PDA

View Full Version : How Much Will The Game Be And Will There Be Monthly Payment?


LastSpartan
04-15-2010, 02:36 PM
I don't really want it to be to expensive. Also it would suck for lots of us to be playing like $10.00 for a game we barely play 24/7. I know its an awsome game and I hope it will be but I don't want it to be to expensive. By the way i know how long and how hard it tooks you guys to make this game, so don't worry i respect your efforts. :)

Puppeteer
04-15-2010, 02:58 PM
It's a one time payment, definitely - don't worry about it.
Source (http://reverieworld.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11738&postcount=3) (from the Officialy FAQ Thread (http://reverieworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=509))

nickson104
04-15-2010, 03:01 PM
It's a one time payment, definitely - don't worry about it.
Source (http://reverieworld.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11738&postcount=3) (from the Officialy FAQ Thread (http://reverieworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=509))

Indeed :) Are they still supporting the mini-transactions though? I hope not... :p

Alex Walz
04-15-2010, 03:18 PM
There will not be any monthly payments. And how much the game costs is up to the publisher.

There will, most likely, be some additional, optional costs like DLC/quest packs, although we may make it so that you could alternatively purchase these with achievement points.

nickson104
04-15-2010, 03:22 PM
There will, most likely, be some additional, optional costs like DLC/quest packs, although we may make it so that you could alternatively purchase these with achievement points.

Sounds great :) So the proposed mini transaction system for extra resources/units isnt planned anymore? :)

wills370
04-15-2010, 03:27 PM
I assume this would still be in place. Although as stated before this would be used just to speed up the game. And gathering times etc. And with the system where you can only face people of a similar level to you this should solve the issue as thoose who do use this payment method to advance will always be with players of the same grade etc.

Negthareas
04-15-2010, 05:14 PM
Phew! When I saw that title of this I was like "NOoooo!" they are going to make it a monthly payment! No! Thank you for alieving my fears.

Aametherar
04-15-2010, 06:38 PM
Sounds great :) So the proposed mini transaction system for extra resources/units isnt planned anymore? :)

Thank goodness if that's true, micro transactions ruin games for me, I can't count how many I ended up leaving because of it.

Andy Joslin
04-15-2010, 06:55 PM
With our micro-transaction system, you will be able to purchase Influence. There is a limit to the amount of influence anyone can buy over a period of time. The Influence resource is then used to research technology, purchase battalions of elite units, unlock new quest packs, and more.

Influence is gained in relative abundance through normal gameplay, as well.

GPS51
04-15-2010, 06:57 PM
Ah that's what I like to hear. That you're not screwed if you don't want to pay out ever few weeks but if you want to then you get a distinct advantage. I always think the gamer should have the choice. Not the *usually* cash guzzling company. No reference to RWS should be implied here.

Yami-Yagari
04-15-2010, 10:55 PM
When DoF finally gets released, it will be super addictive running your online empire sort of. If you had to pay for it weekly/monthly, would not only be cruel but also really bad idea, because you might lose most to all your customers.

Unen
04-15-2010, 11:00 PM
Id honestly prefer monthly. Yea its more money (granted the same amount for me cause i would pay for dof rather than one of the MMOs i play now) but more money means supporting the devs more, giving them better salary's and also giving them extra resources to put twards new and better content. IMO monthly games are 9 out of 10 times better than one-time-pay or micro trans. games.

sumo0
04-16-2010, 03:12 AM
Id honestly prefer monthly. Yea its more money (granted the same amount for me cause i would pay for dof rather than one of the MMOs i play now) but more money means supporting the devs more, giving them better salary's and also giving them extra resources to put twards new and better content. IMO monthly games are 9 out of 10 times better than one-time-pay or micro trans. games.

my thoughts exactly! i by far prefer monthly payment to ensure future support.
devs, will it be possible to suport DOF with 1 time pay like other monthly payed MMO's are supported? will it be supported like the typical MMO's?

