COMMUNITY - FORUMS - GENERAL DISCUSSION
MASSIVE ISSUES with 1/3rd of Tribes excluded at launch.
-75

QUESTION: How're these 4 exposition-excluded tribes supposed to be appropriately established if all the backers can't invest in them? Entire communities were built for the biomes/cultures that were expected, not to mention many thousands and thousands of dollars invested/backed to acquire day 1 infrastructure capabilities, what now? We're NOT going to fling our massive investments into the winds of something we don't remotely love or even want. That question stands as glaringly problematic.

In attempting to solve your network administrative micromanagement of our lives as to what servers we connect to avoid the occasional mumble of "Oh it's a bit laggy today", you now have multiple culture-based alliance scale communities SCREAMING refund.

To quote another resulting Discord correspondence immediately after the Q&A:

"The game is so big it's gonna be hard to balance"

"They actually ensured it will never be balanced by dicking over a 3rd of the cultures/tribes/biomes by ensuring they won't be available at launch, meaning there's hundreds of thousands of dollars of EP investments that won't be available to install in those lands. And I'm still impatiently awaiting response to that matter before refunding along with the rest of a large sum of effected communities."

Said efforts to stall multiple biomes results in knee-capping multiple communities, which in turns could very well rescind a huge chunk of funding which would've gone towards hiring devs for that very purpose, AND, counterproductively, as was pointed out by another, the removal of players-at-launch from these excluded biome cultures means devs will now have to build ALL of those biomes' settlements and so forth, and one of the ONLY, THE ONLY, things that made COE's development schedule remotely viable was the fact that 90% of the world's architectural installations were going to be installed by user labor.


...
6/19/2017 9:37:44 PM #1
+27

Can I have your stuff?

EDIT: Sorry, couldn't help myself. As for a serious reply, you were never promised any specific biome or tribe. You haven't invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin with. If you had, maybe, just maybe you might have a point.

This game doesn't exist yet. They are building it right now. Things have changed and will change. This will not be the last thing they change, because they think the game will be better for it. Let them do their job.


Town of Brash

6/19/2017 9:37:47 PM #2
+25

To be brutally honest if you were really invested in the Owem for example with no information and a high likelihood of them not even appearing in the old way that SbS planned to have the tribes laid out then the onus is on you. But then to bitch about this move is irresponsible and threatening to call-back the money given is stupid.

NPCs will still develop the tribes not on the continent.

6/19/2017 9:38:24 PM #3
+13

All tribes, communities, and Kingdoms are pre-existing before we even get into Expo and are established enough ti sustain themselves and branch out if needed, /thread

6/19/2017 9:39:23 PM #4
+3

Personally I would just eliminate the concept of a starting continent. I know this would reduce the initial conflict level between players anyway, however later discovery of new continents which have been cultivated by players I think would make much more interesting conflict/stories later on.

Unless the non starter continents are being gated for story purposes which I do not get the impression that is the case. I say let people chose the tribes as they may and let that determine which continent they land on and develop.


6/19/2017 9:40:20 PM #5
-17

I have some issue in the way the OP comment was phrased. But, I somewhat agree, I would at LEAST want 6-7 of the tribes that way it would be more dynamic.


6/19/2017 9:40:31 PM #6
+3

Posted By Morholt at 10:39 PM - Mon Jun 19 2017

Personally I would just eliminate the concept of a starting continent. I know this would reduce the initial conflict level between players anyway, however later discovery of new continents which have been cultivated by players I think would make much more interesting conflict/stories later on.

Unless the non starter continents are being gated for story purposes which I do not get the impression that is the case. I say let people chose the tribes as they may and let that determine which continent they land on and develop.

It is part of the story to go-to other continents.

6/19/2017 9:41:05 PM #7
+5

Posted By ElijahInDaFrey at 10:40 PM - Mon Jun 19 2017

I have some issue in the way the OP comment was phrased. But, I somewhat agree, I would at LEAST want 6-7 of the tribes that way it would be more dynamic.

8 tribes are guaranteed at launch.

6/19/2017 9:41:36 PM #8
+6

Posted By Maulvorn at 5:41 PM - Mon Jun 19 2017

Posted By ElijahInDaFrey at 10:40 PM - Mon Jun 19 2017

I have some issue in the way the OP comment was phrased. But, I somewhat agree, I would at LEAST want 6-7 of the tribes that way it would be more dynamic.

