Sindothyx

ACE Development Partner & Investor
  • Content count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sindothyx

  • Rank
    Nestling

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

362 profile views
  1. It will disappoint me if you don't help whatever guild you join build a wall around your Eternal Kingdom. Keep those filthy casuals out and make other guilds pay for it. If you lose an arm in battle, you'll chop the other one off for free. #Healthcare
  2. I've always found these types of arguments -- and the subject matter -- pretty odd. The main reason for this is that we currently have a problem where: 1) Player one has a normal account with one character. 2) Player Two has a normal account with one character and a subscription that provides additional whatever 3) Player Three has multiple accounts and multiple characters 4) Player Four has multiple accounts with multiple characters and one or more has subscription as well ...And so on. As the numbers climb, the more you get. We are thinking in terms of wanting to make sure Artcraft has a sustainable model, but we're not looking at it from a player or outsider perspective that couldn't care less -- the masses that will ultimately be the ones giving them money. The main point of contention is that the whole "one character" system is inherently flawed. It is odd in itself for many people -- especially people who are obsessed with alts -- and just has more problems than any sort of "cool" or "sustainable factors. It also makes no sense, unless the main topic is saving server space and character data. We are looking at a game that is B2P with a price tag of $50. That in itself brings with it certain expectations. We aren't a F2P game that can get away with one character slot and a host of convenience systems missing, that you have to opt into a subscription system or outright buy (reminded of "hide helm", "show title", "additional hotbar" etc. from SWTOR... *Shiver*). The way the game is set up -- the skills -- directly makes it so that the numbered systems above makes sure you have advantage -- the more money you are willing to the pay, the more you get. The argument of the one character per account is that that one character can essentially be any class and any character. Though personally, that has not stopped me on FFXIV, where I have three accounts and 24 characters. The whole "Vessel" thing can be done without limiting one character. Vessels are essentially viable for trade and could be used as currency. They aren't locked to any one crow as far as I'm aware, and can even drop from a player in some campaigns. Therefore, it makes no sense for this system to be the reason that there should only be one character per account. I can freely make vessels and trade to my different accounts. Or to anyone. The lore is that an immortal spirit can use these. And you can definitely have more than one immortal spirit with multiple accounts, or in general. There is nothing that prevents more accounts = more power in the grand scale of things other than time and hard work. It took me about 3 years to get 24 characters to where I wanted them on FFXIV. I have virtually no caps on any currency or system at all because of it, even though it took more than a month per character to set them up that way (and had to play through the storyline and everything a few dozen times). It took patience and dedication, as well as extra money. But it wasn't just handed to me. I had to sacrifice three years of not really having fun or doing other things that I would like within the game. It's a game that also allows you to have 8 characters per server, unless you want to opt for a cheaper subscription plan. So a person with one account can still have virtually no caps if they utilize all 8 slots and use a bunch of resources to gear each of those characters up. The fact of the matter is that it can be completely within lore for us to have three or more crows on our account. They're our characters, after all. And the classes and vessels are our freely traded currency that have no relevance to our accounts whatsoever. Another fact is that people expect to be reasonably on the same level of power as others when they purchase a $50 game, and not have money be a difference. Having only 1 slot with the way things are set up directly conflicts with this desire. I'd say a bare minimum of three characters per slot would rectify it. With the option to buy more for much cheaper than what it would cost to purchase a new game. They will still have to work for those three, to get them where they way. Just as anyone else with multiple accounts or purchased character slots would. With VIP potentially adding those "queue" systems to help with such. Make it so VIP is valuable in such a way that it helps facilitates the cultivation of those three + characters. Have it encourage buying more character slots. That way VIP and multiple characters will be a #1 priority for people who want to maintain all the advantages multiple characters have and those who have dozens of accounts are actually at a disadvantage as they'd have to maintain a subscription on all of them to make it easier to train them. Those who don't want multiple characters or the positives it brings likely also won't want VIP. They'll just play after purchasing a box and that's that. It is a system that the dedicated must want and desire. Because you have to be dedicated to a game if you plan to play monthly for it. Casuals just won't bother with it, and they might not even bother with the game as a whole if they are locked to 1 character after paying $50 and have no reasonable hope of competing with those with 10+ accounts.
