upkeep unrealistic
-
Thank you for an excellent write up Seph. I think it comes down to what their vision is for their world. Do they only want a very few megalopolis' that could only really be run by giant guilds. Or, do they want a world filled with cities ranging from very small (rank 1-3) towns run by small groups, and a few larger cities run by those giant guilds. I can't imagine they want the former, as that would not only stifle gameplay, but also likely lead to having very few players actually stick around long term. My guess is they want the latter (many towns of varying sizes), and if that's true, they need to go back to the rank requirements for levels 1-3 they had prior to this (i.e. just protein and money). Gaining rank beyond that should require significantly more work, so I have no problem with quickly rising requirements after that.
On another note, hearing prom talk about the system for upkeep being entirely different next time, I found myself very worried. While we have no information on what this will look like I wanted to prempt something. Whatever you do, do not - I repeat do not - tie buildings into certain ranks. For example, you can't build a metalshop below rank 10. With these increased upkeep costs, and taking away the ability to place pretty much anything in a house outside a city, I could see that "brilliant" idea gaining traction. Just dont... However, the reverse could work. Something like a city must have 10 citizens and a metalshop to go up to the next rank.
As for those few saying these upkeep changes aren't bad and could be higher, please put yourself in other players shoes. I get y'all part of a big old guild that's rocking it. Congrats. Y'all will do fine if they increase it by 4-5x. However, for a majority of players that are in smaller guilds, or just want a small group, its unmanageable. Be safe in knowing you'll be on one side of the spectrum of city success, but don't try to take away other's ability to also participate in that by rocking - best they can - their size 3 city.
-
The pain to see those nice cities crumble slowly is bleeding my eyes!! XDD.
Hope also the fix will reset the debts. we already at 32/16...
-
@CoachFubar said in upkeep unrealistic:
Hope also the fix will reset the debts. we already at 32/16...
Yes, it will
-
@Esoba said in upkeep unrealistic:
(...)However, for a majority of players that are in smaller guilds, or just want a small group, its unmanageable(...)
That's part of what they're (likely) looking at during Alpha as well. How many (small/large) cities are decaying, how many are staying active. How fast are people rushing through content (e.g. get all enchanted best equipment, all PoI unlocked, all monster knowledge gained...)? How does player activity suffer over time during the test?
I'm glad they are starting with 'high values' on city upkeep, because if they realize it has to be lower, that gets you good player feedback. But if they start too low and have to increase, that gets you plenty of 'bitching'.
-
Thats understandable, but if that's the case, it again goes back to communication. Something like:
This patch we're increasing upkeep significantly to test out decay and to see how manageable it is for groups to maintain. Rest assured we understand this may be too high for some groups, while others will take it as a challenge. Ultimately it's unlikely to be this level when the game launches but we need to test it in a live environment. Thank you.
Then it minimizes "bitching", while being clear to the player what'shappening. Just doing it however makes this level of complaints happen if what they're really intending is to just test their numbers.
-
@Esoba said in upkeep unrealistic:
Thats understandable, but if that's the case, it again goes back to communication. Something like:
This patch we're increasing upkeep significantly to test out decay and to see how manageable it is for groups to maintain. Rest assured we understand this may be too high for some groups, while others will take it as a challenge. Ultimately it's unlikely to be this level when the game launches but we need to test it in a live environment. Thank you.
Then it minimizes "bitching", while being clear to the player what'shappening. Just doing it however makes this level of complaints happen if what they're really intending is to just test their numbers.
Very well put! Thanks for sharing that!
I also agree with better communication, althought I can only immagine the amount of work they are going through right now.. so Thats completely understandable.Once again, I am here to say great job for Dynamight studios, you guys are rocking and listening to the community is a huge step on the right direction if compared to other games in the same genre! I am glad to be part of this testing and having a lot of fun.
-
@Esoba said in upkeep unrealistic:
(...)it again goes back to communication(...)
Which goes back to Prometheus being CEO, lead developer, programmer and CM, during a time when fixing bugs and delivering new content is critical. I've said it before, but I am a firm believer in preferring less communication and more work being done instead of more hot air and no work being done (coughs CoE coughs). Remember, this studio is tight on budget, they don't even have a fraction (PUN intended) of the money others do. Again, I prefer that they have one more programmer instead of one CM.
During an Alpha NOTHING is set in stone. Everything you see is subject to survey and change, even including complete mechanics.
During a Beta, some things (mechanics) are fixed, but numbers are still going to be heavily tweaked one way ot another.
-
@Prometheus i think to make people ugrade their cities you should implement timing in items crafting. lets say 15 hours for great sword craft for instance. this way they will have to build more craftig stations in a workshop, more workshops in a city and upgread the city to build more workshops. cheers.
