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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stroh

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. stroh

    The Mandate

    Interesting development schedule that they have... Timeline: Feature Alpha: Q3 2015 Feature Beta: Q3 2015 (late) Content Beta: Q4 2015 Launch: Q1 2015 (late) Source: http://www.mandategame.com/preorder?sidebar Obviously just a simple typo of 2015 for 2016 though. Game does look interesting, not sure how well it will fare with the immense amount of space games coming out recently and over the next few years though. Will definitely keep an eye on it though, thanks for the heads up!
  2. I love everything about DoTA - From the graphics, to the competitive scene, to the abundance of heroes & their vastly different designs, the jungle mechanics, denying creeps, etc. The problem is that when you mix in other MOBAs, it becomes increasingly difficult to switch between them. I have friends who play each MOBA separately, so it's not as simple as focusing entirely on one. When I play Heroes of the Storm, I can get back into my mechanics fairly quickly, however when transitioning to League afterwards it's difficult because of the slower nature. When going from either to DoTA, it's an overwhelming "what on Earth is happening?" feeling that takes so long to get rid of and become comfortable with. If I was to ever focus entirely on one MOBA though, I would absolutely choose DoTA, I just prefer League and HoTS because I can quickly jump into them after breaks since they are undeniable more casual.
  3. Didn't realize how late it was already, title piqued my curiosity, then I saw it was in off-topic and sighed
  4. I agree that there are other ways, but better is subjective. Perhaps a mixture of methods would be better, but it doesn't seem like removing the core concept of "ending" worlds is a good idea, or even a particularly plausible one. These three ideas are incredibly inhibitory towards new players. Imagine coming into a game and realizing that it's going to take you 3 months of research on your character just to be able to build ships. Then after those 3 months, it's going to take a few years to build better ships to cross the ocean. So while you're researching, the initial players will already be on these islands taking all of the resources. It's a massive disadvantage for new players that would be incredibly hard to balance without replenishing resources, and even then they'd still be at a pretty large disadvantage just from the extra amount harvested before they reach that content. It's not particularly fun to have time-gated content disadvantages that can't be overcome. "But what if they can just hop on the ships that older players have built?" - This might be the solution people come up with, because it's fairly intuitive based on the points raised above. However, if you try to solve the problem by allowing ships to carry anyone/everyone over, then you create a scenario where these islands/continents are not rare at all. People will sell shuttle services to the new lands for gold/resources/equipment, and most people won't bother to even attempt the research required to build their own ships. You might think people want a monopoly, complete and total control of these lands, but there will always be people willing to sell shuttle services despite open-world PvP. The system could create an interesting secondary competition within campaigns, assuming you lower the times for research drastically, and I think that would actually be a really cool combination. I don't think this idea has to exist exclusive from dying worlds though. In theory the "knowledge" crafters acquire could very easily be carried between campaigns, allowing long-term progression across new worlds. This seems like less of a solution to the problem, and more of a typical MMO vertical-progression grind. If you slow this down with "energy"-type restraints you end up annoying your player-base. If you slow it down with an over-abundant amount of resource types and random-guess crafting, you either up the work-load for the developers by a lot, or you create a system that just requires those few players who are at the forefront of crafting to create guides. Vertical skill development tied to character-age? You'd have an incredibly difficult time acquiring new players when they come into the game gated by months and years just in hope of getting the best skills. Gear grinds are already becoming increasingly frustrating to MMO players, and the trend is moving towards horizontal-progression; putting skills/spells behind a vertical-progression system would just infuriate a huge percentage of players who want a competitive game, rather than your standard grind-fest MMO. ---------------------- With all of that being said, it also seems like ridding Crowfall of the dying worlds changes the mechanic which is deeply embedded within the lore, making it almost impossible for this to occur (not that I think most prospective players/backers want this change in the first place). I think incorporation of further types of progression within the dying worlds, like systems similar to those you presented, would be a much better and more reasonable expectation.
  5. The technology is certainly there considering games like Archeage and Final Fantasy XIV:ARR both run quests which require emoted-interaction with NPCs (such as typing /disagree when you have a specific NPC selected). I feel like the interest is just so small that actually developing a fully-fledged system based around this has never seemed intriguing to MMO developers. The basic concept of integrating "responses" from NPCs would be fairly simple logic commands, but I think the repetition of such a system (everytime I type /goodbye to a NPC they do the same, etc.) would ruin it for the role-playing types who would enjoy it in the first place. Creating a more advanced and dynamic system that's highly similar to the Sims would just be extra work & money where it would probably be difficult to see an actual return on your investment.
