Balancing reward or at least designing for it is the soul purpose of game design. You need to give a reason for winning. No one just wants to win for winning sake for the most part. Even you do it for bragging rights. You have a giant PVP community behind you that you get to hang your hat on. The average person doesn't have that; winning for them is a side note. They need a tangible reward or goal to go towards. Even if it's points in a ladder/ranking system and no specific in-game reward, it's got to be something.I agree and I think combination of what is being thrown around for tougher campaigns = better rewards is probably a good solution. I think their tournament idea might be an ideal option rather than having tiered campaigns.
My point about foundation is that trying to find the right reward structure for participating in the campaign is the wrong goal. IMO the goal should be to make the campaigns compelling on their own. People should be excited for the next campaign like it's a game release, not concerned about excelling in each campaign for the reward afterward.
When you need to hit a fucking stretch goal just to get simple things that qualify as expected content in a medieval rpg, that oft-cited advantage of crowdfunding "freeing us from the fetters of a publisher" begins to sound pretty useless.$1.3 million goal hit. Mount up!
Because you're still thinking of "there's one rule everyone plays by". There's not. You will have campaigns in which you can't bring your gear (or maybe only a weapon, no armor), and campaign in which you can. The catch is that this "best" gear you bring in from the EK is going to be lost. Unless you vault it, and hope you win and it's not lost on its way back to the EK, you're going to leave it on your corpse at the end of the world.Maybe I'm not wholly grasping this "the best loot is in [these campaigns], but you can't bring it into the next one" concept.
didnt the devs already state the stretch goals were going to happen regardless, and haven't they stated the goals will contiune after kickstarter? or did I just read that somewhere and make it up in my head?The stretch goals are bs, I think everyone can agree on that. The extra money they will receive isn't going to make the goals any more of a reality than they already were. Those goals would have been in the game after 2 years of development anyway. I can overlook this bad attempt at pinching more money out of the player base if they have an amazing game (which I believe they will).
The Kickstarter is to fund the "Core Module" of the game. Mounts, Artifacts & Relics, etc are all planned features, it's just a question of whether they make it into release (Core Module) or not.didnt the devs already state the stretch goals were going to happen regardless, and haven't they stated the goals will contiune after kickstarter? or did I just read that somewhere and make it up in my head?
I feel you but I keep hoping this is going to be different enough where the other gameplay elements compliment PvP and make for an interesting game. I'm trying to think out of my own box and hope they have something. I've been rethinking the level of my contribution but at the same time think that regardless of what I give now that I would probably end up sinking the same amount of money later. So I might as well support it on the front end and hope that in some way that the community can help steer the ship.Am I missing something? This game seems to be shaping up to be a lobby-based queued/instanced match-style pointless pvp sparring match like so many other pvp games. It doesn't seem like they've created a system for meaningful pvp, but simply cut out the persistent PvE world that other failed PvP efforts have at least had. It's like their pitch is: It's like Rift, but without the PvE world. It's like GW2, ah, but without the PvE world. It's like a dozen other games, but without the PvE world that you'd at least think to yourselfman this would be cool if there were actual world pvp instead of instanced matches!
Not the strongest selling point for me.
I wish one of these companies would just create a world, populate it with mobs and loot, turn on pvp, and let players figure it out. Stop being cute and over-designing pvp by trying to create a PvP system and PvP rewards and PvP rankings and all that shit. Players will sort all that out when they're trying to progress in a game and either have to learn to defend themselves or die.
Then again, I also have never needed trophies and percentages in console games to know I beat a game or had fun trying. So I guess I've got a pretty small epeen wanting an open world ffa game where PvP isn't some contrived sparring match.
Serious questions ,because I'm getting a ton of 'dude finally a real pvp game' hype that I just don't see: How is this going to be more 'fun' than the other games when you're still just sparring for no real purpose? Do people still not understand it's not PvP mechanics or systems that make PvP fun, but having real consequences worth fighting over?
I guess I just don't see resources to fix up your Disney Palace as enough motivation for people to give a shit about PvP after the initial luster wears thin.
I'm trying to believe, though.