  3. I can't seem to wrap my head around this thread. Arguing about semantics. Who needs Crowfall PvP when we have forum PvP. "ACE has been very clear that a skill wipe will be avoided unless it is necessary due to some major bug or systems issue." "I don't agree with you, because never have they said "we will only wipe skills in the case of a bug or major system issue". So you are wrong." "ACE has been very clear that a skill wipe will be avoided unless it is necessary due to some major bug or systems issue." I mean, I read the corrected version above as being pretty much the same as the original. Seemingly attacking the crossed out portion just to make an argument. It's just being technically correct about a specific and targeted assertion. The best kind of correct. /Futurama "We will avoid skill wipes at all costs is confusing to you huh?" This statement alone is reality versus common sense and logic. Reality in that it is cold, hard evidence that this is their plan. Though contradictory to logic and common sense as no plan can't be undone if a developer sees fit. For the good of the game, or just because. Though the latter isn't typically performed by an experience developer as that's basically going back on their word and or angering backers. Honestly, taking a look at different perspectives and putting everything together in a big and or objective picture, no one is wrong. There's just some severe twisting of words or trying to control the narrative to try and make one seem more right while discrediting the other. From my perspective, if I say that I will avoid something at all costs... then that means there is no condition that a skill wipe will occur (minus the earlier established intent of prior to the launch). No cost is too great, in other words. So the word I would have gone after is "unless", as there is no wiggle room in such a statement. "They COULD wipe due to a major bug or system issue, but they never said that was the only situation they would wipe under. They said they will simply do it as they see fit." This is where elaboration would be needed, with statements contradicting the obviously ludicrous statement of "at all costs". Though I don't hold it against the devs for saying it. At present, there is no condition, at all, where a wipe will occur prior to the launch. Therefore the assertion that "They could wipe..." or "...They said they will simply do it as they see fit" are both incorrect when it comes to the information provided in this post. As is the claim that they will do it with a "major bug or system issue" or anything involving "unless". So if we're talking about technicalities and the facts given in this thread, you both are wrong. If we're talking about reality, you both are right and wrong. "unless" / "a major bug or system issue" is among the conditions. No where does it say they are the only conditions. No where does it say that there are more. Pointing out that there are other conditions is also correct. But does not negate that the above is also a part of one of the conditions. Saying it makes them "wrong" just for the sake of wanting them to be wrong or because of an elaboration doesn't discredit the whole or intent of the statement unless they specifically said it's the only thing. " He actually proved his own claim wrong with that link. It's kind of funny. It's like ACE says things and people just imagine they mean something they don't. " Well, he proved you both wrong with that link. If we only look at what's available up to that point. Logic and common sense say otherwise. Though that's a form of bias on personal experience and, well, individual common sense versus reality of what was posted. I personally have no opinion and don't care about any wipe. Though I do enjoy a conversation about technicalities based only on presented facts and comments. What was said: "Avoided at any cost" What is interpreted by some: "Avoided at costs" What is probably meant: "As we see fit" Some likely conditions forming the above: "Major bugs or system errors" You're both essentially agreeing with one another, but arguing over semantics to try and make one another wrong. Also, I mean no disrespect to anyone by adding my two cents. I don't care who is right or wrong, though this just seemed like an interesting forum PvP match that seemed to be based on semantics. Like two people agreeing that toast made from white bread is good, but saying the other is wrong about their specific brands even though the ingredients show they are essentially identical. All that said, could we have arguments that give the pros and cons of a potential skill wipe? Or is that nonsense since it was apparently confirmed not to happen regardless. I still think it is a better use of our time than picking sentences a part like we three are now guilty of participating in some way. Not sure what it all proves in the long run other than a jolly good PvP match.
  4. This is a good question and one that many have tried to seek an answer for due to the expense of said items. For the price of a single parcel, you could buy so many other things. In fact, I sort of regret purchasing five creeks, hills and groves. Hopefully they will actually be justified in terms of what they're sold for with quality or abundance in terms of resources when compared to others. Though I imagine they also have more potential building spots for triggers and houses and such, as well.
