Heads up people! (Teasers)

Rune, the link is working now.  Thank you!

Now I can see all the hub-bub, Bub.    

~Mazz~

Mazzrah wrote:

Rune, the link is working now.  Thank you!

Now I can see all the hub-bub, Bub.    

~Mazz~

Perfect!

RuneSlayer wrote:

Actually Tibr...The Pre-Alpha state of the game, answers all the above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle
Everything is still work in progress...

What you see right now...is just the base of the end product...Trust me when I say that it will blow your mind.... And if you don't trust me...just tag along, enjoy the ride...and allow us to convince you...

Would it be fair to say that I should not be hoping to play this game (beta or otherwise) within 2014?

I realize games take a long while to make, I want to properly manage my own expectations.

ysosad wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Actually Tibr...The Pre-Alpha state of the game, answers all the above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle  
Everything is still work in progress...

What you see right now...is just the base of the end product...Trust me when I say that it will blow your mind....    And if you don't trust me...just tag along, enjoy the ride...and allow us to convince you...

Would it be fair to say that I should not be hoping to play this game (beta or otherwise) within 2014?

I realize games take a long while to make, I want to properly manage my own expectations.

We may surprise you....but only time will tell

RuneSlayer wrote:

ysosad wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

Actually Tibr...The Pre-Alpha state of the game, answers all the above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle  
Everything is still work in progress...

What you see right now...is just the base of the end product...Trust me when I say that it will blow your mind....    And if you don't trust me...just tag along, enjoy the ride...and allow us to convince you...

Would it be fair to say that I should not be hoping to play this game (beta or otherwise) within 2014?

I realize games take a long while to make, I want to properly manage my own expectations.

We may surprise you....but only time will tell

OK...I'm going to choose to believe 2015 over 2014. That way any 'surprise' is of the good variety and doesn't involve me pissin' and moanin' about what is taking so long.

It all looks quite great! I will be more than impressed if you are able to release the game this year, but as you said only time will tell.   

One thing I am curious about though, it seems there will be limited space on the map which means only a certain number of kingdoms could possibly be able to exist at one time. Does this mean there may be times where you will need to burn another kingdom down to the ground in order to make your own (due to overpopulation)? Could their be ways of potentially "sharing" a kingdom with other players evenly, by jointly building it up? That would be very interesting and help with potential overpopulation problems I think, though maybe not extremely easy to implement.

Rune PLEASE give me the link again. It doesnt work for me it only lists a lot of games on facebook and other relating names on google.

Wow it looks great very cool and looking forward to it. I already know I'm going to start my own kingdom...    The only things it seems i'm concerned about is customization.

I always enjoy customization. I also find it hilarious. You can spend dozens of minutes on customizing the perfect character in Skyrim or any other game and then you never see their face    But anyway I hope the customization will be very visible and as an idea maybe it could be an extremely small minus 1 to morale for the enemy because of the scary war paint or something like that. No one would complain about something small like that.

Scaren wrote:

as an idea maybe it could be an extremely small minus 1 to morale for the enemy because of the scary war paint or something like that. No one would complain about something small like that.

That's something they really have to go all the way on. Especially after making promises of no pay to win.

If I bought a game and my enemy could pay extra money to even take 0.1 point of morale away from me, I would not like that. It puts up a bad image to have even the smallest amount of pay to win in an already bought game because that 0.1 point now could be a full 5 points in the next game for all the customer knows...

Bobba wrote:

Scaren wrote:

as an idea maybe it could be an extremely small minus 1 to morale for the enemy because of the scary war paint or something like that. No one would complain about something small like that.

That's something they really have to go all the way on. Especially after making promises of no pay to win.

If I bought a game and my enemy could pay extra money to even take 0.1 point of morale away from me, I would not like that. It puts up a bad image to have even the smallest amount of pay to win in an already bought game because that 0.1 point now could be a full 5 points in the next game for all the customer knows...

there is a difference between a bonus in a game for buying something and a P2W. At least in my opinion there is. Buying a sword that kills everything is P2W and a small bonus of some sort is more of a helping hand for having some extra cash. As long as the small helping hand isn't obviously Over powered I wouldn't consider it P2W.

Scaren wrote:

Bobba wrote:

Scaren wrote:

as an idea maybe it could be an extremely small minus 1 to morale for the enemy because of the scary war paint or something like that. No one would complain about something small like that.

That's something they really have to go all the way on. Especially after making promises of no pay to win.