blackfang
04-16-2010, 05:11 AM
my thoughts exactly! i by far prefer monthly payment to ensure future support.
devs, will it be possible to suport DOF with 1 time pay like other monthly payed MMO's are supported? will it be supported like the typical MMO's?

the one problem i see with monthly payment is that my town sells no gamecards to anything but wow... ITS TERRIBLE... thats why i like one time pay because paying over Internet is not possible for someone like me without a job...:(

Yami-Yagari
04-16-2010, 05:19 AM
the one problem i see with monthly payment is that my town sells no gamecards to anything but wow... ITS TERRIBLE... thats why i like one time pay because paying over Internet is not possible for someone like me without a job...:(

I feel your pain:(

zach12wqasxz
04-16-2010, 05:26 AM
that's when you ask your parents to use there credit or debit card to pay for your time, and if your like me and don't wanna ask your parents you could always go get a job, that's what i just did for eve online, just got my first paycheck Thursday, and im going to start paying for time.
what i used to do for playing is that i would buy game time cards from in-game eve online currency ( Isk ). it would cost me around 300million isk to buy 30 days of playing time, and in eve u can make 300 million in a few days depending on your skills ect. and they support this buy haveing people buy the time cards online, and that player sells it to another for isk, this way the people that have money can earn more isk, and the people that dont can still play EvE.
i think a system like this is a very good one and DOF should adopt something very similiar

Yami-Yagari
04-16-2010, 06:08 AM
that's when you ask your parents to use there credit or debit card to pay for your time, and if your like me and don't wanna ask your parents you could always go get a job, that's what i just did for eve online, just got my first paycheck Thursday, and im going to start paying for time.


Getting a job isn't really that easy. i've tried looking for work for some time now, but most employers only want people with work experience, which of course you need a job for in order to get :(

Daermoth
04-16-2010, 08:13 AM
Given the average age of the people on these forums, from what I can see at least, paying monthly subscriptions could prove to be a problem, as for getting a job, that's always hard, not everyone can just get hired whenever they want to. Also, credit cards and debit cards are mostly an american thing, if you have lots of european players, they most likely will not have those things, as paying for things around here is done mainly by cash.

Negthareas
04-16-2010, 08:56 AM
I see points in monthly payment - as far as for the devs and the game itself goes.

But for myself - monthly games end up costing huge amounts to the player in the long run. I think any online gamer can attest to that.

Puppeteer
04-16-2010, 09:10 AM
And it also raises the same issue that I have with Xbox Live - I might want to play it at either sporadic points or only for a week or so, in which case the payment is wasted.

blackfang
04-16-2010, 12:15 PM
Well that about using my parents credit cards, not possible AT ALL... they quit everything called paying over Internet after eve dragged another 3 months without permission:(

Yami-Yagari
04-16-2010, 12:24 PM
Well that about using my parents credit cards, not possible AT ALL... they quit everything called paying over Internet after eve dragged another 3 months without permission:(

for most people here, CC isn't an option yes. Same thing applies for paying it yourself, because not everyone has a job to pay for these things.

welshie
04-16-2010, 02:38 PM
TBH, i wouldnt mind paying monthly if they devs were devoted to making the game better through very transactions and not be another wow and not. But im not really fussed.

nickson104
04-16-2010, 02:58 PM
And it also raises the same issue that I have with Xbox Live - I might want to play it at either sporadic points or only for a week or so, in which case the payment is wasted.

But with Xbox Live, £40 a year isnt really that much when you think about how much it improves the experience... And although PS3 network is free, Live is better supported, you pay for quality... But yeah, you have a point :) If you pay monthly, you feel a need to play as much as you can to get your moneys worth!

As for Europe not having Credit/Debit cards... That is untrue, they are still in abundance, just not as much so as the USA or even the UK

And yes, I hate that all systems you must pay online, at least offer pay by SMS service! :p

Negthareas
04-16-2010, 03:35 PM
I would not mind paying a yearly fee. As long as it is not really high. That way, I would not feel the need "not to waste my month's time".

