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

Upcoming Campaign Faction Choice

Recommended Posts

@Colest

There are plenty of backers on these boards that can see the financials as they invested in ACE, they are not allowed to share them with the rest of the public. If you see a bunch of people with the ACE Investor tag acting spooked then you should maybe be alarmed. They've now done several different raises, the Kickstarter, their store, a round of the new micro investment, more traditional investor raises, and some licensing. That many different groups of investors involved makes full transparency unlikely, but there is transparency for the investors. 


lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Duffy said:

@Colest

There are plenty of backers on these boards that can see the financials as they invested in ACE, they are not allowed to share them with the rest of the public. If you see a bunch of people with the ACE Investor tag acting spooked then you should maybe be alarmed. They've now done several different raises, the Kickstarter, their store, a round of the new micro investment, more traditional investor raises, and some licensing. That many different groups of investors involved makes full transparency unlikely, but there is transparency for the investors. 

Thanks Duffy. I find it a bit of a dance handling the "how much can I say" question when talking about what the investors know vs what the consuming public knows. Questions like "Can I tell them X exists but not the details of X?"

I also find it a pain having to listen to people who don't know, proclaim utter nonsense about what they don't know.  

Mall ninja levels of ignorance publicly on display for all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Duffy said:

but there is transparency for the investors. 

So there's information available that you can't divulge to the public that addresses some of my points but you can't tell me about this info. And this is transparent how? Furthermore, people like @ClockworkOrange are supposed to be completely complacent in their questions with the game's financial status because people like @KrakkenSmacken make snide comments about people not being privy to the cool kids club?

If they are keeping that info gated behind a paywall then that's kind of the opposite of transparency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Colest said:

So there's information available that you can't divulge to the public that addresses some of my points but you can't tell me about this info. And this is transparent how? Furthermore, people like @ClockworkOrange are supposed to be completely complacent in their questions with the game's financial status because people like @KrakkenSmacken make snide comments about people not being privy to the cool kids club?

If they are keeping that info gated behind a paywall then that's kind of the opposite of transparency.

It's the difference between a customer and an investor.  And yes he should be completely complacent about the games financial status since all he admittedly wants is a game that he cann play for a couple of months. There should certainly not be the expectation of them opening the books for him. 

When you're a customer without a vested interest in the company, you don't get to look at the restaurants financials because you ordered a sandwich.

Transparency for a resturant would be letting you see how the food was made, which some restaurants do. Transparency for ACE is pretty much the same. Non-Investors are getting to see quite a bit about how the early development process works.

Investors get to see more, just like with every other business enterprise in America. If you want to see the books, put your money where your mouth is. 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Colest

Specific financial information is available to legally recognized investors as outlined by the SEC, if you want to call that a paywall then sure almost every private company in the US with investors hides behind a paywall. I get the feeling that sort of information is often restricted for serving the interests of the investors.

Anecdotally, I know the company I work for would never publish our financials due to the leverage it would give competitors. They try to get every scrap of info they can on us. While it may not be so cutthroat for ACE, I would not be surprised if their were concerns I can't think of or was privy to. Hell, just the time to potentiality deal with responses and attacks could be a huge waste of time and money.

But alas I don't entirely understand what your trying to get at as far the financial angle is concerned. Could most of us even interpret it correctly or have knowledge of comparable companies and projects?


lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2017 at 4:10 PM, Colest said:

Hey if you want to produce a spreadsheet that shows production costs, upkeep costs, salaries, investment sources, and a breakdown of where any given dollar in for the Crowfall project goes then I'm all for it. I have yet to see such a document. Hell I'd even be moderately satisfied with quarterly earnings reports. The microventures hogwash hardly is keeping anyone honest and numerous projects launched from that site have failed precisely because of no accountability. Also this is a textbook strawman fallacy. Address the whole argument or go back to keeping quiet.

As a actual investor in the company, i have access to this information. Additionally, alot of this information was exposed during the microventure as required by law for investors.

As a kickstarter backer i have access to development information.

Both are different levels of transparency depending on the level of financial commitment.

Obviously, you have your own definition of transparency which is completely different then any realistic expectations. No one is going to convince you otherwise. So what exactly is your point here?

Edited by Vectious

CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic at hand guys...