If I bought a game and my enemy could pay extra money to even take 0.1 point of morale away from me, I would not like that. It puts up a bad image to have even the smallest amount of pay to win in an already bought game because that 0.1 point now could be a full 5 points in the next game for all the customer knows...

there is a difference between a bonus in a game for buying something and a P2W. At least in my opinion there is. Buying a sword that kills everything is P2W and a small bonus of some sort is more of a helping hand for having some extra cash. As long as the small helping hand isn't obviously Over powered I wouldn't consider it P2W.

In an otherwise free game I'd agree with you totally, as otherwise making the game profitable would be extremely difficult. But in a pre-paid game, I disagree. It can easily be thought of us "hey, thanks for the money, but you'll need to give us a bit more if you really want to have the same options and power as this guy who gave us 10 extra dollars". Even if it's just a single point in some stat, it's still enough to give an advantage to a player in battle against another player based solely on the fact he paid extra money in a paid game (which I find unacceptable in a game with any kind of competitive atmosphere).

I mean, imagine if one could pay 20$ on Warcraft to start with an extra 500 gold in every online match. Would you find that acceptable?

Bobba wrote:

Scaren wrote:

Bobba wrote:

Scaren wrote:

as an idea maybe it could be an extremely small minus 1 to morale for the enemy because of the scary war paint or something like that. No one would complain about something small like that.

That's something they really have to go all the way on. Especially after making promises of no pay to win.

If I bought a game and my enemy could pay extra money to even take 0.1 point of morale away from me, I would not like that. It puts up a bad image to have even the smallest amount of pay to win in an already bought game because that 0.1 point now could be a full 5 points in the next game for all the customer knows...

there is a difference between a bonus in a game for buying something and a P2W. At least in my opinion there is. Buying a sword that kills everything is P2W and a small bonus of some sort is more of a helping hand for having some extra cash. As long as the small helping hand isn't obviously Over powered I wouldn't consider it P2W.

In an otherwise free game I'd agree with you totally, as otherwise making the game profitable would be extremely difficult. But in a pre-paid game, I disagree. It can easily be thought of us "hey, thanks for the money, but you'll need to give us a bit more if you really want to have the same options and power as this guy who gave us 10 extra dollars". Even if it's just a single point in some stat, it's still enough to give an advantage to a player in battle against another player based solely on the fact he paid extra money in a paid game (which I find unacceptable in a game with any kind of competitive atmosphere).

I mean, imagine if one could pay 20$ on Warcraft to start with an extra 500 gold in every online match. Would you find that acceptable?

I would find it acceptable if you spend 5$ for getting extra 5 gold

So am I the only person who hates to buy a new game just to see more "$" signs in it?   

Because if that's so... I'm very, very confused!

Bobba wrote:

So am I the only person who hates to buy a new game just to see more "$" signs in it?   

Because if that's so... I'm very, very confused!

You probably are. Personally I am fine with pay to win games as long as players who are dedicated have the chance of getting everything the players pay to get. For example, I'll compare it to League of Legends since that is the number 1 free to play game right now. They make it so you can pay for champions, skins, and accessories (Exp/IP boost, name change, etc.) with real money. However you can't buy runes with real money. Players who use real money don't pay to win. They just get the same things every other player is going to get just a little bit faster. The only edge players get is being able to buy any champion whenever they want. Some players could argue that is pay to win because they can buy every champion where it would take players over 500 hours of game time to get that. At the same time players have opportunity to buy any champion they want.

So let's say if BC costs $10 to play it. People being able to buy resources with real money doesn't make them better in pvp. Every player has the same chances of crafting a weapon or item as the players who pay money and open chances. Their chances don't increase the more they buy, it only gives them more of the same chance to get better gear. I personally have no problem with that. The only thing I would have a problem with, is if there was a special chest in the game that gave certain gear that could only be unlocked through real money. Then that would give some players an edge because people would have to pay money to compete with the other people that did.

TL;DR I have no problem with additional things to pay for that give you "Something" as long as it doesn't affect the actual battle. For example something I would hate, would be pay $3 and get an additional 5% more damage on archers.

A lot depends on how popular KA will become. With Oculus support it has the potential to create a lot of hype in the battle gaming community. Until there will be plenty 3D strategy games around. Oculus is planned for 2015, someday. With a bit of luck KA may arrive before oculus. So it can be advertised additionally for oculus release.

There is no way to extrapolate to KA numbers from BC activity.

If there is no huge stream of players, then 20$ retail may not be enough to support a game very long.

I support the thought about custom skins and other looks for your army.
Even more i would support to have skins to be craftable or researchable or blueprint-findable commodity on top. Also being some achievement for unit levels or campaign score etc.