Puppeteer
04-16-2010, 05:05 PM
£40 a year isnt really that much when you think about how much it improves the experience... And although PS3 network is free, Live is better supported, you pay for quality... But yeah, you have a point
Oh I don't disagree that Xbox Live is a nice system, but with sixth form's heavily concentrated education (and hopefully Oxford uni thereafter) who can afford to spread their computer time viably over a long period of time to justify annual/monthly expenditure? Well, not me any case.
Pay & Play, though... that's something a company might want to research into.

nickson104
04-16-2010, 05:24 PM
Oh I don't disagree that Xbox Live is a nice system, but with sixth form's heavily concentrated education (and hopefully Oxford uni thereafter) who can afford to spread their computer time viably over a long period of time to justify annual/monthly expenditure?

Fair point...

Its nice that someone is aiming high :) I personally procrastinate too much to even think of applying there... Hope you get accepted there though :)

Arctopus
05-02-2010, 06:09 AM
but if there's no monthly subscription, how is reverie world going to pay the guys making the updates and the servers?

Aametherar
05-02-2010, 08:04 AM
but if there's no monthly subscription, how is reverie world going to pay the guys making the updates and the servers?

Expansions/sequel.

Negthareas
05-02-2010, 08:58 AM
But expansions and sequals would necessitate that creation of new world MMORTS, right? That doesn't sound like a good idea. Evony 2 just came out, and there have been so many issues over that crossover that many left, myself included.

Aametherar
05-02-2010, 09:15 AM
Evony was a terrible game.

I think I read at one point that the main thing here is going to be a sequel rather than the expansions, the devs learned so much from this one the sequel will no doubt be so much more streamlined! I remember one of them saying they can't wait. Added to that there is so much content they had to cut from the game as it stands now the expansions etc. might end up just being major updates, adding content finishing up the game. I'm not sure. If that's the case it'd be interesting to see a donation option and if people utilized it. Though having that would be pretty unheard of.

Keep in mind that paragraph is a whole lot of speculation, so much so that it's probably 90% wrong.

Yami-Yagari
05-02-2010, 11:31 AM
Evony was a terrible game.


Have to agree, Evony was terrible.
Besides, doesnt have to be necessarily be expansion or sequel.
They could implement dlc, which you would have to buy. Don't really support the idea, but thats 1 way of making money for future development.

LoveToKill
05-02-2010, 03:50 PM
IMO i think this gae will be great but im not sure id pay monthly for it however as a one time buy id deffinatly play it

Negthareas
05-02-2010, 08:43 PM
Yes, evony is pretty sad - I jsut got hooked and didn't want to leave all of the buddies I had in my alliance. Any way...

- What I meant was, if a DoF 2 is going to come out, I assume that it will be separated from DoF 1, at which point there will be a lot of chaos concerning the two MMOrts going on, etc..

Have the Devs considered this? I am just saying this because the Sequels should be able to stand completely on their own if they are going to have their own MMORTS modes.

Just a thought.

Yami-Yagari
05-03-2010, 05:07 AM
If there's going to be a DoF 2 in the nearby future, it might not be able to be seperate. Most likely it will feature a new continent to populate, with some new races, kinda like the WoW expansions. That way they will avoid the chaos of supporting 2 MMORTS's + it will give new players to still be able to play old content.

Just a random idea, but if there will a DoF 2, it would be nice to have more pve content online, like superstrong monsters who terrorize the land, and if you kill them you and your guild will earn new items or gain rep or something.

blackfang
05-03-2010, 06:41 AM
If there's going to be a DoF 2 in the nearby future, it might not be able to be seperate. Most likely it will feature a new continent to populate, with some new races, kinda like the WoW expansions. That way they will avoid the chaos of supporting 2 MMORTS's + it will give new players to still be able to play old content.

