Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Barab said:

Cliff notes please ? Now I see how someone can have 3k post yet Ive never fought them during any test run dating back to hunger dome nor seen them on any test server on any region. Just curious what guild do you belong to ? 

 

Keep this real simple to avoid further confusion on what we are saying.

There is ever growing viral confused and incorrect opinion among the mmorpg communities regarding what Crowfall's soft launch is or isnt as well as an incorrect consensus on what pay 2 win in a pvp game like Crowfall is. Even original pre alpha testers are confused still on what the difference between beta, soft launch, and official release is. Any and all information out there from Artcraft is over two years old, hard to find, or in clips here or there on dev streams*. At some point, in my opinion sooner rather than later, it should be addressed head on with the mmorpg media outlets as well as hosted in a clear and easily seen area on Crowfall's website.

 

 

uDa and probably because I don't run around doing combat much since the first couple of weeks of open worlds and most of my guild stopped playing because of the resets and heavy equipment grind required between them. Since then I tend to focus test on the early player and harvesting experiences, when I do happen to test, which frankly isn't that often the last couple of months as I was getting burned out and bored with it.  I did just a 8+ hour re-test of the starting experience to see what it took to get from zero to intermediate gear last week though. 

Now that I answered that question, why the need to "appeal to authority" in regards to testing time in game?  Isn't this entire discussion about the impact and perception outside of the game, and not related to time in game at all? Are you questioning my desire to see this game succeed, the type of game I am hoping it becomes, or the value of my position?

There never will be consensus on what is pay to win. ACE has said repeatedly they are not in the marketing phase, and what you are describing is essentially marketing. To any original testers or others who are confused I'm sorry, but ACE has had the exact same order and steps to release since kickstarter, regardless of what names they are called by.

Quote

2016 news post linked above.

Our priorities are to…

To build you a playable game experience,
To turn on character persistence with the expectation of never wiping again as soon as we feel like the systems are solid enough to do so,
To prioritize the features that are central to the heart of our vision first, and
To treat the game as a live service, adding features and content incrementally over time
…and, most importantly:

Continue to polish the core systems until we get them right.

 

Quote

April 2018

1. Finish the game, 
2. Stop wiping (because no one really cares when the data can be wiped at any time, and that screws your data)
3. Start running players through our "new user experience" in batches of a few thousand at a time
4. Monitor the conversion and retention of each batch (technically they are called a 'cohort')
5. Try different options.  Repeat steps 4 and 5 until your funnel is optimized
6. Once you've done that a LOT, and you believe the funnel is solid, THEN you spend that marketing budget to drive new players into the funnel

The confusion comes from outside of ACE, in the form of the terms being ill defined, and people listening to FUD thrown around by various parties, and not because ACE has in any way ever changed the goals, message or even core product. There has always been the intent of passive training you can get behind on. Todd even addressed that in the same article.

Quote

As for the "player who come late will be at a disadvantage" concern, two points there:  (1) players who come late to an MMO always start behind players who started early, (2) we have a catch up mechanic -- a training tome which can be crafted in game and traded to other players -- to allow you to catch up. FWIW, most MMOs don't offer that; either you grind, or you're left behind.

*except of course the news article you quoted that is less than a month old and contains all the details, where Todd did exactly what you are asking for here*

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barab said:

Cliff notes please ? Now I see how someone can have 3k post yet Ive never fought them during any test run dating back to hunger dome nor seen them on any test server on any region. Just curious what guild do you belong to ? 

 

Keep this real simple to avoid further confusion on what we are saying.

There is ever growing viral confused and incorrect opinion among the mmorpg communities regarding what Crowfall's soft launch is or isnt as well as an incorrect consensus on what pay 2 win in a pvp game like Crowfall is. Even original pre alpha testers are confused still on what the difference between beta, soft launch, and official release is. Any and all information out there from Artcraft is over two years old, hard to find, or in clips here or there on dev streams. At some point, in my opinion sooner rather than later, it should be addressed head on with the mmorpg media outlets as well as hosted in a clear and easily seen area on Crowfall's website.