Bobba, your concerns about being haunted by $skin$ signs are hopefully not justified. The skins, and possible future merchandise, may be placed in a separate shop, accessable on the homepage or over the game menue. Somewhere where it wont really flag and annoy players at all.

From what i understand, the only obtainable items are vanity and vanity alone. No resources, no weapons, no spells, no heroes, no units .... Just an alternative art how they look.

Tibr wrote:

A lot depends on how popular KA will become. With Oculus support it has the potential to create a lot of hype in the battle gaming community. Until there will be plenty 3D strategy games around. Oculus is planned for 2015, someday. With a bit of luck KA may arrive before oculus. So it can be advertised additionally for oculus release.

There is no way to extrapolate to KA numbers from BC activity.

If there is no huge stream of players, then 20$ retail may not be enough to support a game very long.

I support the thought about custom skins and other looks for your army.
Even more i would support to have skins to be craftable or researchable or blueprint-findable commodity on top. Also being some achievement for unit levels or campaign score etc.

Bobba, your concerns about being haunted by $skin$ signs are hopefully not justified. The skins, and possible future merchandise, may be placed in a separate shop, accessable on the homepage or over the game menue. Somewhere where it wont really flag and annoy players at all.

From what i understand, the only obtainable items are vanity and vanity alone. No resources, no weapons, no spells, no heroes, no units .... Just an alternative art how they look.

Well my reply was mostly directed at Scaren who suggested a small morale bonus (+1) to go with skins, which I am totally against (especially since it's unlikely this would come at any army cost). While I don't personally like the idea of purchasable vanity items, it doesn't bug me enough to sway my decision to purchase the game or not. Buyable stat bonuses of any type, even the smallest ones, have a huge effect on my decision though. So I'll be okay if it's just vanity. But I don't want it to go past that, because once the line is blurred (even if it starts out small) it makes it likely more purchases like that will show up in the future. Luckily Rune already mentioned there's no pay2win, so I'm not really worried. I just wanted to voice my opinion about things like that, especially after Scaren mentioned a small pay2win feature.

And yes, it would make me very upset me if premium content screens are jumping in my face, but a simple small button somewhere that leads to a "premium store" wouldn't bother me (assuming all the items available are vanity only and not to help with progress).

Venumuse wrote:

You probably are. Personally I am fine with pay to win games as long as players who are dedicated have the chance of getting everything the players pay to get. For example, I'll compare it to League of Legends since that is the number 1 free to play game right now.

Kingdoms Age won't be free to play, which is exactly why I would have a problem with it. Those kinds of features are fine in a game like League of Legends because you can play the game for free without purchasing anything. But if I put down 20$ for a brand new online game, and then the game tells me I can buy resources for another 10$ and blah blah blah, I'm going to be very disappointed. The point of making the game paid in the first place would be completely nullified in that case, and all the benefits that come along with it such as a balanced leaderboard and lack of comments "you only won that fight because you paid for better gear" would be gone; it may as well been made a free to play game if things like that are going to be in it (besides, in that case it'd probably be better for profit anyways!). But since it will be a paid game, I believe it should (and according to Rune, it will) treat itself professionally like a paid game, and not try to half-ass itself somewhere in the middle of the two.

Again, not complaining about anything Agincourt is doing, just trying to clarify my opinions on some of these details. Still feel free to disagree with me, but that's how I feel about the matter.

Basically, KA won't be a Free to Play game, so it shouldn't act like one. I disagree with any pay2win features, even the tiniest ones.

People need to stop asking so many questions about game mechanics and content.
Its so far away from being released, that soooo many things can and WILL change, you're just opening yourself up for disappointment and risking the chance of making it appear that RuneSlayer is making broken promises.

I'd give it a good 3 months before any detailed questions regarding gameplay should even be bothered with.

Just sit back and let the teasers come in.

Gentlemen...allow me to clarify some things so as to put an end to a meaningless discussion.

- Kingdoms Age will not be Free To Play and it will probably cost not more than $20.

- It will have both a Single Player Campaign and an "Online World" which is actually a persistent world.

- There will be purchases available in the form of skins and customizing your troops, camp, heroes, and army in general. Also, there will be other purchases available such as +100% gold, +100% experience for your heroes, which only speed up player's progression. There will be NO purchases available which will affect the battle, or provide any bonuses to a paying user. As stated above, a very good comparison would be League of Legends which provides skins and gold, XP speed ups which speed up a player's progression.

- There will be NO Ads...

