Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by courant101

  1. That's what we discussed some time ago.

    I am very very much for that solution.

    Why giving people in crowdfunding so much money always, when most often what they do is take the money and run.

    Why dont we found our own company, instead of trusting and hoping always for others to make the game we want.

    So we have much more security, faith, control and influence. We would know that the company wouldnt get bought or so.

    And we could hire the devs we want and make the games we want.

    Why dont we all crowdfund such a company to make great games?

    The gaming industry is the biggest crowdfunding industry.

    So why still relying on others and get disappointed if we can act ourselves?

    Lets crowdfund a crowdfunding company for making crowdfunded games!   :)

    You gamers sure a funny weird crowd.


    That could be an interesting thing to try, not sure that the chance to get a great game in the end would be so high though. 100 or 1,000 different people who do not necessarily have any experience in game development nor the same opinion about what makes a game great, deciding to lead a sizeable and complex project like a MMO over several years, what can possibly go wrong?  :P


    On the other end, if we did buy an existing studio (like ACE), one that already aims to create the game that a decent amount of backers want to play, then at least we have more chance to get the game we all want I believe, and maybe even get a return on the investment when it succeeds. Let's say the current investors want to keep the shares they already own and the valuation of the studio is around $20 million, well we would need to find maybe 300 backers who want to invest ~$5K, (1,5M), 500 x ~$1K (500K), 1K x $500 (500K), 10K x $250 (2M), 20,000 x $150 (3M) and the rest in smaller pledges. I'm aware that it is more than the triple of the total pledges for CF, but it's not unreasonable imo to think that people would be willing to give more money if they own a part of a company they love (just that indiegogo campaign that received very little media attention collected more than $600K and there was no guarantee that the investors would ever see their money again). Also if we take a look at a relatively small crowdfunded game like Shroud of the Avatar, they already have over $10 million in backers' pledge, so that amount isn't impossible to obtain.


    Regarding the founders of some projects taking the money and running away with it, I haven't seen a studio that relies on crowdfunding doing that yet. I know a few crowdfunded games that will never see the light of the day, but it's not because of fraudulent actions (afaik) but rather because of the lack of funding or some major issues that made it difficult for the team to continue working on the project.

  2. Courant could give you all the quotes considering small campaign world testing mentioned in Founders Update somewhere in 2016, or voxel based destruction of terrain and buildings. I wont go look it all up.


    Yes, I am not saying they have to do or fulfill what they are saying, I just say how things are...


    It seems to me like it's how it happened, I haven't checked the announcements but that's how I remember it roughly. Since we know why the delays happen though it's easier for us to understand and accept those delays imo. They worked longer than expected on combat to get it right and to make sure it feels great / is fun. They worked longer on destruction of structures so the performances get better. They worked longer on animations because of some of the changes made (power prediction, 8-directions movement (backward, strafing...), animation lock / root motion / body split, etc.). They worked longer on back-end server tech to improve performances. And so on.


    At this point they could have decided to scrap structure destruction entirely, told us that the combat is "satisfying", turn the game into a 20vs20 MOBA, etc. and rush Crowfall out as quickly as possible to cash in on Steam, like so many other projects have done. Instead they're still working hard to bring their original vision to the backers as promised, even though it's a lot more difficult than they expected.


    I can understand the disappointment but I think it's important to remember that ACE is visibly doing all they can to fulfill their promises and the original vision. It's not like they're not trying. They're selling parts of their company they took time and effort to build so they get enough funding to pay their developers' salaries. I fail to see what ACE could have done differently to please their supporters.


    Did you even read my post.


    "Small scale Campaign" is the Big World which is being tested now. Voxels are still part of the plan, nothing has indicated otherwise.


    Sorry can't just make a bunch of statements and not back them up.d


    The mini campaigns (Throne War module) as revealed in this news are a bit different than what is available now. (more details)


    The solution used in Siege Perilous for wall destruction does not rely on voxels afaik.