 

 

From the way I read the backer rewards, alpha and beta is soft launch.  So the last full wipe should be at the start of alpha/end of pre-alpha #.#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Devonic said:

From the way I read the backer rewards, alpha and beta is soft launch.  So the last full wipe should be at the start of alpha/end of pre-alpha #.#

The backer rewards don’t say that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jah said:

The backer rewards don’t say that at all.

Just the way "Begins playing during # alpha/beta phase" sounds to me.  I mean we are already play testing.

98CCMF8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Devonic said:

From the way I read the backer rewards, alpha and beta is soft launch.  So the last full wipe should be at the start of alpha/end of pre-alpha #.#

- pre-alpha stage (with beta 3 invites) WE ARE HERE!

- alpha

- beta (inc free waves)

<wipe and start of vip services> - soft launch

 

ace dont really make it easy with their language tho... 

Edited by Tinnis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Devonic said:

Just the way "Begins playing during # alpha/beta phase" sounds to me.  I mean we are already play testing.

98CCMF8.png

Nothing there says anything about soft launch or the timing of the last wipe. Nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soft Launch from what I see is is a loose definition, other game have not wiped after beta, so I see no reason not to think beta could be part of soft launch.  Till its officially announced anyway.  But hey either way, its some time off and its just names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Devonic said:

Soft Launch from what I see is is a loose definition, other game have not wiped after beta, so I see no reason not to think beta could be part of soft launch.  Till its officially announced anyway.  But hey either way, its some time off and its just names.

They have defined what soft launch means for them. They have told us that soft launch will come after beta. They have told us there will be a final wipe after beta and before soft launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did not see that, but don't have the time to see all the live feed and post. I will take your word. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Barab said:

You clearly dont know our guild members. Trust me their opinions are valid and not alone in their concern across the mmorpg player base regardless if they come here or not. Kinda condescending as well to label a few of us that care enough to voice a concern as not able to represent our guild's concerns. 

Only issue I have is some could be convinced or ask specific questions based on reading and posting themselves.

21 hours ago, Mykro said:

@McTan, I just want to tell you that I agree completely with you. I am glad there are some on this forum that are huge fans of the game, however some of this population will dismiss any criticism of the game at all (even if it is a legitimate concern). Whenever a new player posts about how their experience wasn't great, or how they didn't like a feature, the response from these "diehards" is reflexively explaining why their first impression is incorrect.

There is a danger in trying to pretend/act/believe that everything is going "dandy", dismissing any criticism as "the person is uninformed", and continue the same path. (The so called group think downfall in decision making.) The most important contributions early on in the development of any game is often from those providing constructive critism. 

Mctan brings up a great point, there are many [gamers] that do not want to join an MMO after launch because they believe they will be "behind" in progression. I haven't played WoW since 2006, I have never gone back, in part because I worry others are that much more progressed. So Mctan is bringing up a very reasonable concern, and I urge the fan base and the devs @jtoddcolemanto take valid and legitimate concerns (such as this one) with an open mind rather than always reflexively trying to explain why they are wrong. Constructive criticism is how people, companies, and video games are improved. It sure has helped me become a better physician.

I started Eve Online nearly 12 years ago and I could never catch up those that started at release. I started WoW 3 months before BC expansion came out with the only 'catch up' to progression was to get to max level. This was before I knew about raid gear and item levels. WoW now is setup that a new account can be caught up in approx 3 weeks if you level fast. WoW has one of the fastest catch up systems I know of for any MMO (skill injectors from Eve aside). Warframe has been out 5 years and I just started last year (though it didn't last long).

I fully expect to see intermediate gear used for 90% of CF content. There will be no need to catch up with skills because of the stat caps (new skill tree design aside), you could progress faster if you picked similar classes. Whereas If I picked a tank (lets say the Knight) and a Dualist then my skill training will be almost doubled compared to yours.

I've never decided to skip a game because others have progressed further than I can. Many games have a cap so catching up is easy OR they allow for new players to play along veteran players. Eve (pre-skill injectors) allowed new players to use small ships with electronic warfare mods to be useful in big fights. Warframe has some weapons locked behind a 'level' but there are useful weapons usable well before those 'level' needs.