This will start with fairly short tests over 3 days of a weekend...   the result could be severe imbalance between the factions regardless of possible agreements between the larger test guilds to split up.   This same scenario came on when scorn was first released, how do we get balanced numbers in the 3 factions when no balancing mechanic exists (or might ever exist).

As suggested the best case would be for the stronger existing guilds to tackle the ends of the tug-o-war but this would require a reshuffling of the current norm.  Maybe, just maybe, the existing set block can be renegotiated by the guild leaders but my personal feeling is we will test this first try at 3-faction campaign with existing alignment: Sugoi-Balance, -W- Order, UDx/Avari-Chaos...  Caldera?...   nobody else has yet to field 3+ fighting groups.  I think a realignment is more likely after we see how the first weekend goes... and where the rest of the test players go. 


6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frykka said:

Back to the topic at hand guys...

 Maybe, just maybe, the existing set block can be renegotiated by the guild leaders but my personal feeling is we will test this first try at 3-faction campaign with existing alignment: Sugoi-Balance, -W- Order, UDx/Avari-Chaos...  Caldera?...   nobody else has yet to field 3+ fighting groups.  I think a realignment is more likely after we see how the first weekend goes... and where the rest of the test players go. 

Since it has already been established that this topic is COMPLETELY off the rails now.  You have reminded me that I still need a guild! 

You can now return to your regularly scheduled programing....

593a4f40ed32d62b61835fea8ab5c695.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2017 at 1:28 PM, KrakkenSmacken said:

If you want to see the books, put your money where your mouth is. 

To use your restaurant analogy, telling me to invest in something to see how financially sound it is is akin to telling someone they need to buy a sandwich to see the Food Safety Inspection Report. I'll buy the game when I see something fun and permanent.

On 7/2/2017 at 3:01 PM, Duffy said:

Anecdotally, I know the company I work for would never publish our financials due to the leverage it would give competitors. They try to get every scrap of info they can on us. While it may not be so cutthroat for ACE, I would not be surprised if their were concerns I can't think of or was privy to. Hell, just the time to potentiality deal with responses and attacks could be a huge waste of time and money.

But alas I don't entirely understand what your trying to get at as far the financial angle is concerned. Could most of us even interpret it correctly or have knowledge of comparable companies and projects?

I know why they're not being completely open and I don't hold it against them that they aren't doing so. It's the safest thing to keep some info close to their chest. I am challenging the notion that "ACE is being transparent about the finances" when really they're doing just what they are legally and contractually required to do and nothing more. I'm not upset about it nor do I think I'm owed anything. But I can also understand why some people are skeptical. An ambitious kickstarter project that is SUPER behind their projected start date with no hard launch in site all the while they continue to push their fundraising efforts, even the most zealous of fans must admit from someone who isn't just IMMEDIATELY sold on the game that this is something to at least not overlook. Said group of people catch constant poorly made socks from people like Krakken with unnecessary condescending remarks that are devoid of logic like "invest in the game to see how financially sound it is." Furthermore, it's disingenuous to say "ACE is being financially transparent with their investers" because keeping the information away from public eyes is missing the definition transparency by leaps and bounds. The point of transparency is to have publicly available info, otherwise the term has no meaning since any meeting of two or more people associated with any company can be argued to be "transparency." In addition to that, the argument that it keeps prying eyes off their trade secrets is a poor argument because someone associated with a rival can simply invest individually and funnel information.

Lastly, I've never challenged their developmental transparency. It seems to be conflated into my argument, either inconspicuously or for insidious reasons, but from my very first reply in this thread I've have been taking to task transparency only in relation to finances.

On 7/2/2017 at 3:10 PM, Vectious said:

Obviously, you have your own definition of transparency which is completely different then any realistic expectations

How is something that every single publicly traded company does an unrealistic expectation?

Edited by Colest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2017 at 3:54 PM, ClockworkOrange said:

I know I am gonna get poorly made socks for this, but here we go. If ACE wants me to test, they can pay me for their time. If they charge me to "test", I get to play how I want.

Now we can get into statistics and say your sample size isn't large enough for an adequate testing of where people would normally go anyway.

 

On 6/28/2017 at 2:35 PM, ClockworkOrange said:

This is just a suggestion, but players who are familiar and have "tested" Crowfall a decent amount should choose Chaos and Order. Large guilds should also choose Chaos and Order. We should leave balance for mostly new players or less experienced players as this will be the easiest faction to play in as often it will be 2 v 1.

