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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About zelnik

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

696 profile views
  1. When you say acquired in-game you mean purchased (RMT) or earned in-game?
  2. What was the point of this? and the SB players weren't that bad. I've definitely seen more hostile communities, particularly at Ubi.
  3. Not really. #1 - It has become apparent that most of the people who comment on F2P here don't understand what F2P means, so it really isn't that easy of a question. #2 - No one likes "Pay 2 Win," especially not the ArtCraft guys, and F2P is not P2W. If you think it is, or are too lazy to figure it out, your feedback on the subject isn't going to be worth much. If AC decides on a F2P or hybrid model, I have no doubt in my mind it wouldn't be P2W, but as #1 states, some people can't seem to grasp the difference. #3 - There are plenty of examples of F2P being extremely successful and being done well (the most successful games out there right now). So as a model, if designed right, it is great for both game maker and game player. If people have had issues with any implementation or execution of F2P, they should simply state what part of that experience they disliked instead of blindly condemning a viable monetization model they obviously don't understand. Addressing some of the ones brought up most often here: - Bots/gold sellers: Are in every game that has earned currencies/rewards and progression, so it has nothing to do with F2P - Maturity of audience: Obviously with lower barriers to entry, you're going to get a younger audience. It can be an issue if not dealt with up-front, but it can be dealt with, and on a large scale - Pay 2 Win: Dead horse. Anyone making a competitive PVP game knows that anything even remotely considered P2W would be a massive issue. Just look at the outcry about H1Z1's air drops. Those drops are so heavily contested, that someone spending money, to get a drop, is more likely to give it up than they are to keep it. I don't particularly care for the fact that it artificially generates a great deal of material based animosity, which the game frankly doesn't need, but given how quickly you die and start from scratch in that game, it was really blown out of proportion.
  4. Two of the more important things Shadowbane had going for it, speaking to your question specifically, were Nations and the ability to summon players. First, Nations allowed smaller groups of players (guilds) to band together to spread the burden of maintaining a relevant presence in the game. Not sure if you have ever played World of Tanks, but they have a clan size of 100, all under one flag, making it a serious undertaking to try and maintain any type of competitive presence in the Clan Wars end game. Not to mention it competes directly, and even discourages, the natural formation of groups (clans/guilds/teams) of people with like minds/interests. Summoning allowed you to show up in game and instantly be pulled into the action. So, for all intents and purposes, you could log in, get summoned to the siege, stay as long as you could, and then bail back out when necessary. If you were playing some vital role (which likely wouldn't happen that often if you had limited time), then your guild could manage back-filling that, rather than the nation leadership. The better the tool set the leaders/influencers have, the easier it will be to managed a fluid membership during events. Anytime I've set up a guild or community, one of the (by far most consistent) key success factors has always been making it as mindless of an experience as possible. In other words, setting things up so people can just show up and play without requiring them to work or think too hard (unless they wanted to).
  5. It's not just carebears that are the issue when "companies listen to their audience." It is anyone that doesn't take the time to consider the bigger picture (meaning not just their experience, but others as well) when posting. You can already see the topics like PVP vs Non-PVP, when that's not even a thing in a well designed/balanced game. A person who would be considered a "carebear" given their perspective based upon their own experience, can easily be a hard-core PVPer given a different circumstance (or by simply being shown how much fun organized and meaningful pvp is). I've never had more faith this early in a game. Of course, I have my own experiences driving that. I worked with Todd on Shadowbane (on the Ubi side) and was a fan based upon Todd's vision of the game. Saw first-hand the trials and tribulations of trying to achieve that vision (tons of learning involved, I'm sure), especially with who they were dealing with at Ubisoft *shudder*, and the success of Wizard 101 speaks for itself. For him to throw his hat back in the ring with this game says a lot and shows it is passion fueled, not opportunism. In addition, I've been to a ton of GDCs and sat through countless sessions/panels and I've only liked/found 2 of them useful. One of them was Gordon's and this was over 7 years ago http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/106338/AGDC_BioWares_Walton_On_Making_MMOs_PostWorld_of_Warcraft.php. So when the guys announced, I was and still am very excited.