- There will be NO popups nudging a player to buy a premium. This is not a web browser game and definitely not a FB game...

I hope the above clarified the situation.

XViper wrote:

People need to stop asking so many questions about game mechanics and content.
Its so far away from being released, that soooo many things can and WILL change, you're just opening yourself up for disappointment and risking the chance of making it appear that RuneSlayer is making broken promises.

I'd give it a good 3 months before any detailed questions regarding gameplay should even be bothered with.

Just sit back and let the teasers come in.

True, but not so true...The game design is 95% complete and the business model (purchases) is 100% complete. So just go ahead and ask whatever you want, and if an answer can be provided...you will have it.

One remark gentlemen....Please do not discuss KA matters in the BC Forums..We made the KA Forums for a reason..

RuneSlayer wrote:

Also, there will be other purchases available such as +100% gold, +100% experience for your heroes, which only speed up player's progression.

Hmm...this actually bothers me quite a bit. In a persistent world where kingdoms of players are battling other kingdoms of players, a rich group in a kingdom with 100% gold and exp on all the time are going to utterly wipe the floor with it's neighboring kingdoms who may be playing just as much and made their kingdom at the same time. Why should I pay 20$ for a game if other people will be racing ahead of me because they paid 50$? Bonuses like that will probably just make me want to stick with Battle Conquest...

I can't say I understand why I seem to be the only one bothered by this...

You said no pay2win, none at all. But a bonus that lets you get more influence on the world in your favor by paying money (which allows progressing faster), is clearly pay2win in my eyes. How is it not? You can do things like make your own kingdom sooner, do more damage to other kingdoms sooner and easier, give other players a harder time, etc. It's pay2win as far as I'm concerned. The "battles" themselves are not the only thing that counts when it comes to paying2win, it's the whole influence you are given over the world too.

Sorry I didn't post this on the KA forums but it's a reply to a comment on here so I feel like it makes more sense here.

So I guess I'm simultaneously asking: How are experience and resource boosts not pay2win in a world where every person in every kingdom counts? Why would you want a feature like that in a game the player already paid to buy in the first place? And am I really the only one who sees an issue here??

I agree with Bobba, it comes unexpected to hear from gold and xp boost purchases, i was assuming vanity is the only gem cathegory.

Bobba wrote:

You said no pay2win, none at all. But a bonus that lets you get more influence on the world in your favor by paying money (which allows progressing faster), is clearly pay2win in my eyes. How is it not? You can do things like make your own kingdom sooner, do more damage to other kingdoms sooner and easier, give other players a harder time, etc. It's pay2win as far as I'm concerned. The "battles" themselves are not the only thing that counts when it comes to paying2win, it's the whole influence you are given over the world too.

.

Bobba, you assume too much without even knowing how things work in KA. There will be different types of currencies in KA. Whatever bonuses there will exist will only have to do with the player's progression, not with the world itself. You can't pay $100 and build your Kingdom. In fact...no player CAN create a Kingdom on his own... There will be no direct influence...

RuneSlayer wrote:

XViper wrote:

People need to stop asking so many questions about game mechanics and content.
Its so far away from being released, that soooo many things can and WILL change, you're just opening yourself up for disappointment and risking the chance of making it appear that RuneSlayer is making broken promises.

I'd give it a good 3 months before any detailed questions regarding gameplay should even be bothered with.

Just sit back and let the teasers come in.

True, but not so true...The game design is 95% complete and the business model (purchases) is 100% complete. So just go ahead and ask whatever you want, and if an answer can be provided...you will have it.

One remark gentlemen....Please do not discuss KA matters in the BC Forums..We made the KA Forums for a reason..

Can't this post be shut down then, what's the point of it anyways?

"Death comes for us all" Then kill it!

If getting gold and getting faster level ups has no effect on your influence in the world, that makes very little sense to me. Is "personal progress" going to be a vanity now?

Yup less grind is definitely p2w'ish... Less effort to get the same result if you pay (less battles to get same exp/gold or something)..

Exp and gold boosts by themselves are good.. but not as a paid feature.
Alternatives could be:
-rare (random or from specific battles) drop which grants a temporary exp boost
-each kill/battle contributes to a pool, which when filled, gives such a boost [it encourages serious playing/grinding and gives motivation.. unless your goal is a casual game]
-research which improves exp/gold forever
-one of rewards for logging in [that'd be a good feature btw.. if without the penalty of total reset if you miss a day]

I guess that's the only thread where people should continue talking about KA (those who are too lazy to register there yet).. otherwise, there's the thread lock.. ^^