of the souls of the heroic and the pure." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Elysium
"What is the Elysium in Greek mythology? Elysium, also called Elysian Fields or Elysian Plain, in Greek mythology, originally the paradise to which heroes on whom the gods conferred immortality were sent." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elysium-Greek-mythology
Posted By Eonian at 12:15 PM - Wed Jan 15 2020
About the OP: many things could be fun to have, but right now CoE must focus on creating the core game.
As for that name:
Posted By Dleatherus at 4:54 PM - Wed Jan 15 2020
I have a count who is still trying to get a name approved and his 5th submission just got rejected yesterday - the non compliant name is "Aliycium"
they won't tell him what is wrong with all of his variations so he'll be blindly submitting version #6 shortly without knowing what the exact criteria that disqualify his submissions are, and hoping it gets approved
While I don't know the reasons of SBS, that name, although spelled differently, it's very close to the word "Elysium".
"What does the word Elysium mean? This word came into Latin from the Greek Elysion. In classical mythology, Elysium, or the Elysian fields, was the home of the blessed after death, the final resting place of the souls of the heroic and the pure." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Elysium
"What is the Elysium in Greek mythology? Elysium, also called Elysian Fields or Elysian Plain, in Greek mythology, originally the paradise to which heroes on whom the gods conferred immortality were sent." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elysium-Greek-mythology
They approve similar names all the time is the issue, and that individual still lacks information that would help them pick something more in line with whatever unstated naming rules they enforce
Let me short circuit this diversion so it can get back onto Haji's topic: The naming process is flawed and not perfect.
Moving on.
"If we wait until we are ready, we'll be waiting for the rest of our lives..." code: CD83B4
I think this game and the concept of a multiplayer world simulation in general would lend itself wonderfully to a fair micro- to macro-transaction business model and could change the monetization of such games to the better for all involved, developers, publishers and players alike.
We just need to stop thinking monetization via cash shop naturally has to devolve into p2w and ripp off casino. Just think about offered/tradable OPC scripts, for instance. Even castles could work, if they still had to abide to the game world’s rules of resource scarcity and time/manpower needed to actually build that thing.
I really believe they let a industry changing opportunity slip right here.
I would not be in favor of expanding the Design Experiences at this time, and possibly not ever, but I'd be willing to reconsider it way down the line, with the right constraints. Maybe. But I'd consider it irrelevant at this stage, for most of the same reasons already stated.
As for the name... It's obvious, and they can beat their head against that wall until it bleeds. Elysium appears throughout history, in both both religious and nonreligious contexts, fictional and non-fictional contexts, legal (copyrighted) and non-copyrighted contexts, so that anyone trying to repeatedly slip a homonym or similar name in gets the rejection they get. Just get over it. Move on. They're just protesting something they don't like, and wasting time.
The argument that they don't KNOW why it's being rejected is a bit too silly to coddle. ;) They can resist the logic, and disagree (which is totally fine, even if immaterial, because it's not their legal call) but pretending they don't know? Come on. Of all the things people can complain about at this point...
I honestly believe - and I say this as a design experience owner myself - that SBS will regret the design experiences when they come to make them. They're a great thing to own and I'd love to buy more but I don't think more should be sold.
It is going to be a lot of work for the benefit of few individuals (we paid a lot for them but still) and I completely understand them removing them from later store packages.
A $5k castle sounds like a lot but imagine how long it actually takes to make a custom castle. Talking to the player and getting their vision down, having the studio artists create concept art, verify and tweak this with the player, and then have it modelled and textured and implemented etc.
Plus how do you even have a custom castle in this game? A "castle" is a number of buildings surrounded by a wall. The intention is to be able to make your own buildings and walls, so every castle is going to be "custom" anyway.
Friend Code: C8DF9C