  5. If you acquire a pledge package that you don't need, they will likely give you store credit for it if you send them a support email. However they are not currently trading in duplicates of items that aren't unclaimed packages. I've already asked in a support email for the many duplicate items that I have no use for at present.
  6. To add, from what I've been reading the parcels themselves likely won't cost anything. At least not resource parcels (though you may want to put a mob spawn point on a parcel, which will have upkeep). Buildings are what will have taxes, and you can lower those taxes by having resource parcels next to them. The higher the tier of parcel, the higher the multiplier will be for buildings and the like (again brought down by resource and tax free parcels being next to it). I'm not sure if Strongholds will have upkeep. I'd imagine not. There needs to be something to strive for and progress with (for yourself or your guild). Taxes setting you back on that progression could just make someone not care about progression anymore. Working for years to get a big strong hold could be fun so long as you aren't always feeling horrible each time you get a setback due to taxes on it (or if it collapses and you just don't want to bother anymore).
  7. I don't think the RP community has really come together to pick where they are going to gather yet. Though Crowfall has a lot of "servers" that you can freely transfer your crow (your character / account) to and from. You'll be moving between campaigns and such, and going back to your own server or Eternal Kingdom. If there are server groupings (as I haven't tested yet, so I don't know), then I don't believe the RP community has chosen one yet. Though PvP should be abundant no matter what due to you not being restricted to one campaign or EK. You'll be able to freely visit others if they opened it to the public (the EK owners). As for Eternal Kingdoms, they're basically like person / guild housing on a grand scale. You can build kingdoms and place land, mob spawns (within reason), buildings (within limits), etc. You'll earn the resources to buy these from PvPing or in the crowfall store.
  8. 1) I've actually not downloaded it yet, as I intend to test the Eternal Kingdoms like crazy. Hopefully someone else can fill you in on the specifics. 2) I'm not entirely sure with this either. I know that Travanian games (spelling?) is handling European sales, but I'm not sure if this means different servers or not. It is my personal belief that we will all be able to play together due to us being able to transfer characters between servers. Splitting a PvP community up too much when there are specific campaign worlds might not be the best idea. So my guess is that you will be able to play with your friends (even if you have to use U.S. servers; I don't think it's region locked). 3) Forum member Deloria and I are both major RPers, from what I can tell. She was trying to construct something and has a website at www.crowfallrp.com that you can check out. She also has a thread on here about the Kingdom she was trying to put together. It had a lot of OOC elements in it, which I wasn't too keen on, but it was very well thought out. I've not seen her around lately, but there likely will be RPers (and people who love lore) around. I may also start an RP EK at some point. I just have to fiddle with the EK during the tests to see the limits we have before I plan something that I cannot deliver. At present, I have about 100 parcels, A mountain Citadel, a castle, a large keep, a medium fort, 9 cottages, 3-4 villas, 3 Cathedrals, a bunch of statues, etc. that I'll be using for it. Cathedral deities will likely be one from Order, Balance and Chaos. With the God Statue from Kickstarter being Kronos. May expand on this once I see the EK. You'd be welcome to use this, or join an RP-PvP guild that I'll be moving over to here.
  9. In the F.A.Q there is a section that says that they will be working on a system where you can trade something for its equivalent value. I believe it is in the upgrade section of the EK F.A.Q. Though that is very old information, and it may have changed. The premise was (as I understood it and as an example) that you could trade in something like a Citadel Parcel for what resources it costs, then add your own resources for the remaining to upgrade that to a Palace Parcel. If the above is still true, then getting something during the sale will very likely be of benefit since you can trade it for resources if you end up not needing it (or rent it out to others and tax them for it).
  10. You can try e-mailing support@artcraftent.com and asking them. If you unpackaged the contributor pledge, but have all the items within it (haven't gifted any), then they might be able to repackage it for you. From there, you should be able to upgrade on the store page (if that's still a way to do it). Just explain the situation and that you want to upgrade. They typically respond quickly if the time of day is reasonable.