[e] I did mention on the ACE Dev section that ACE consider expanding the Trusted Trader Program to include accounts to sell and trade. This would allow veteran accounts to be sold. I posted some limitations that CCP, developers of Eve Online, does so that it's nearly impossible to scam.  JT said he's run it by GW to see if it's worth adding.   If it was added then anyone could buy an account that had training from soft launch day one or could buy an account from year one and not be that far behind.

Edited by jetah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am frankly very surprised this topic has had so much discussion. This game is going to be split into campaigns of 1,000 to maybe 2,000 accounts “choughs”. The fact that the game in its current state can’t handle more than 40 concurrent users is a whole different topic. The new skill system is point based. Is that just coincidence? I think not. It makes it very easy to limit entry into campaigns based on a cap of skill points assuring a day one player experience for everyone regardless of when they begin the game. Easily limited to 30 day, 90 day 6 month even 1 year equivalent skill caps. Eventually .. yes they will have to enter the general population but with some skill training. Fresh players will also have the advantage of more established players EK venders and hopefully a wide variety of cheap intermediate gear. This game will like every other MMO have people entering the game at various stages.

Finish the game is very likely to be a much more interesting debate. No MMO is finished as long as people continue to play. If the game was finished there would be no need for updates unless they were adding content. If you think this will be the state at soft launch you are setting yourself up for a big disappointment. I think ACE will determine the game finished when they have most of the already promised content in game but not necessarily working as intended. I would bet skins and graphics will be incomplete. Animations will be buggy. Many things will not be working or be very bugged. There will be the need for class balancing. I am anticipating connection issues and at times unplayable lag. This is not the day one experience you want to have on your major release. For those that enter at soft launch and choose to play though the guaranteed rough beginning, the payoff is a head start on training. In return ACE taints as few players as possible with the bad experience until they can offer a better experience and go for a full release. In my opinion they are being very smart about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jetah said:

[e] I did mention on the ACE Dev section that ACE consider expanding the Trusted Trader Program to include accounts to sell and trade. This would allow veteran accounts to be sold. I posted some limitations that CCP, developers of Eve Online, does so that it's nearly impossible to scam.  JT said he's run it by GW to see if it's worth adding.   If it was added then anyone could buy an account that had training from soft launch day one or could buy an account from year one and not be that far behind.

Hard no on account trading IMO.

Account trading was a necessity in EVE for a long time specifically because of the lack of a catch up mechanism, and the fact that training was gated by paying a sub. Crowfall has neither of these limitations. We don't need account trading when books accomplish the same mechanism of turning specific and directed training time in to ingame currency, and aren't tied to real world currency expenditure. If you want to "buy an account" in Crowfall, you should just buy skill books, as those books will only get cheaper the longer the game has been running due to not being tied to any real world sub. Non-VIP players can (and will) generate tomes after they've trained things important to them, and as such at a certain point every single account in the game will be generating skill books.

Allowing account trading deprives ACE of the box cost of new accounts, depresses the market for skill books (which prevent their prices from falling over time due to supply/deman economics) and undermines the entire concept of always using the account name because reputation is supposed to matter.

Just because EVE did a thing doesn't make it a good idea. EVE did a lot of things to solve catch up problems in its systems specifically because it ran so long without any catch up mechanics, and because its monetization model gates much of the game behind a sub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Hard no on account trading IMO.

Account trading was a necessity in EVE for a long time specifically because of the lack of a catch up mechanism, and the fact that training was gated by paying a sub. Crowfall has neither of these limitations. We don't need account trading when books accomplish the same mechanism of turning specific and directed training time in to ingame currency, and aren't tied to real world currency expenditure. If you want to "buy an account" in Crowfall, you should just buy skill books, as those books will only get cheaper the longer the game has been running due to not being tied to any real world sub. Non-VIP players can (and will) generate tomes after they've trained things important to them, and as such at a certain point every single account in the game will be generating skill books.

Allowing account trading deprives ACE of the box cost of new accounts, depresses the market for skill books (which prevent their prices from falling over time due to supply/deman economics) and undermines the entire concept of always using the account name because reputation is supposed to matter.