  6. First, same suggestion goes to you, read company financial statements which actually discuss individual projects. Second, no one said EVE Games until you came in here, and CCP was mentioned correctly several times. Third, Dust 514, not dust 314. If you're going to try and be a smart-ass, at least get names correct if you hogwash everything else. Yes, I have qualifications in analyzing financial statements. I worked in a financial analysis related job (specifically private placements).
  7. Alright, let's get down to business. Enough of this random speculative crap, let's start talking cold, hard numbers. Eve Online is currently draining CCP at a rate which is only sustainable for 5 more years, maximum. If you look at individual investment firm's and their specific recommendations, most give CCP a measly 2-3 years to find a large boost in profits before they start having to sell of assets. Since they have cancelled almost every project they had, this leaves almost all of the hope on either a sudden and gigantic surge in subscribers for Eve (maybe a 5% chance of this happening), or for Valkyrie to find success and draw interest in Eve alongside it. Now for some incredibly basic numbers that everyone will be able to understand. These are the "profit for the period" from CCP financial statements for the prior year: 2012: $5.91 million 2013: $0.32 million 2014: -$22.75 million Yes, that's a negative sign. Don't get too carried away with the third number though, as it was absolutely increased by development costs in new projects. The important part is that without large development costs, profit from just their existing infrastructure dropped dramatically, and they almost lost money in their year with the most active subscribers on record. Operating expenses for Eve also rose over $8m in that same time period, and continue to rise in current financials. So you may be thinking, "how did they lose so much in profit year-over-year if the amount of subscribers rose?" Well, customer acquisition. They spent more on marketing, they increased server capacity, they spent money working on livestreams and content production, and they cut the cost of the game dramatically for long periods of time with Steam sales & other various sales to get more people potentially hooked on the game. Unfortunately, it didn't work, and profit's plummeted in 2014 since subscriber numbers dropped back down. CCP is in such a rough position that they have begun acquiring companies solely for tax break purposes, to try and lessen the millions of dollars they pay in income taxes every single year. In summation, Eve Online is not successful, their business model is not working for them, and they're not a really good nor ideal game to model yourself after. There model is fairly similar to a game like World of Warcraft, and yet it works for WoW because the game is more popular. They also have additional revenue streams which Eve lacks, although they don't truly need the income from those and could easily remove the cash shop and offer content much cheaper, as maintaining 5-7m subscribers is enough for them to stay solvent for quite some time. -------------------------------------------- Now let's move on to a more familiar model which has already been mentioned, and which you shut down and claimed was "very poorly done": Guild Wars 2 uses a buy-to-play model with a cash shop similar to what Crowfall will do (minus the extra stream of cash from VIP offerings in CF). NCSoft is doing very well financially, although it operates quite a few more titles than just GW2. Indeed Lineage & Lineage 2 are still highly successful for the company (mainly in Asian markets), but Guild Wars 2 has risen up year-over-year consistently and is on pace to be the #1 earning asset for the company this year if the expansion does well. The only time Guild Wars 2 has really been unsuccessful is when it was launched in China in 2014 and did not meet expectations, which was costly due to expenses related to that launch. Despite box sales decreasing year-over-year, Guild Wars 2 remains profitable through the in-game cash shop. From the least earnings report - Q4 of 2014 was showed the second highest revenue of all-time on the back of Guild Wars 2 microtransactions & continued box sales. This was second only to Q4 2012 when Guild Wars 2 was initially launched (obvious reasons). Individual analysts claim that Guild Wars 2 is sustainable at this current rate without the need for expansions, but expect expansions due to high demand (which has been confirmed, it's coming this Summer). The expansion is expected to boost NCSoft well bast Q4 2012 numbers. -------------------------------------------- So for you to say the model is not good is 100% your speculative opinion, but it's also a complete lie. It's fine to have an opinion, but when numbers clearly contradict your opinion, it's pretty difficult to claim any merit towards your reasoning and words. No, it's actually not weird at all. Nor is it predictable what they make. Not only did the graph you link exclude the past two years because they have refused to comment on subscriptions (100% certain they didn't go up if they refuse to disclose them, almost guaranteed they took a sharp dip which is reflected in their P/L), but it also wasn't consistent at all. It climbs at a different rate each year, stagnates randomly, then spikes randomly. "Why is it not weird to spend more than you expect to make?" - perhaps