    [...] As to Courants, passive aggressive quote listing OP, I had a fairly detailed argument with him when he came in the channel. The idea that any game maker, makes games purely because of the love of making games is silly to me. Of course making money comes into this artform at some point. People need to eat.


    What I remember about our argument Courant, is that its not so much the desire to make money that bothered you, but to the degree of money they might accept in exchange for continuing making games as ACE. I get it, you want someone dedicated to a game, irregardless of the business side. [...]


    There are plenty of different reasons for developers to make games. Some of them I'm sure do it purely because of the love of making games.


    I have however not said, nor do I think, that ACE is creating Crowfall purely because of the love of making games.


    Here's what was written (public discussion on Discord):





    imo ACE is talking a lil bit too much about the eventuality of the studio being acquired =/

    hopefully the game gets fully launched before it happens


    [Obsidian] Scree

    yea i didnt really understand why they allowed the conversation to go that way

    if you are referring to the markeedragon one



    That and also all the answers on indiegogo page

    *replies to users comments


    [Obsidian] Scree

    i mean, thats what investors want to know

    at what point do we make money

    so its honest

    and probably truthful



    I think before indiegogo it was never mentioned that they had any intention of selling the studio if they had a fabulous offer or anything like that


    [Obsidian] Scree

    I don't know of any mmo company issuing dividends



    and recently they keep talking about it


    [Obsidian] Scree

    i think its necessary because of the framing of how that title 3 raise works

    but its a valid concern



    Yea I also thought it was just so potential investors get in

    however now with the interview, not so sure


    [Obsidian] Scree

    I mean, no ones going to acquire them, to their own point, at this early stage





    [Obsidian] Scree

    and they have a personal reputation involved

    no ones going to back them again, if they sell out early before delivering on their personal visions for CF



    Well wolfpack got acquired by Ubi in the past


    [Obsidian] Scree

    why do you think Brad McQuaid's Pantheon didn't get kickstarted?



    I mean the rights to the game(edited)


    [Obsidian] Scree

    he has an absolutely awful reputation in the industry, and its not a fluke that he failed.

    despite having the Everquest vanilla pedigree behind him 

    they wont want to risk that



    Maybe it's a lot more difficult than they thought to create CF

    so they think about that idk

    Todd seems a bit burned out

    to me at least


    [Obsidian] Scree

    oh i dont think they are actively looking, to their point again, if they look themselves they command a far lower price

    and publishers trying to pick up an mmo ? that seems far fetched right now as well 

    their aren't any major studios even developing an mmo right now, that we know of anyways.



    publishers don't care too much about the kind of game it is, as long as it's profitable

    there are tons of mmos being serviced by publishers 

    probably like hundreds 

    so it's not something uncommon


    [Obsidian] Scree

    right, and a game thats barely a game, hasn't proved itself to be profitable by any stretch 

    isn't going to be acquired by anyone



    games get acquired anyway, because they're profitable in the long run


    [Obsidian] Scree 

    i understand the concern, but its a stretch to think this is anything more then wishful hoping at this point by them

    and they framed the answers like that in MarkeeDragon interview



    my concern is that they may wish to be acquired, not that they have concrete plans

    I thought they wanted to create other titles after Crowfall

    and operate Crowfall for a long time


    [Obsidian] Scree

    oh of course, its a goal from most people who make a product



    add new expensions or idk


    [Obsidian] Scree

    if they get bought out, it means they are potentially very rich



    I thought they were going to own ACE for a long long while


    [Obsidian] Scree

    so of course thats a goal 

    you don't launch a company to NOT make money  ;) 

    I don't think its unreasonable for them to be working on this project, with one of their goals being to make themselves money. 

    they dont have to be saints dedicated to improving the genre, and making gamers lives fuller ;p



    They can make money from the games they're hosting and developing


    [Obsidian] Scree

    yea, but thats work

    if you had a choice of working for the next 3 years 

    or getting a lump sum right now and not working 

    which would YOU chose?