Just a random idea, but if there will a DoF 2, it would be nice to have more pve content online, like superstrong monsters who terrorize the land, and if you kill them you and your guild will earn new items or gain rep or something.

I think i will just answer that:) there is already superstrong monsters terrorizing the land that you and i don't really know if the guild can as well but earn some epic items and awesome rep. Neutral to exaulted!

Yami-Yagari
05-03-2010, 07:23 AM
I think i will just answer that:) there is already superstrong monsters terrorizing the land that you and i don't really know if the guild can as well but earn some epic items and awesome rep. Neutral to exaulted!

ok didnt know that :eek:
my bad:o .

Josh Warner
05-03-2010, 12:12 PM
People have this strong aversion to paying for anything but the box, but as someone who plays MMORPGs with subscriptions, microtransaction games and simple box sales games... You almost always get more gameplay with the first two than box sales. Me I'm a gamer, I play a few hours a day minimum, but for the sake of argument lets say I play 3~ hours a day. Most games last 20-60 hours. I'd say on average around 30. That's 60 dollars for 10-15 days of fun for me. If I were playing a subscription game it's very unlikely short of certain AAA titles that I'd bother buying any other games. So lets say I spend on average over the course of a year 30~ a month on games, 15 for the subscription then occasionally a standalone title. The subscription game offers me almost unlimited play.


So the subscription game gives me for 15 dollars in a month, depending on how much you play any amount, but for me, around 90. That's 1 dollar every 6 hours. Even if you only play an hour a day, 1 dollar every 2 hours.

The 60 dollar game that lasts me, for the sake of argument lets say it's amazing and gives me 60 hours. That's remarkably rare for a single game to last that long, occasionally a good multiplayer title will, though for example a console game will require an additional payment to play online. That's 1 dollar every hour.

Microtransaction games can give even more, though occasionally less value. Our system will incorporate things ranging from quests, extra resources, special units and more. Also, you will gain the in game currency just by playing the game, so you'll be able to get the things you want without paying, it just might take longer to accrue the needed amount. It's a completely optional thing. This allows us to continue working on the game and give people the same amount of value that they'd see in a subscription game, without forcing people to pay extra if they can't/don't want to. Box sales alone outside of very specific AAA titles do not bring in enough money to continue working on the game very long after release, the system we'll have will allow us to.

GPS51
05-03-2010, 01:19 PM
Microtransaction games can give even more, though occasionally less value. Our system will incorporate things ranging from quests, extra resources, special units and more. Also, you will gain the in game currency just by playing the game, so you'll be able to get the things you want without paying, it just might take longer to accrue the needed amount. It's a completely optional thing. This allows us to continue working on the game and give people the same amount of value that they'd see in a subscription game, without forcing people to pay extra if they can't/don't want to. Box sales alone outside of very specific AAA titles do not bring in enough money to continue working on the game very long after release, the system we'll have will allow us to.

THE best way is see to do things. I don't care if other people want to pay for special units etc so long as it doesn't become a special unit fest. Besides those kinds of things just breed more people wanting to spend the cash for the above listed ideas. Kudos

blackfang
05-03-2010, 01:38 PM
Most games last 20-60 hours. I'd say on average around 30. That's 60 dollars for 10-15 days of fun for me.



How can you get that much time out of a game? I used 6 hours completing mass effect 2, i used 5 hours to complete dragon age. I used five hours completing oblivion, and 13 hours completing anno 1404 i reached 22 hours completing the expansion with the game. I used half a day to complete rise and fall, the only games that have kept me entertained is mount and blade (4 hours more or less) mount and blade with mods 25 or so hours. There is oblivion with mods 100's of hours, and warcraft 3 well i used half a life on that one, and red alert 1 and 2. Thats the only ones i have been able to play for a lot and normally i complete games in a day or two. With almost everything thats possible ingame to get. Heck in wow i used 3 days (about 3-4 hours a day i think) to reach lvl 49, and i am lvling like a master. I will reach lvl 60 tomorrow probably... That game there is all about dragging you back in, terrible but what must be done shall be done. However my point is this, i have never except for the above mentioned games managed to push 20 hours out of a game:eek: You must really not be bored that easily. Or its just that i get bored easily:(

GPS51
05-03-2010, 02:04 PM
Man that's terrible>>I feel for ya. I always plan on getting 50 hours out of each game I buy or I feel that it's a waste to buy them. I don't buy many games :p .