that would be your next post. Well, because you don't ever settle in business. The entire point of a business is to make money, and then make more money. No one cares if you make $1m in profit every single quarter for the rest of eternity, shareholders want increased profits every single year, and if you disappoint them structural changes happen to the company. CCP has a duty to attempt to make more money, and thus they need to create expansions, new content, etc. in order to increase cash flow. Had CCP used the same amount on all expenses they increased in 2014 (marketing, research and development, publishing, etc.) and let the game run stagnant instead of focusing on the future and increasing profits, they would have lost money. Yes, they would have lost money. Here's some simple examples to help the point: Every single year that your game exists, it becomes more expensive to acquire 1 new customer. You face competition from new titles. You face reviews and bad word-of-mouth. You have a smaller pool of people (subtract everyone you've already made into a customer, including those who quit with no intention of coming back - unless you have a new product to offer them such as an expansion). Marketing generally becomes more expensive each year (This is highly variable, but in general most forms of advertising steadily increase as demand increases and traffic increases). Income taxes for companies can increase dramatically year-over-year. Companies use strategies to garner tax breaks, such as CCP acquiring specific US-based companies. The loss of tax breaks causes income tax for CCP to increase from $1.5m in 2013 to $6m in 2014. Tax laws for companies are generally moving towards a more strict and punishing style. And so on and so forth... So no, it's not weird for CCP to spend money and not just sit on Eve Online and let it run itself dry. If they do nothing, players leave and new players don't come in (some research/development, some publishing, some marketing). If they focus solely on marketing and publishing, they eventually run dry and need to re-acquire old customers who quit (research/development - expansions, new content, etc.). If I missed any of your key points or you have any questions, feel free to ask.
  8. Please read the financial statements, Eve online has been in pretty bad shape ever since they peaked back in 2013 and even the years before that had them bleeding cash. It's not a CCP issue as Eve online has not been a gigantic success for the company. The failed developmental costs have just quickened the downfall of the company which are forcing high-stakes development of new titles and quick & cheap customer acquisition propositions in order to pay back borrowed money before the well runs dry. If they sit on Eve and do nothing but their Eve-related expenses (no developmental costs for outside projects), they'd be bled dry in under 5 years at most (a lot of firms give them 2-3).
  9. I really want to write a gigantic post discussing this in detail because finance is such an interesting topic, but unfortunately I just don't have the time right now. That being said, I wanted to quote this specific part because I think this is a very interesting point which you based your entire post around. Yet, in reality, Eve Online is not sustainable. They are actually in a pretty bad situation if their new projects (Valkyrie) are not successful. You should really look into financial statements rather than just assuming a project is sustainable, or remotely successful, because it's been around for awhile. This isn't to detract from the point that World of Darkness also helped bleed the company down, but Eve Online has been suffering on its own as well. CCP has had to borrow quite a bit to keep up with operational costs.
  10. Glad to have a concrete thread to refer questions to from now on. Didn't understand what the rush everyone was feeling was for, not like there's an imminent features requiring accounts to be linked - guess those forum badges are good incentive for some though ​
  11. It feels like it would be a strange choice, since the major factor contributing to growth of your EK is the resources collected from campaigns. Sure you can buy things from the cash shop for your EK, or place what you have from the Kickstarter pledges, but that's about it - and that's a pretty small pool of potential resources to play around with for any duration of time. It's different from Landmark and even Wildstar (just using for comparison) because of the nature of building in Crowfall is much less versatile from what they have said. You don't really get to construct buildings from scratch using walls and columns like in those games, instead you just place and modify pre-built structures which you obtain/create. I'd rather not spend a lot of real money on my EK, but I also don't want to be automatically relegated to the bottom of the list of EKs when the game starts due to an unfair advantage from those who have spent $100+ during alpha/beta phases pre-planning and pre-purchasing layouts. I say this because anything purchased from a cash shop in alpha/beta would 100% be reimbursed/kept when the game goes live, whereas resources obtained from campaigns in alpha/beta would 100% be wiped. If they include it alongside campaigns, and don't include a cash shop in alpha/beta but rather just open it up so you can build with basically everything purely for testing, then I highly support that.