    I think you're putting a little bit too much emphasis on the money


    [Obsidian] Scree 

    or 4 years, or 5 years, whatever it may be

    I just live in the real world 

    they are entrepreneurs



    and disregarding all other stuff like the benefits of owning a company, of creating games, reputation, etc.


    [Obsidian] Scree

    not mmo delivering angels

    again, thats a personal opinion. You'd find it more valuable to have all of those things

    they might be different from you and i, and have a mix of those



    What I say is that if Crowfall works and they still own ACE, they will have great benefits, financial and others


    [Obsidian] Scree


    I don't disagree with you

    just saying, you and i might think and feel differently then they do

    they might want a pay-day

    they invested a ton of their own money into the project



    Yea, unless they believe (present tense) that CF is not going to be profitable 

    for whatever reasons


    [Obsidian] Scree

    ahhh so you think at this point, they've discovered the interest level for CF has declined so much, that they can't bilk people for more money? so dump it now?

    i dont see it that way



    It's not about the interest, it's about the cost of development 

    and how much money it would take to make profit in the end


    [Obsidian] Scree

    which has clearly escalated



    (pay for the whatever ten millions it cost to create CF)


    [Obsidian] Scree

    well they've paid for development already

    i mean, they aren't in debt, that I'm aware of



    not really no, they've sold shares of their company


    [Obsidian] Scree

    thats not debt really



    which is different than making profit


    [Obsidian] Scree

    thats just diffusing ownership stake

    wholly different then debt, which you'd be forced to pay interest on and repay

    they are under no obligation to repay investors



    Yea but it's not really what I'm talking about


    [Obsidian] Scree 

    investors have ownership, not a bond



    I'm saying that since the development cost a lot, in the end the profit is going to be lesser than what they may have expected


    [Obsidian] Scree

    its likely if the game does well, they'll offer to rebuy the investor shares

    well, the nice thing about MMOs its potentially a decade worth of revenue stream

    even a minor success can blossom into multi-million dollar revenue stream



    Ok so they should keep owning the company and pay themselves good salaries then  :D


    [Obsidian] Scree

    they should, but hey, look at the EVE Online model

    its been out 13 years

    and rumors were circulating in the last 70 days or so that someone was offering a buyout of 1billion usd



    yea, well EVE is one of the most reputable space game and has a large, loyal player base / subscribers


    [Obsidian] Scree

    but THAT exactly is what they are trying to build here

    itll take time, and I didn't get the sense they were immediately looking to cash out



    Agreed, and my point was "why" this sudden change in communications

    They basically never say a word about selling ACE, they talk about CF being the flagship of the company and give the impression they'll be there for a long time

    then recently they keep talking about the eventuality of being acquired


    [Obsidian] Scree

    oh, again i think its entirely about the fact that Title 3 required them to be more public with answers we typically wouldn't see

    few companies publicly talk about this side of the business in front of their potential buying-public

    so its an odd discussion to be privy to as someone interested in playing their products, that is absolutely true(edited)



    true that, and it's maybe an opportunity to let us know so we don't go full-fustilarian [<rofl this forum filter] if/when they announce something like that

    and they could always says "oh but we talked about it"


    [Obsidian] Scree

    yea, though to be fair, most companies don't discuss when they are about to be bought out

    its usually "hey we sold out, bye guys!"



    Most companies aren't crowdfunded / open-development either


    [Obsidian] Scree

    that too



    If you do that without saying a word in crowdfunding, it's RIP


    [Obsidian] Scree 

    I was concerned when they started that title 3 indiegogo campaign, that todd mentioned the title would take 12 million to make

    an uptick of 50% over the original budget 

    and us as backers, haven't heard this new number or escalation in costs in any communication



    *100% over lol


    [Obsidian] Scree 

    if it wasnt for title 3, we wouldn't have learned this. 