If this is done it will also make Balance the smallest faction so that the 2 v 1 advantage isn't that great.

Feel free to post what you plan to go.

I hope you can see the hypocrisy here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Colest said:

I know why they're not being completely open and I don't hold it against them that they aren't doing so. It's the safest thing to keep some info close to their chest. I am challenging the notion that "ACE is being transparent about the finances" when really they're doing just what they are legally and contractually required to do and nothing more. I'm not upset about it nor do I think I'm owed anything. But I can also understand why some people are skeptical. An ambitious kickstarter project that is SUPER behind their projected start date with no hard launch in site all the while they continue to push their fundraising efforts, even the most zealous of fans must admit from someone who isn't just IMMEDIATELY sold on the game that this is something to at least not overlook. Said group of people catch constant poorly made socks from people like Krakken with unnecessary condescending remarks that are devoid of logic like "invest in the game to see how financially sound it is." Furthermore, it's disingenuous to say "ACE is being financially transparent with their investers" because keeping the information away from public eyes is missing the definition transparency by leaps and bounds. The point of transparency is to have publicly available info, otherwise the term has no meaning since any meaning of two or more people associated with any company can be argued to be "transparency." In addition to that, the argument that it keeps prying eyes off their trade secrets is a poor argument because someone associated with a rival can simply invest individually and funnel information.

Lastly, I've never challenged their developmental transparency. It seems to be conflated into my argument, either inconspicuously or for insidious reasons, but from my very first reply in this thread I've have been taking to task transparency only in relation to finances.

How is something that every single publicly traded company does an unrealistic expectation?

Much clearer thanks. So the part I'm confused about then is the 'super' behind part. From my professional experience and expectations they seem to be closer to on time than other projects I'm following. I'd say at this point maybe 3ish months behind, but with the caveat that the scope has changed a few times in there which always has trickle down effects. But I would categorize the scope changes as pretty beneficial to the game's chances for a healthy life. I'm not aware of any hard targets that were horribly missed, we're looking at a release within 3 years of the KS funding being completed (puts the game at roughly 4 years dev time? pretty on par) and gaining enough funding to get closer to their actual vision, not the cheaper minimum version they played it safe with at first.

The whole funneling info thing is incredibly illegal by the way and would be a huge liability to risk as you need to supply a bunch of personal financial information to be an investor, it is not an anonymous process like crowdfunding.

Most publicly traded companies share their info because they have to and the associated risks of being a public company is worth it for them, not to mention most are so large that your not seeing much useful project level information anyways in those public disclosures. I honestly just can't see the value in wasting time showing financials publicly for a small scale private company. It opens way too many risks both from the public and from your investors that only has the potential to waste time and thus money when the biggest accusation is usually wasting time and money...

Let's be honest about what would happen: It wouldn't matter if they are doing everything perfectly with no delays, they would still get attacked and would eventually have to deal with it because that's the unfortunate reality. Someone will always have some hate for something for whatever reasons they can manifest and it will always be justified in their eyes. So they can either try and deal with every little brush fire and waste a lot of effort or they can just keep doing their thing, explain what they're doing and why, and try to let their results speak for them. It's clearly the smarter play.


lPoLZtm.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Duffy said:

So the part I'm confused about then is the 'super' behind part. From my professional experience and expectations they seem to be closer to on time than other projects I'm following. I'd say at this point maybe 3ish months behind, but with the caveat that the scope has changed a few times in there which always has trickle down effects. But I would categorize the scope changes as pretty beneficial to the game's chances for a healthy life. I'm not aware of any hard targets that were horribly missed, we're looking at a release within 3 years of the KS funding being completed (puts the game at roughly 4 years dev time? pretty on par) and gaining enough funding to get closer to their actual vision, not the cheaper minimum version they played it safe with at first.

Their initial KS pitch was launch by 2016, IIRC. Then that was turned into a soft-launch. Then that was pushed back to 2017. Now it's end of 2017. This is not unusual but within the framing of a kickstarter project, this is the start of how a great many projects died or failed to deliver. Being in "Pre-Alpha" this close to the supposed soft-launch some are predicting the soft-launch will be pushed back again and it's just not a good look for some people.