Yami-Yagari
05-03-2010, 02:21 PM
i used 5 hours to complete dragon age.

Sure :rolleyes: .
Takes 1,2 hours to complete Origin + Ostagar. takes 2 hours at least to complete each recruit quest. Orzammar, Dalish, redcliff, the towers, ashes and denerim, thats 6x2=12 hours. and thats when you rush through just because you're some sort compulsive gamer who can't enjoy games like other people.
NO WAY you finished it in 5 hours.

Heck in wow i used 3 days (about 3-4 hours a day i think) to reach lvl 49, and i am lvling like a master. I will reach lvl 60 tomorrow probably... That game there is all about dragging you back in, terrible but what must be done shall be done. :

Everyone can lvl that fast with RaF :rolleyes: .

Josh Warner
05-03-2010, 02:22 PM
How can you get that much time out of a game? I used 6 hours completing mass effect 2, i used 5 hours to complete dragon age. I used five hours completing oblivion, and 13 hours completing anno 1404 i reached 22 hours completing the expansion with the game. I used half a day to complete rise and fall, the only games that have kept me entertained is mount and blade (4 hours more or less) mount and blade with mods 25 or so hours. There is oblivion with mods 100's of hours, and warcraft 3 well i used half a life on that one, and red alert 1 and 2. Thats the only ones i have been able to play for a lot and normally i complete games in a day or two. With almost everything thats possible ingame to get. Heck in wow i used 3 days (about 3-4 hours a day i think) to reach lvl 49, and i am lvling like a master. I will reach lvl 60 tomorrow probably... That game there is all about dragging you back in, terrible but what must be done shall be done. However my point is this, i have never except for the above mentioned games managed to push 20 hours out of a game:eek: You must really not be bored that easily. Or its just that i get bored easily:(

I don't play games to beat them, that's why. I play them to enjoy them, I'm also somewhat of a completionist. The first ME I hit max level once with two playthroughs, once on I believe it's hard, hit 40 something, then again on the insane difficulty, hit 60 by the end. Then went through again with a new character on the insane difficulty, insane without a loaded character proved to be quite a challenge, hit around 50 something in one playthrough - that requires doing literally everything. It's like fallout 3, sure I could skip the majority of the game by going to the garage early... but why would that be fun? I think it's more your attention span is rather short, no offense. Games like dragon age and ME2 being completed that fast mean you're doing a speed run rather than actually playing it, like my fallout example. You don't experience most of the game that way.

Also, as I said, multiplayer titles tend to have significantly more replay value, especially for competitive people.

Regardless - this only proves my point further. The less time you spend playing a game the disparity of value between normal games and games with subscriptions/microtransactions which are not meant to be played through 1-3 times, they're designed to be played for months, even years in many cases.

Sure :rolleyes: .
Takes 1,2 hours to complete Origin + Ostagar. takes 2 hours at least to complete each recruit quest. Orzammar, Dalish, redcliff, the towers, ashes and denerim, thats 6x2=12 hours. and thats when you rush through just because you're some sort compulsive gamer who can't enjoy games like other people.
NO WAY you finished it in 5 hours.



If you're using one of the overpowered party setups, don't care about any of the gear, and don't ever do sidequests/avoid fights, I could see a speed run taking 5-10 hours. I've never really considered trying such a thing though, awfully boring. And if you were to do it on easy/normal rather than hard, definitely.