    8million was roughly what they estimated 

    its up to 12



    no, 6 millions was what they announced afaik


    [Obsidian] Scree 

    i think they gave it in terms of anywhere from 6 to 8



    that's what was mentioned in the Budget thread of GW anyway


    [Obsidian] Scree 

    yea, that number has moved a lot



    6 millions, there was no mention of 8


    francisbaud-Last Wednesday at 12:03 PM

    the 8 million just appeared out in the wild


    [Obsidian] Scree

    regardless, way over budget  ;) 


    francisbaud-Last Wednesday at 12:03 PM 



    [Obsidian] Scree-Last Wednesday at 12:03 PM 

    and the first we hear of it, was title 3 

    thats a shame



    well thats just an estimate 

    they have no idea, nobody has an idea lol


    [Obsidian] Scree 

    i mean if they were running over budget, its something we should have been told about(edited)



    mmo development now is like that, every small things make the budget bump 

    just fixing the damn bugs 

    it's so long lol 

    dev time is costly


  3. CIG is going with Star Citizen to the limits and beyond, expanding what is possible today, setting new bars and standards.

    Game development, and especially people who love games, can, and most likely will, profit from this extraordinary for the years to come.

    This is a game changer, they are going to the limits of game development and of their own ailities, in order to create something thats really what you can call an ambitous game.

    Because there is no one else on this whole planet around, even just trying to do the same, is what makes gaming so useless and a waste of time and money nowadays.

    Because all what the game developers want is your money, but they dont want to make an ambitous game in return, they really just want your money and give you nothing. Just look at all these survival games in early access, the DLC policy, preorder bonus and everything the game developers nowadays do with their customers. Its really disgusting.

    The game developers nowadays are money driven, awkward, terrible people, who really dont want to make video games, they even cant make good games. They just dont care, as long as you give them your money, all is fine for them.


    Star Citizen is the only noteworthy game project of our time.

    If you dont want to play the same games for years all over again and again, with decreasing quality every year, then you have to make something different.

    In case you dont share this opinion, just look at video games in general, just a few examples, Bioshock, Mighty No. 9, and even Zelda arent just at the same quality level from years ago, but even much worse and lower quality products than years before.

    Game developers never were so unartistic, uncreative, unmotivated, selfish, money hungry and annoying like nowadays.

    The quality of the games, and the people making them, are at an all time low point in history.

    And thats despite having technologies available which are much further advanced than back then,

    But all these new technologies made game development really easy in comparison to before, thats why the developers of today got so lazy, and the games got so bad, because back then in the past they had to work much harder, and what wasnt avaiable in technology, the developers in the past had done far more than good with creativity and artistic quality, which you find in videogames nowadays only in the rarest cases.


    Urahara I agree with you on many of the points you make, however I'm confident there are still a large number of studios that care about creating innovative and high quality games. It may just be that the ones we hear the most about are those that have the largest marketing budget and are pushed by people who care about the profit first and foremost. Hundreds of indie studios are out there trying to create novelty and push boundaries with new tech or design, it's just harder to find them than the clones continually advertised on the web. 

  4. If someone buys ACE then that would be a good thing for us the players. It means that Crowfall is a huge success.


    Companies get bought all the time. If a company like Blizzard can be bought at their peak (in my opinion) then anything is possible.


    If they eventually get to the point they can make LOTS of money on their vision thats a win win to me. Means first of all the game is good, great for us the players. The Devs get rewarded for their vision and effort, good for them. If the game/company is worthy of buying that also means the concept works and other games will be made like it. Another good thing for us players.


    Players want good games to play and devs want to be rewarded for their work. Win win.


    It may be seen as a positive thing for the actual backers and fans of Crowfall, I think it really depends on which company would acquire the studio and what are their intentions. If they want to develop and operate Crowfall according to the original vision pitched by Todd and Gordon and fulfill the promises ACE has made over the last two years, then it may indeed be something some people find positive.