 

4 hours ago, Duffy said:

The whole funneling info thing is incredibly illegal by the way and would be a huge liability to risk as you need to supply a bunch of personal financial information to be an investor, it is not an anonymous process like crowdfunding.

I'm well aware it's illegal but mass sharing of trade secrets happens all the time in the financial world. The investment lingo "Black Edge" and "Grey Edge" are very common subjects regarding where intel comes from. An NDA or compliance agreement is only worth it's weight if you're caught violating it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 4:32 AM, Arkade said:

 

I hope you can see the hypocrisy here.

No, but the fact that you can shows me you can see things that don't exist. That must be very interesting. I noticed you totally ignored bolding the "This is just a suggestion".

I said that I get to play the game how I want to when I pay to get into a "test". Then I suggested a way that we can play to try to organize the community. Where is the hypocrisy?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ClockworkOrange said:

No, but the fact that you can shows me you can see things that don't exist. That must be very interesting. I noticed you totally ignored bolding the "This is just a suggestion".

I said that I get to play the game how I want to when I pay to get into a "test". Then I suggested a way that we can play to try to organize the community. Where is the hypocrisy?

 

That you don't care how ACE wants the test played, even though it is a test and by opening up in pre-Alpha they are essentially requesting our help, and then you try to suggest dictate to other players what YOU think they "SHOULD" do in test three different times as if it was a real game.

You can't get away from all those "shoulds", just by saying it's a suggestion.

Hypocrisy is 

Quote

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform

You stated you "get to play how you want". If you really believe you and others should get to play how they want, and your not wrong to do so, you shouldn't even offer an opinion on how they "should" play, and certainly not try to dictate how "large guilds" should organize themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2017 at 7:47 PM, Colest said:

Their initial KS pitch was launch by 2016, IIRC. Then that was turned into a soft-launch. Then that was pushed back to 2017. Now it's end of 2017. This is not unusual but within the framing of a kickstarter project, this is the start of how a great many projects died or failed to deliver. Being in "Pre-Alpha" this close to the supposed soft-launch some are predicting the soft-launch will be pushed back again and it's just not a good look for some people.

 

I'm well aware it's illegal but mass sharing of trade secrets happens all the time in the financial world. The investment lingo "Black Edge" and "Grey Edge" are very common subjects regarding where intel comes from. An NDA or compliance agreement is only worth it's weight if you're caught violating it.

I see this specific argument come up a lot, but I'm not personally aware of any high-profile projects where this actually happened, unless by "failed to deliver" you mean "the game sucked." I generally don't trust anecdotal evidence, so I was wondering if you had any examples. Just to satisfy my own curiosity - I'm not accusing you of making a fallacious argument or anything, I just don't even know what search terms to look for to find this out and if you know of some projects I could look up to save time, that would be helpful.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

That you don't care how ACE wants the test played, even though it is a test and by opening up in pre-Alpha they are essentially requesting our help, and then you try to suggest dictate to other players what YOU think they "SHOULD" do in test three different times as if it was a real game.

You can't get away from all those "shoulds", just by saying it's a suggestion.

Hypocrisy is 

You stated you "get to play how you want". If you really believe you and others should get to play how they want, and your not wrong to do so, you shouldn't even offer an opinion on how they "should" play, and certainly not try to dictate how "large guilds" should organize themselves.

You are arguing for the sake of argument at this point. Your definition of hypocrisy doesn't even come close to any behavior I exhibited.

I don't claim to have high moral standards, I think this is obvious. You can cross out suggest and write dictate, but that doesn't make it true. I said I get to play the game how I want when I pay money and then I offered a suggestion, there is nothing wrong with this.

What if I were to eat a sandwich I paid for then I turned to another paying customer and say "you should get pickles on it, it is delicious." Would I also be a hypocrite?

Edited by ClockworkOrange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ClockworkOrange said:

What if I were to eat a sandwich I paid for then I turned to another paying customer and say "you should get pickles on it, it is delicious." Would I also be a hypocrite?

Did you get pickles on your sandwich?


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2017 at 8:26 AM, goose said:

I generally don't trust anecdotal evidence, so I was wondering if you had any examples.

By failed to deliver I did indeed mean a poorly made socksty game came from it. I'm loath to link clickbait articles but none really illustrate the point as well as this article.

Really googling failed kickstarter video games gives you all the answers you could need.

Edited by Colest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...