Just because EVE did a thing doesn't make it a good idea. EVE did a lot of things to solve catch up problems in its systems specifically because it ran so long without any catch up mechanics, and because its monetization model gates much of the game behind a sub.

It's not quite the same and tomes have rather steep diminishing returns past 50%. 

People are going to want to trade accounts, so they will.  Far better it be sanctioned and monitored somewhat by ACE, than out in the wild and prone to more fraud. That said, if CF does really well, I can see some day one accounts being worth big bucks in a couple of years. It's almost a backer investment vehicle at that point. (I know at least one person who views it that way.)

ACE would still benefit from the account financially. First if it was a VIP account, they would have made that 15$/month the whole time it built up, and second the new player will start with an account more valuable to start/continue with VIP.

On the reputation/name thing, accounts do get a one time switch of name, so anyone trading accounts will put a higher value on accounts that can change names when they change owners, or ACE could even make that a policy and part of the trusted trader program.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

Hard no on account trading IMO.

Account trading was a necessity in EVE for a long time specifically because of the lack of a catch up mechanism, and the fact that training was gated by paying a sub. Crowfall has neither of these limitations. We don't need account trading when books accomplish the same mechanism of turning specific and directed training time in to ingame currency, and aren't tied to real world currency expenditure. If you want to "buy an account" in Crowfall, you should just buy skill books, as those books will only get cheaper the longer the game has been running due to not being tied to any real world sub. Non-VIP players can (and will) generate tomes after they've trained things important to them, and as such at a certain point every single account in the game will be generating skill books.

Allowing account trading deprives ACE of the box cost of new accounts, depresses the market for skill books (which prevent their prices from falling over time due to supply/deman economics) and undermines the entire concept of always using the account name because reputation is supposed to matter.

Just because EVE did a thing doesn't make it a good idea. EVE did a lot of things to solve catch up problems in its systems specifically because it ran so long without any catch up mechanics, and because its monetization model gates much of the game behind a sub.

Either ACE gets a little kickback for the account or it's on a 3rd party site where ACE handles all of the CS and makes nothing. Someone can buy an account and still use books!  I'd much prefer to see Accounts listed in the TTP so a scam can't happen than it not be there.

Krakken mentioned some information too so I wont repeat that.

Share this post


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

Either ACE gets a little kickback for the account or it's on a 3rd party site where ACE handles all of the CS and makes nothing. Someone can buy an account and still use books!  I'd much prefer to see Accounts listed in the TTP so a scam can't happen than it not be there.

Krakken mentioned some information too so I wont repeat that.

TBH I'd much rather see account trading as a bannable offense for the buyer and seller. If we're sanctioning account trading there is little point in having a diminishing return on books, and it is a wholesale admission that any catch up mechanic is not functioning as well as it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

TBH I'd much rather see account trading as a bannable offense for the buyer and seller. If we're sanctioning account trading there is little point in having a diminishing return on books, and it is a wholesale admission that any catch up mechanic is not functioning as well as it should be.

problem is you can't stop 3rd party sales. unless ACE decides to never allow email updates. I'd rather ACE get 35$ to swap accounts between players than hear about them on other websites. I'd prefer people buy accounts and use tomes to catch up instead.  If you have 5+ accounts and plan on selling those tomes, there's no reason to want to ban official account trading. But you could just sell the excessive accounts, also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, jetah said:

problem is you can't stop 3rd party sales. unless ACE decides to never allow email updates. I'd rather ACE get 35$ to swap accounts between players than hear about them on other websites. I'd prefer people buy accounts and use tomes to catch up instead.  If you have 5+ accounts and plan on selling those tomes, there's no reason to want to ban official account trading. But you could just sell the excessive accounts, also.

I've heard this logic before (you can't stop third party sales) and it rings hollow. You can't stop botting either but I've yet to hear of anyone attempting to make a case for officially sanctioned bots. You can't stop people from using memory hacks to gain ingame advantage and see things they shouldn't, but I've yet to hear of anyone advocating for ACE to sell hacks.