    They aren't getting acquired any time soon, if ever. Let them make the game, let them build the brand and raise the value of the company, then we'll see what happens.


    How I've understood the Indiegogo comments and what was said subsequently in the interview is that if they get the right price, they'll sell. So we don't really know when or if it's going to happen. We can surely speculate that nobody is interested in throwing that kind of money now.


    Let ACE get sold, I am not interested into them anymore anyway.


    I decided already for myself to only give money to Star Citizen from now.

    No games are getting bought anymore. Only in sale for 5 dollar.


    I still have hope for Crowfall, ACE have shown times and times again that they're fully committed to its success and that they want to do the things right (constant communication with backers, beyond excellent customer service (Tyrantic :P), fulfillment of many of their promises, development generally in accordance with their original vision, EU partnership with a distributor that seems to care about Crowfall (rather than picking the one just offering big $$$), etc.). They seem to do absolutely all they can to make Crowfall as great as possible. There were bumps on the road, lot of them, MMO development is extremely challenging, but they keep going and seem to be willing to complete the project they've started even if, from what I've seen, it's a lot more difficult and costly than they originally planned.


    In pretty much every time I've heard them say "sell", they have also said "dividends" are an option as well.


    Something tells me they have a mental number for personal "success", and if they can hit that without selling, and continue to reap residual income from dividends, they would over selling out to a company that would just squeeze every last $$$ out of the players.


    Yes that's also what I believe, and I hope it's still how they see things too.


    Common sense? I'm missing the point of this.


    It may indeed be a lack of common sense on my side, I was under the impression that Todd and Gordon were committed to keep control over the studio and the "vision" of Crowfall for a long long time. That's what I had understood from their communications. It's only recently (Indiegogo comments) that I've seen them talk about the eventuality of being acquired, and it seems they have been talking about that a lot in the last two months, so my alarm bell ringed.  :)

  5. It's also important to note that if JTC and GW believe in the product they are making, they might deem themselves better off by not selling it now because it can become much more valuable later.


    I agree, and they mention something similar in the interview. On the other hand, they also say: "Somebody comes in and wants to offer stupid money [...] because they may be able to create more value than we can." "That's where it actually makes sense. If somebody comes in and offers you [5 extra business ?] that seems crazy for us but the reason is if they have marketing muscles and a distribution network and the ability to reach players, that they can get 10x what we're sitting on, then it's a really smart play for them and smart play for us."

  6. Important piece of the puzzle there.


    Also missed where they were approached by several different companies wanting to buy the brand but their vision was not inline and they said no.


    In the interview they've said that they received lucrative offers that were declined due to the potential of hindering the original vision they wanted to create.


    From what I've understood they do not specify if it was an investment, distribution, acquisition or other kind of deal. I haven't missed that part, but until we get a confirmation the offer they declined was to "buy the brand", I think it's not indicative of how they would react to such exit opportunity.

  7. "The shares being offered are preferred shares, which means that you are buying a portion of the company's potential. The most likely scenario is that this potential could be realized through a liquidity event, such as an acquisition or an IPO (initial public offering)."


    "The most likely liquidity event in our space and for independent developers, however, is acquisition. It's not unreasonable to believe that, if our game is a hit, we will have any number of suitors that would be interested in acquiring ArtCraft."


    "Our goal is to build value, and to ensure that our shareholders (which includes the founders, the employees and our previous investors, too!) have a way to "cash in" on that value. There are three ways that this can happen: the Board could elect to pay dividends, our company could be acquired, and/or through an initial public offering (IPO). In my experience, "creating tremendous value" is the challenge. If you create something valuable, exit opportunities will often present themselves."


    "There are three scenarios where you (and we) will see a return on our investment: the Board may elect to pay dividends in the future, we could be acquired by another company, and/or we could do an initial public offering (IPO)."