  11. With a 100$ investment you get: $100 worth of shares $45 Contributor Bundle (including another copy of the game; they say that they are open to trading in a packed bundle for something equivalent) A Very Nice looking statue for your kingdom $120 Villa $15 Parcel ...and the potential for a unique, limited time only $75 hamlet parcel (same use as a normal hamlet parcel, but looks different). So about $300 worth of items/stock if we manage to reach the 2nd stretch goal in time. Plus, the share purchase has the potential to be paid back (though don't count on it, as investing is a risky endeavor and you should only invest what you are willing to lose). You will also be able to say that you are part owner of the company. It may be a very, very small and silent owner type of deal. But an owner nonetheless. With this, I believe, comes an investor badge for these forums.
  12. I'd imagine that this would be the case IF it could also double as a unique parcel / place for one of the campaign worlds. In addition to having the funds to start making these. Introducing / showcasing it in a new campaign world and then selling the parcel in the store could have some double value in terms of production. Though I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. I'm sure the correct answer to your question is merely that its a possibility if all things go swimmingly and there's time (also funds) to do so! It could even be a part of a special subscriber store to drive VIP funds. But these are just idle musings and ideas.
  13. This parcel is amazing! You all really outdid yourselves. I think it's just about time for us as a community to really drive this investment round home. Even making mention of it to those whom might be interested in owning some shares in gaming company will help -- just getting the word out there. For those interested in investing, it can be an intimidating process what with you having to accept seven or so different checkmarks that ask if you understand the process. In terms of the legals, a good rule of thumb is to not invest more than $2,000 if you don't know what bracket you're in. This goes for the U.S. investors, at least. The law only allows us to invest $2,000 or 5% of our income (whichever is greater) in this, unless we meet other qualifications such as making $100k annually and or having 100k in assets (house isn't included in this). If you think you qualify for either of these, then you should look up the legal documentations to confirm and not take my loose elaboration of the process as the word (I am definitely missing things or maybe even getting something wrong with a brief explanation). In addition, you may have to transfer funds directly from your bank account, as I don't think paypal is a form of transaction for this. KrakkenSmacken has some good information on foreign transfers directly below this post.
  14. My own uninformed assessment of this is that the community excitement and goodies in the pocket drive such things. When speaking of "New servers here" or "QA lead here", those are goals that the player perceives as to having no benefit to them (despite it bringing an overall better game -- which is worthwhile in iteself) when compared to past stretch goals where things are added to the actual game or provided as a reward in rare item form. Take for example the Investment stretchgoals (or kickstarter goals for most projects that have people scrambling to meet to get cool new features). New items revealed, new rewards unlocked for investors and backers. It got crows talking to each other, encouraging people to invest, so on and so forth. I personally went to dozens of sites to clarify such things, and checked the investment site everyday. Not to mention a plan to invest myself to acquire the fountain (once I'm not too lazy to do a whole bank transfer thing since I've read we can't use paypal). These gains came in spite of the difficulties, and we saw the amount raise significantly day by day over time. We must also consider the word of mouth and advertisement such things bring -- though the bulk of that already came from your own resources, Kickstarter and the latest investment round. That said, the trials and tribulations of budgets are known to me, and I believe you're doing an effective and responsible job monitoring such things and knowing when is the right time for something. Regardless of how stretch goals function, the fact of the matter is that you have the facts when it comes to -these- stretch goals (and this unique situation), and that's being both realistic and responsible when trying to make a game for a large group of people that expect a lot from your company. Kudos and good luck in the future!
  15. The only thing that I don't like out of the list of feasible items is the whole extra customization for EKs. Eternal Kingdoms is a selling point for a lot of people whom will already be encouraged to go out to campaigns to acquire cosmetic items. Double dipping this system with a paywall to progress lowers the value and want of not only the game and its features, but the need to go PvP. Not to mention that it will force -- as opposed to it being a choice -- people who have guilds or land for their friends to stay VIP and perhaps leave a bad taste in their mouth (and may maintain it with with spite rather than wanting to support the game and their guild). Also, it may mess with the economy since it means there will be less to fight for and people may just be content with the stuff they have. I just don't see adding this as being beneficial to anyone. It gives Eternal Kingdom players another paywall to continue (Imagine if the right to use a castle in a campaign was VIP only) when it is a part of the game, and becomes a require purchase for guilds rather than an individual's choice. Potentially lowering tax rates might be good. But only if the economy isn't balanced around having VIP for this reason.