  12. No, tab-targeting means pressing tab to cycle through targets. You're talking about "tab-target combat". He never said anything about changing abilities to be locked-on, and never requested actual combat changes, so it's pretty clear he didn't want that. He also made it clear several times before you posted that he expressively did not want tab-targeting combat, just tab-targeting (i.e. cycling through opponents, marking people on your screen, etc.). Maybe you just chose to reply to OP without actually reading through the thread though, who knows. Edit: Also, I want to point this out (it's mentioned in my previous reply, but I'll explain in more depth here since you probably didn't even read the other posts): This, is a target in MMOs, When there are multiple enemies (players, AI, etc.) and you can cycle through selections on your target using tab, that is called tab-targeting. This, is a marked target in MMOs, Which allows everyone in your party/group to see who you have selected for attack. This allows for quick targeting of your marked target. These are not the same, so be careful when you use words. Marking is an entirely separate discussion which I mentioned I did not think they had explicitly talked about, mainly because it's nowhere near a "core" feature, and there's no reason for them to mention it in their Kickstarter. As for targeting, I would find it hard to believe that they won't have that anyways, since in almost every MMO I can even imagine you can, at the very least click-on a target, to have their health/mana/whatever show up. Removing that entirely would create a really strange dynamic of unknown information and promotion of spamming. If you can't tell how low the health is on your enemies or allies without the on-screen healthbars which overlap and blend together in RvR scenarios, I can't imagine strategy being utilized efficiently in combat.
  13. These replies... sigh.... Finally, someone else who actually understands that there's multiple ways to implement tab-targeting and wants to better understand what OP is asking before randomly insulting him or shooting his opinions down to get a +1 on their post count without being helpful at all. Thank you sincerely for restoring some faith. Now on to the rest... Incredibly rude, there's absolutely no reason to ever call someone asking a questions or offering their own suggestion an idiot. You're giving a poor name to the forum community, and also the game community since there's no other basis for comparison or representation of what the Crowfall community will be like at this point in time. Attitudes like this drive people away, similar to what happened in the Juice gaming community thread the other day. If you don't have anything constructive to reply with and aren't going to add to a discussion, how about you try not posting in that thread. Really hope off-topic and rude comments like this are being issued warnings privately. Tab-targeting does not exist exclusively outside of "action combat". Similarly, "action combat" does not = 100% multi-target abilities. Tab-targeting can exist as a method towards selecting a primary target in order to keep an eye on their health, mana, etc., while also providing a target for any (if they exist) single-target abilities. It can also be used to actually specifically "mark" the target in games that allow that (which to my knowledge Crowfall has not made any statement on). None of these change the gameplay from being "action combat", and actually exist in almost every single "action" MMO created to date. Yeah, because people able to cycle through targets with tab means that the combat itself changes, when 99% of the combat won't rely on having anyone targeted at all. Oh wait...
  14. Oh boy, this thread... You use an avatar which identifies an interest of yours, not an actual photo of yourself. Photos of the personal player are more represented in an actual "profile photo" which most forums have moved away from, because sharing photos of yourself with strangers over the internet is not the greatest idea in many situations, and really serves no true purpose. The goal of the avatar you choose is to give yourself an identification in an image form. Maybe you're the guy who likes The Last Airbender, or the Red Sox fan, or the guy who likes a specific band, or dinosaurs, etc. There's no limitation on what can be an avatar, as it's simply something for people to relate you to. In this regard, I agree with Nenju: This is why you pick an avatar, you don't pick it because it looks like you, or because it's an actual photo of yourself. That's your problem, not the person who chose the avatar. You shouldn't judge people differently regardless of their gender in the first place, and making a random assumption based upon a 100x100 pixel picture they chose to represent themselves is incredibly foolish. If you're going to treat a forum poster differently because you think it's a female because there's a photo of a girl in it, that's 100% on you, unless they are actively trying to abuse their gender for unfair gains, which is a fairly despicable action coming from either gender. I understand the sentiment (my last written sentence) but it's a little different situation than just having an avatar. Unless that person is specifically posting under false assumptions to seek out special treatment/advantages, then it's not really fair to compare the two situations. If someone has a bikini photo of a girl as their avatar that looks like it's probably themselves (i.e. not a known celebrity) and they post things seeking handouts/special treatment then sure, it's similar and they're a pretty scummy person. Zinnie - "those pricks are the reason we cant have nice things :P" And I like your new word, I might consider duping it and using it myself once in a while To be fair though, you treating someone differently because of gender is your own personal action. Regardless of how scummy another human is trying to take advantage of others, you can still choose not to treat them differently because you think they have boobs. If you do treat them differently, then it's as much your fault as it is theirs. If someone likes to make female characters in a MMO and dance in the center of town asking for gold donations (i.e. Guild Wars 1) then that's entirely on them for attempting to abuse something for an unfair gain. The minute you decide "oh my god it's a girl, quick I have to withdraw all my gold and give it to her so maybe she'll add me on Skype!" - that's on you. Ellie - "Hey now, I resemble this. Roll Tide!" Had to cut out some quote blocks because the forum apparently has a limit and I didn't feel like making separate replies and spamming the thread.
  • Create New...