I fail to see how this is any different. If your catch up mechanism is working properly, there shouldn't be any incentive to trade accounts. If you're going to use the logic that "reputation matters" to prevent players from creating alts to avoid recognition you're talking out both sides of your head when you allow players to simply throw down some cash and grab a trained account.

If books are intended to have diminishing returns, account trading is literally circumventing those intended diminishing returns. You are advocating a system where people are encouraged to pay ACE money to exploit their way around the intended functionality of the training and skill book system.

Just because EVE does a thing it doesn't mean that thing is a good idea. EVE felt pressures to legitimize account trading because of poor ingame catch up mechanics and then continued to allow it after that problem was remedied because the legitimization of that type of trading created a culture of expectation they couldn't shut down. This does not mean Crowfall needs to intentionally create poor ingame catch up mechanics and allow people to pay money to exploit their way around them. You don't have to deal with the fallout of opening pandora's box if you never actually open it.

If you're buying accounts with the intent of passively training them and then offloading them for ingame benefit, you should be content with offloading the skill books they create through ingame channels. You should also be okay with the diminishing return on your investment over time that everyone else selling skill books also deals with. Those skill books should make the desire to buy a trained account obsolete. If your goal with the VIP system is to create something that doesn't confer extreme advantage for having real money, and your goal with skill books is to allow players to catch up after several years of live skill training, encouraging account sales rather than straight up banning them is hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways.

Let people turbo themselves by buying their own account, and buying those skill books ingame. They can even still "pay to win" by buying VIP tokens and trading them for the books. If people want to do that through official channels it should damn well be more expensive than simply buying a fresh account and training it, not less. If it were the intended gameplay loop, ACE may as well directly sell trained accounts. If people want to do that through illegal out of game channels it should damn well be risky, prone to scamming, and bannable if caught.

Edited by PopeUrban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@PopeUrban Actually accounts could go in either way. someone buys an account, buys tomes, sells account. they buy a pre-trained account. they buy a pre-trained account and buy tomes.  The time has to be spent regardless.

Problem with 3rd party sales is ACE is the one dealing with charge backs, getting emails trying to revert a 'sold' account (i've seen this on the wow reddit). It takes time and salary for ACE to deal with it. With a trusted program, both parties know it's being traded, hell the seller could toss in X VIP/Tomes to make the offer sweeter or ACE could say all accounts are bare. 

I can see more people buying accounts than tomes. If someone gets tired of the game or they believe ACE is moving the game in a direction they don't like, sell it. 

If CCP wanted to shut down character trading they can. They shut down the casino's without worrying about "culture of expectation".

Seems you're against it, i'm for it. I'm going to let the topic go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

I've heard this logic before (you can't stop third party sales) and it rings hollow. You can't stop botting either but I've yet to hear of anyone attempting to make a case for officially sanctioned bots. You can't stop people from using memory hacks to gain ingame advantage and see things they shouldn't, but I've yet to hear of anyone advocating for ACE to sell hacks.

Screeps is a game that allows you to basically program the game to automate your stuff in a very script and macro heavy style of botting. The game is built to allow it. That's the only way botting would actually be a thing in a MMO and is the reason why nearly every single MMO out before and probably after Screeps will always openly be against botting, hacks, etc. because it clearly gives a huge advantage to the person doing the deed. I honestly think the concept behind Screeps is brilliant for just that reason.

The game has to be built around a particular activity or have the room to have such things implemented into it for it to work out. Straight up having a hard stance on banning people cause they want to trade or sell an account is a little dumb. We have Trusted Trader Program. We should utilize it for RMT related things as what others have been suggesting.

Also, nobody is ever going to advocate for hacks or methods of cheating of any kind unless it's a designed to incorporate those things into the gameplay experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, jetah said:

@PopeUrban
Seems you're against it, i'm for it. I'm going to let the topic go.

Agreed. I don't think there's anything to be gained by further discussion, and ACE is gonna do whatever it feels is the best move. I simply don't think intentionally building a loophole in to your own progression systems is the best move.

Edited by PopeUrban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.