Aametherar
05-03-2010, 02:43 PM
Best value is games that let you setup your own servers. BF2, SC, WCIII. RTS games in general as well as FPS as far as the box shipment goes. They allow for thousands of hours of competitive play and modding with a single $50 payment (which seems to be going up to $60 :s) I still wait til it drops in price, no way am I paying 60 for a game.

GPS51
05-03-2010, 02:45 PM
I agree I find 50$ to be my price point. I usually feel that 30-40 is more appropriate to pay for a game.

Josh Warner
05-03-2010, 03:07 PM
Best value is games that let you setup your own servers. BF2, SC, WCIII. RTS games in general as well as FPS as far as the box shipment goes. They allow for thousands of hours of competitive play and modding with a single $50 payment (which seems to be going up to $60 :s) I still wait til it drops in price, no way am I paying 60 for a game.

I myself have gotten thousands if not tens of thousands of hours out of starcraft and wc3 - but I'd be surprised if even 5% of the people who bought wc3 or sc1 got more than 100~ hours out of them. RTSes especially, most of the buyers ONLY play single player. Those games really don't have a lot of content/replay value for most people, even if they have absurd amounts for us.

GPS51
05-03-2010, 03:17 PM
Isn't that why we're looking forward to DOF so much? The replay value appears to be extremely high. Especially for those of us who play games a for "large" amounts of time. :o

Josh Warner
05-03-2010, 03:33 PM
Isn't that why we're looking forward to DOF so much? The replay value appears to be extremely high. Especially for those of us who play games a for "large" amounts of time. :o

Absolutely, I find RTSes to be the most enjoyable type of game for me overall. But the problem tends to be no overarching goals, it's just one skirmish or small custom game after another, which is fine for a game like starcraft, that's what it strives to be, and it's great at it.

But here we're bringing an experience that will provide something totally different, a persistent game, a growing city, multiple armies, a far grander scale. Of course skirmishes and the like will be there, and they're a hell of a good time, I'm a big fan of castle defend. The MMO and persistent portions of the game is what in my mind at least sets it apart from other RTSes.

GPS51
05-03-2010, 03:43 PM
Sounds like a what an outline or deep plot does to a book of containing a lot of military skirmishes. I do like historical fiction.

Aametherar
05-03-2010, 03:43 PM
I've gotten thousands out of both SC, both diablos, and starcraft. There are a few others as well, FPS's like I said can put out 1000 easy for the right people. As for me though, I tend to relish the "Map settings" modes. I did play SC competitively for a while and it was fun, but I found some good math and started winning too much, which gets old fast. That was before the world went crazy and got ultra competitive with SC though.

As for Cash shop/micro transaction games. I don't like much when certain players get an advantage, but I also don't mind them too much if you're able to buy that stuff from people who pay with in game cash, or direct with in game cash. It helps balance the field for people who don't pay as much, keeps the game even and fair, and tends to encourage buyers even more when they can direct sell to players, which is always good for the bottom line.

I find some of the worst value games to be single player RPGs. Not because the genre doesn't have potential, but because studios don't put in what it takes for replayability.

nickson104
05-03-2010, 04:01 PM
I got so much time out of so many of my games...

Halo 3 i have completed at least 3 times on campaign and in excess of 5000 online matches...

CoD, I used to play them a lot then stopped, now back into it due to MW2... Have completed that twice through single, done most of the co-op, and have played over 8 days online....

Pokemon, they average 40 - 60 hours completion usually, but i have completed each one more than once, and the newer ones have so much more playability with online battles/trading and the better breeding systems... its so pleasing to breed the best thoroughbreds of one of your favourite species...

Guitar Hero, has killed many hours of my life, it is good fun and is easy to return to at any point :)

None of these games rely on subscriptions, yet all these games have stolen much of my life from me (among MANY others) It just depends on the person

Aametherar
05-03-2010, 05:55 PM
I gotta say my worst experience was with Sony, I played Infantry and was one of the best players in the game (when it was entirely free) then they added payment benefits and I started getting slaughtered like I didn't exist. That made me quit the game, not because I didn't enjoy it, or because it costed money for benefits, but because I realized all they were doing is feeding people who don't pay to people who do pay, free kills, where's the fun in that? Don't pay, get slaughtered, pay, and no challenge.