8 tribes are guaranteed at launch.

Alright, I'm good then. lol


6/19/2017 9:41:40 PM #9
+8

I want my Desert people!


6/19/2017 9:43:30 PM #10
+2

Posted By Kalexius at 10:41 PM - Mon Jun 19 2017

I want my Desert people!

Guess you have to wait!

6/19/2017 9:44:16 PM #11
+12

This game is in developement, which means, changes are going to be there continuously.I'm sorry but I honestly think you can't ask for a refund when you're backing a game that's not finished yet.

When you write an story, don't you make changes until it's finished? This is exactly the same. When we decided to back this game, at the same time, we assumed some risks. Also, it's not too bad, we'll be able to discover amazing things in-game!

I'm sure those communities will manage to have fun with another tribes, the ones we currently have are also cool. :) ^^


6/19/2017 9:44:18 PM #12
+8

Posted By Morholt at 2:39 PM - Mon Jun 19 2017

Personally I would just eliminate the concept of a starting continent. I know this would reduce the initial conflict level between players anyway, however later discovery of new continents which have been cultivated by players I think would make much more interesting conflict/stories later on.

Unless the non starter continents are being gated for story purposes which I do not get the impression that is the case. I say let people chose the tribes as they may and let that determine which continent they land on and develop.

What I suggested a while ago. Just have 2 continents filled with the tribes / players. It's even better since there's no initial sea travel. More story, alliances, feuds, etc happening that your character wouldn't even know about.

Plus imagine seeing the continent A players sailing and landing on continent B and continent B hasn't even researched seafaring vessels yet. Better hope they came in peace.


A - Z - I - M - A

6/19/2017 9:44:29 PM #13
-8

Posted By Lunaus at 4:38 PM - Mon Jun 19 2017

All tribes, communities, and Kingdoms are pre-existing before we even get into Expo and are established enough ti sustain themselves and branch out if needed, /thread

This isn't the point. The point is that there are now many of us who planned to exist in said already established kingdom and had put in months of work to build alliances and communities and were basically told "lol nope" today. Its easy to take it rather lightly when it wasn't your community that's very basic idea was just snatched away for exactly no reason whatsoever.

Who cares if its a harsher environment that makes survival harder. That's the point of strong communities and alliances as well as the basic function of the Tribal bonuses to make it hospitable.

Its just very disheartening to have the rug snatched out from underneath your community and be told that the only options are now standard western fantasy fare that are found literally everywhere else.

We will adjust and continue, but trust me it sucks big time.


Good day, sir! I SAID GOOD DAY!

6/19/2017 9:45:40 PM #14
+6

you can't get a refund, but I'll buy your ep at a substantially discounted rate so that it's not a complete loss.

I will agree, though, that Caspian was well aware of the communities and planning that was going on from the instant it started, being as it was all shared and discussed within irc waaaay back before discord or kickstarter.

Are people kinda getting screwed? yes and no. There was no guarantee short of your king having first pick that you would get the biome you wanted anyhow - but the fact that some will not be there at all certainly takes that from not guaranteed to not possible.

6/19/2017 9:46:07 PM #15
+13

Posted By Malakaid at 10:44 PM - Mon Jun 19 2017

Posted By Lunaus at 4:38 PM - Mon Jun 19 2017

All tribes, communities, and Kingdoms are pre-existing before we even get into Expo and are established enough ti sustain themselves and branch out if needed, /thread

This isn't the point. The point is that there are now many of us who planned to exist in said already established kingdom and had put in months of work to build alliances and communities and were basically told "lol nope" today. Its easy to take it rather lightly when it wasn't your community that's very basic idea was just snatched away for exactly no reason whatsoever.

Who cares if its a harsher environment that makes survival harder. That's the point of strong communities and alliances as well as the basic function of the Tribal bonuses to make it hospitable.

Its just very disheartening to have the rug snatched out from underneath your community and be told that the only options are now standard western fantasy fare that are found literally everywhere else.

We will adjust and continue, but trust me it sucks big time.

Any kingdom that revolved there existence over one tribe is bound to have disappointments.

...
Log in to post