    "You make an ROI the same way that we (the founders, the employees and the other preferred investors) do; we do the best we can to build tremendous value and then we realize that value through dividends, acquisition or initial public offering (IPO)."




    "Every accredited investor, the first thing they ask is What is your exit strategy [for your company]? [...] We're never going to make money out of this company unless our investors make up money out of the company. How most game companies exit? Most game companies eventually get bought by some bigger fish."


    "This is my fourth start-up. My first company I've ever did, I got a piece of advice from the CEO at the time, because I immediately, as a young buck, I was like  "I want to make money, what's our exit, what's our exit?" And he  told me: "Your job as an entrepreneur is not to think about your exit. Your job is to think about how to create a company that is incredibly valuable, because if you do that exit opportunities will present themselves." If you make something really valuable, you'll find a way to get money out of it. So I kinda always carried out with me."


    "The other adage that I think is very good is: Companies are bought, they're not sold. If any start-up goes looking for a buyer, by definition they are going to get a worse deal than if they're "not for sale" and somebody calls and says "I want to buy you" and they say "I'm sorry, we're not for sale". That's the negotiation position you want to be in, to be in a position where you are "not for sale" because then, for somebody to change your mind, they've to throw a stupid number at you."


    "We're in this to eventually see a big win, we're just not in a hurry, we want the biggest win possible at the best point."


    "We know what our business is worth today, somebody comes in and offers twice what it is worth [...] if we go wow, that's taking a year off the table, or two years off the table, what the business would be worth then, we would be crazy not to take the money. We are entrepreneurs, we're looking at all the time."


    "Somebody comes in and wants to offer stupid money [...] they may be able to create more value than we can."


    "[Q: Does the players have any interest in your cashing in early and how does that impact on development?]" "No [...] It's highly unlikely that it's going to happen early." "To be more specific, the numbers don't make sense until post launch."


    "We care about the players and we want the players to have the right things. We wouldn't do a deal, unless we thought it would be good for the brand."


    "Chain of events: You've got the vision that we sold, you've got an audience now that is expecting this vision and bought on that vision, if somebody was to come in and buy us, and immediately starts to betray that vision, those players are gone, which means what they bought has no value, which means nobody wins. So that full chain of events would be terrible, I have no interest in going down that path."



  8. Bonjour et bienvenu Nyazoi !



    Par contre, je ne comprend pas bien, Nyazoi va prendre la place de Community Manager, un jolie mot pour dire "Modérateur" (je précise parce que je confondais avec le Community Liaison). Ca c'est pigé. ^^



    Mais Paisen n'est-il pas Community Liaison? 

    La personne qui retransmet les infos directement des devs ou des forums anglais pour ceux qui ne sont pas très bon dans cette langue,

    ou qui n'ont pas forcément le temps de fouiller tous les posts anglais pour en extraire les infos essentielles.


    Va-t-il également y avoir un nouvel arrivant qui occupera cette fonction?


    Si j'ai bien compris les fonctions de Nyazoi seront les mêmes que celles de Paisen actuellement (traduction, modération, animation, etc.), la principale différence je crois c'est que Paisen bossait directement pour ArtCraft alors que dans le cas de Nyazoi, c'est pour Travian.


    Bienvenue Nyazoi, j'espère que tu te plairas ici. Paisen je te souhaite le meilleur pour les futurs projets!

  9. Very nice man, I really enjoy these highlight videos, tho it felt like some of the fights were cut a bit early. Also heard next week is suppose to have alot of bug fixes so here is to hoping for more stable combat and crafting :P.


    Yea I ended up cutting a lot, every time there was a glitch or downtime (character stunned, stuck in the air, rubberbanding, etc.). Next time I'll try to get longer sequences and I guess with more stable servers and bug fixes as you said it should help.  :)

  10. Thats the reason courant left, and i dont like it too.


    Courant 101 is still actively supporting CF, both here and all over the internet.


    Please, let's keep our statements factual. Hyperbole and misinformation help no one.