  6. So you want the Devs to cheat (super powered characters) and go gank the gankers? How about you grab a group of like minded people and go gank the gankers? I wouldn't mind seeing the devs in game though, just not doing that.
  7. How do you define good/evil? The question is way overgeneralized to be realistically answered with any credibility. Good and evil is about context. For example: Democrats think themselves good and Republicans evil. Republicans put a lot of effort into convincing the masses that the Democrats are evil ones, and even though the Republicans act evil, they say they're good and doing exactly what public wants, even if they aren't. To me, they're all evil. I've run into plenty of people in games that like to identify themselves as "good," but are complete tools, so to me, they're evil. I'm not a big fan of realm/faction based PVP because you are guaranteed to have tools in your faction that you can't attack.
  8. Agreed about stylized weathering time better. I personally think the art looks great and I'm sure it will be tweaked before final.
  9. I'd be a fan of a living/breathing story line that is heavily influenced by the players.
  10. I think you're over generalizing by a bit, if you're saying that PVP had negative impacts on Trammel. The ability to PVP is one small piece of what contributes to even just one part of a game's experience. In that case, it sounds like new players were getting owned and bailing, which is common if there are no mechanism in place to ease players into the more challenging environments. That's game design, player education and a host of other things though, not PVP (lessons learned). It also sounds like they ended up going from one extreme to the other and lost the edge that a competitive PVP element brings to a game. Like I said though, there are a lot of factors to be considered, here are only a few examples: - Player education: In EverQuest (oldddd) I had some people join the guild about 4 years in that hated PVP simply because they hadn't been an organized part of it. One of those people being reigning Canadian female Jiu-jitsu/Grappling Champion, so definitely no care-bear issues. After running around with my guild, who were very organized PVPers, they were hook and ended up being the most blood thirsty players in the guild after that. In World of Tanks, I joined a team to help make them more competitive and wanted them to play tank companies for practice. They hated tank companies because the only experience they had was with an inexperienced Tank Commander. I took them through (being one of the more experience Tank Commanders at the time) and they also became completely hooked. Just to be clear, this wasn't a matter of them becoming more skilled and liking it. It was simply a matter of them being shown and realizing how much fun it could be with the skills they already had. That is a very important distinction - Incentives (Carrot > Stick): Are there incentives to gank newbies or are there incentives to help newbies? Either for reputation, respect or virtual fiscal gain, the majority of people will go where the opportunity is - Team based or solo based? One of the main reasons Counter Strike got so huge was because the team shared the skill burden, and that makes a huge difference in today's games. World of Tanks is a perfect example of a game that not only is slower paced enough to get more reach with less skilled players, but it spreads the required skill burden across the entire 10-15 player team - Ramp up time, match making, etc, to ease people into the experience, even a eventually hostile one
  11. I'm sorry bud, but you're making blanket assertions about F2P that an actual experienced person wouldn't make. You may have been playing MMOs and some F2Ps for 10 years, but you obviously didn't play many of the good ones. For example: - World of Tanks (higher cost than it should be, but still one of the more rewarding for your investment) - League of Legends - Smite - Path of Exile All great with fairly balanced monetization. None of the major issues or complaints, and the 3 biggest ones are balanced enough to support very healthy eSports movements. Take Neverwinter Nights, on the other hand... a completely predatory, poorly executed value sink (as far as the monetization went). Even though the game was clearly built by people who were extremely experienced with MMOs. Most mobile games are horrendously over monetized, but they don't count here. Don't even get me started on Dragon's Prophet... So, back to my point, there are plenty of examples that support well done and balanced Free 2 Play models. There are even more that do a terrible job of it, but when you have games like LoL that are delivering a great game and making enough money to "building their own network to kill lag," not to mention doing such great eSports support, then you see where the F2P model can be a great thing all around. You're entitled to your opinion, but if you're not going to do your homework to be informed on a given subject, you're back to being one of those "uneducated masses" you were complaining about.