    Hey Chancellor and Urahara!  :) I hope you guys are doing well. I took a break from CF for some months, now with the grave digging update and the info given during last stream (this and that) it seems to me like they may be distancing themselves from PC organ harvesting. We'll see how it evolves.  :ph34r:

  11. All funded stretch goals were added to the "core module" and are supposed to be delivered at game launch. This includes the Gods Reach and Infected rulesets. Was Shadow ever an actual stretch goal or committed core feature, or was it just part of the design docs?



    $2 MILLION (+ $60K)


    • The SHADOW world rules set!
    • Finishing out our remaining "World Bands", the Shadow ruleset is specifically aimed toward pre-existing guilds to vie for control of each Campaign."

  12. i think you made your point. You dont want to play a game where organ harvesting is ingame. You dont want to refund. Yet you give in and say that most players are ok with it.


    So why should the game change just because you are not ok with something in it?


    There are people who are not ok with open world pvp shall we change the game then too just to cater to some people?


    Your questions seem to be based on the assumption that this thread is a request to remove this feature from the game.


    The tl;dr of the first post is: "They mentioned organ harvesting in the 12-hour live stream. I don't recall them mentioning that before. Was it a joke? I dislike this feature. I hope they do not implement this feature."


    The rest of my replies in this thread are mostly clarifications and answers to the questions that were asked.

  13. So what did you think was going to happen? Did you imagine growing corpses in a magic cabbage patch or maybe a big bird would drop one off for you? Necromancy was introduced months ago as playing Dr. Frankenstein. (Have you heard of him? He's a literary figure famous for creating a living creature by reanimating assorted body parts, and not all of then human.) This isn't a revelation, you just haven't been paying attention.


    " giphy.gif


    Basically we would loot a vessel, get a crafter to improve it with reagents or whatever, decide of the traits / advantages / appearance, etc.


    Afaik it wasn't question of organs at all. Looting a vessel for me is different than collecting organs."





    as many have allready stated if you dont want to do it yourself then buy the finished product.


    If you however have a problem that gathering organs from players is in the game then thats your problem. Ask for a refund if you cant live with that but after reading most comments i thing the major part of the community is fine with it.


    I'm aware that most users commenting in this thread are fine with it. I don't plan to ask for a refund. 


    Didn't read the whole thread, but I just had to stop and comment. Why the heck are you perfectly fine with slaughtering other "real" players, destroying things they spent actual hours working for, and collecting their hard-earned goods, but not organs?


    Essentially it's the same thing as stealing gear, it's just a Vessel specific thing probably. Worse, your only real arguments are semantics which just blows my mind. Even worse, your semantic nit-picking is even more headache inducing (Nah, enslaving NPCs is okay, but not real players. Don't want to torture them or anything either, I just want to slaughter them and break their things that's okay.)


    Your arguments that it's not a medieval thing are moot. Fighting eternally as spiritual crows for the gods as a magical force devours the universe is also not a medieval thing, in case you're wondering. Harvesting organs is actually pretty much on the forgettable end of things-that-are-out-there.


    Personally, I don't care and it's not the first time this has been in the game. Some games let necromancers do it, /shrug.



    Half the time I read your posts I find myself wondering if you ever actually think about what you're posting. Also, turning away from the logic of the argument and insulting him just admits defeat.


    It IS weird for someone to be okay with killing players, enslaving NPCs, destroying stuff that takes real life hours and effort, but not be okay with a virtual form of themed looting. I mean, I'm pretty sure after hearing Vessels could be crafted anyone with half a brain would realize where those crafting components would come from. It's also hardly something new.


    If I'm going at war against people who decide to go at war, I expect to harm and get harmed, kill or get killed, destroy structures and objects... That's what war is about. Cutting friends and foes up to collect their organs on the battlefield to sell, trade or use them is something different. I supported a game that is a fantasy medieval war. Organ transplantation isn't a "fantasy" component (unlike fireballs and other supernatural powers, organ harvesting exists and is a common practice in certain countries) and it's not medieval either: hundreds of years ago transplanting organs from fallen warriors wasn't feasible.