  12. No offense, as I'm saying this in general to people bringing up these types of arguments, but the mental laziness being displayed here is getting tiring. With the same annoyance you have with people making decisions without the proper perspective of the games, here you have a bunch of people bringing up weak/lazy arguments about F2P because they don't have the proper perspective on F2P as a model. That doesn't mean I'm campaigning for F2P for Crowfall, but it does mean that I think it should be in the arsenal as an option for Artcraft though. The things you mentioned: - Toxic communities: Either F2P or not, is dictated by how the community is managed. Too many games offer only minimal customer support/moderation rather than actual community support - Clones of each other with cash shops: 100% agree. There are a lot of "me too" game projects out there from new and old game makers that are all looking for some magic monetization formula that will make them the most cash rather than concerning themselves with creating an experience worth paying for. In the end, they might have made some money, but they also will fail and only succeed in jading people just like you against the F2P model. Bottom line, you should know that these guys (ArtCraft) are the furthest thing from "me too" that you could hope to get - Community decisions being made by... popular demand, uneducated masses: All suck, I agree 100000% . Anytime you have a developer "listening to their community" blindly, is a bad thing. Something that you need to understand is that those uneducated masses don't know what they don't know. So, they're basing their feedback off of their limited experience and because you are more experienced, and may know better, it is frustrating to you. Again, I mean no personal offense, but I'm in the same boat with your post. You clearly don't have a very robust level of experience with F2P, but you're calling it like it is fact. - F2P isn't appealing to the masses, it is about lowering the barrier to entry. In fact, one of the most annoying trends about F2P is that it doesn't care at all about the masses, rather it wants to monetize (bleed dry) a small/hardcore wedge of would be loyal players, instead of making a great game with F2P options that are worth paying for. Where you really hit it on the head is your last statement: "If it's another overhyped F2P that shows no accountability for yet another toxic community I'm gonna jump ship and say to hell with it." I couldn't agree with you more. Players should expect nothing more than a great experience and to receive AT LEAST what they've paid for, but ideally more. When I say experience, I don't just mean the game/mechanics, I mean the community, and everything else surrounding the game. Some of the other complaints: - Bots/hackers/gold sellers: This isn't just F2P and is linked directly with game design. On top of that, there are things that can be done to hinder the convenience/effectiveness of simply creating another account. - Vanity items: "Ruin my immersion," Well, how about not throwing the finger up to people who like the vanity stuff (a lot of people out there) and instead ask for a setting option that turns it off on your end? TLDR: Blindly saying "NO F2P" without knowing the good/bad of F2P is just as bad as listening the misguided masses you talked about. Some of the best games out there are F2P games and have done a fairly good job with the model. There are a many different ways to approach the issues raised about F2P. Saying flat-out "NO" to F2P is by far the laziest and worst way to go about it. Also, I can almost guarantee you that I hate all of the aspects of F2P that have given you your opinion, but I also know that isn't all the model has to offer. - Zel
  13. Again, it isn't F2P that fails in games, it is the execution. F2P is a better model for both sides, when done right. When done wrong, it can obviously get terrible. A better request would be to either do F2P right or do some other model, not to say no to F2P. Keep in mind, I'd be willing to bet I hate the exact same things that most F2P haters dislike, (aggressive, predatory, money grubbing, sneaky tactics, over charging, money sinks, etc) I have just seen enough of the F2P model that I've seen the good side as well. Take a look at the big picture before you start chopping off options to making this game successful.
  14. We've had at least a few generational waves of gamers roll into the mix since SB. A large chunk of them being battle/troll hardened in LoL and other F2P games. I'm not sure there are still as many Carebears as there used to be.
  • Create New...