    I see a difference between fighting other players and cutting their bodies to extract their organs. It would be the same for necrophilia, cannibalism, sexual assault or other gore stuff: I'm not interested playing or supporting a game featuring those practices.


    You have referred to semantics a few times, I think it's irrelevant to this discussion.

  14. Sorry to see it has been such a long time since you've been in the forums. It must have been quite a shock to you when you learned that necromancy, a crafting discipline that shows you to build a body for your spirit to inhabit, had been added. While you do not personally need to harvest parts, you will likely require the services of a necromancer who will need parts to build a body. Have you considered not looking?


    Pretty sure that crafting a character doesn't necessary imply organ harvesting. As far as I know it was the first time ACE referred to organs.



    I think the vessels we inhabit weren't our original body anyways. We are inhabiting the bodies of dead heroes in order to strip these dying planets of resources and souls. Since all bodies are dead already, using them as objects is just a natural progression.


    I understand how you can see it as a natural progression, but I think it doesn't really justify the need to have this system. We probably could have vessels as objects without going with specific organs.



    Its a part of the crafting/gathering system though. Its just as needed as mining or chopping wood is.


    I think it's not just as needed as mining and chopping wood. Crafting a character could be done in many ways other than collecting organs and stitching them together, and it would probably work pretty well with the gameplay and lore.



    This is a PVP game and harvest other players is FUN and realy did not understand why you are not ok with that? You accepting killing other player but not accepting use their body parts?. You shouls start to look this event as ORGAN DONATION. Furthermore, what did you expect from vessel crafting? It is the best logic way using organs for craft a vessel. Its realy cool for now and dont think there will be disgusting images when you harvesting organs.


    I wish we can take the player head back to EK 


    There is already inventory and equipped gears loot + vessel loot. I understand why you find the idea fun, another thing to loot and it makes the vessel crafting possibly more Frankensteinian. There are fun things that are not always beneficial to add in a game though.


    I accept to kill other players' characters, it's part of the war. Removing kidneys, blood, heart from a body to then create my own body is something I'm not interested to do though. What I expected from vessel crafting is what was shown during the Crows and Vessels reveal:




    Basically we would loot a vessel, get a crafter to improve it with reagents or whatever, decide of the traits / advantages / appearance, etc.


    Afaik it wasn't question of organs at all. Looting a vessel for me is different than collecting organs.



    Yeah...if you think that a single discipline is going to (1) get crazy animations and/or (2) get it's own simulator side-game, I don't think your fingers are squarely on the pulse of this game's development.


    If this entire thread is sarcasm...well done.


    This is likely the name of a discipline involved with recovering usable material from a decayed vessel.  I suspect it will have the same extraction animation as any other harvesting, which is not gruesome at all.


    No, the entire thread isn't sarcasm. I respect your opinion that collecting organs from dead players isn't gruesome. I think otherwise. 

  15. Well it's all a matter of perspective, dat BBC guy was linking thralls to slavery, and probably in his mind slavery is worse than taking organs from a dead corpse.


    Enslaving a server-controlled character (just like I'm enslaving my laptop now) vs. harvesting organs from a player's character.


    I would be against enslaving players in-game too, or torturing them, assaulting them, or any other disgusting things like that.

  16. I heard that during the stream, that's some disgusting stuff imo. Not sure if it was a joke or not, but I guess it has nothing to do with a Throne War simulator, I doubt anything like harvesting and transplanting organs were common or feasible during medieval ages. I hope the devs are not pushing in that direction. Choosing the traits of a vessel, min-max, appearance, things like that seem cool, but allowing  players to play "surgeon simulator" on other players with organs harvesting is something I'd be very disappointed to see in the game.

  • Create New...