Negthareas
05-03-2010, 09:42 PM
I guess I am a unique person, at least considering how much time I spend on the games I play. I average, well, probably 10hrs a week, and maybe 20 wks, so 200 hrs.

Yami-Yagari
05-04-2010, 02:21 AM
I've gotten thousands out of both SC, both diablos, and starcraft.

I've gotten loads of time out of Diablo 2 myself, until my map started bugging seriously. Had to stop playing because my map dissapeared. :eek:
And that's really annoying when you join parties and can't keep up because you have no ****ing clue of where you'r going :mad: .

I find some of the worst value games to be single player RPGs. Not because the genre doesn't have potential, but because studios don't put in what it takes for replayability.

So far, only DAO seems to fit the description. Although that kind of gets borings as well, seeing it's pretty much the same except for origin story and some plot points ingame.

Aametherar
05-04-2010, 04:27 AM
Oh yeah, everyone in Diablo II used maphack, a lot used other programs as well like item grabbers for uniques and such. Actually I think maphack is part of what kept the game alive, running in circles searching for everything after you've played through so many times could get old extra fast. I used to use maphack myself actually (I admit it x_x), but tried playing it later on without it and I got bored insanely fast not able to get where I was going.

blackfang
05-05-2010, 01:53 PM
I don't play games to beat them normally as said before, however once they are beaten i don't want to start anew to discover every crook i missed the first time. A game where i am not surprised at whats coming is not really worth it for me, my memory when i have played a game once is exceptionally good. I can remember the whole quest line through oblivion, i can remember most side quests. And prototype i remember everything there as well but its incredibly boring once beaten, and just altering difficulty is no fun as the same things happens again and again. Just with more and worse monsters, thats why i like strategy games. They got re playability unlike quest line focused games, for instance mass effect 2. It got ONLY the quest line to follow, and i am exceptionally good at finding my way and blasting a way through enemies at record time. So if there is only one way to go i don't stop wondering i just go for it, the same as i did with dragon age, i just played and before i knew it i was at a huge castle battle. Where i could of course summon lots of strange units.

Yami-Yagari
05-05-2010, 02:19 PM
If you want a good RPG who doesn't get stale and repetitive, i'd suggest Arc:Twilight of the Spirits. Don't think many here know it(is ps2 title), but it is good. Kinda ironic that i haven't finished it yet, some boss fights are just ass to do, which takes lots of xp grinding.

Aametherar
05-05-2010, 03:28 PM
If you want a good RPG who doesn't get stale and repetitive, i'd suggest Arc:Twilight of the Spirits. Don't think many here know it(is ps2 title), but it is good. Kinda ironic that i haven't finished it yet, some boss fights are just ass to do, which takes lots of xp grinding.

I rarely hear of grinding in single player RPGs i've only done it maybe once or twice myself just for the heck of it, but i've never heard of a single player game where you actually had to grind.

Yami-Yagari
05-05-2010, 03:32 PM
I rarely hear of grinding in single player RPGs i've only done it maybe once or twice myself just for the heck of it, but i've never heard of a single player game where you actually had to grind.

Well, some chapters you have to play tend to be quite short with less necessary combat as in others, with bosses few lvls higher then your own. Only happens sometimes, but yes in those situations you have to grind some xp to lvl in order to gain more points for the superskills. There is one chapter where you can only choose one party member who has to fight 5 warrior monks. It's a ranged type, but is really weak with the least hp of your team. this is one of the special situations that requires grinding, else you'll never make it past that point.

wills370
05-07-2010, 10:37 AM
Hmm i hate grinding the lesser people in my party always seems to be a bad waste of time and detracts from gameplay. Although i supose thats the flip side when you have a good mix and you have one floater person in yoru party who never gets the chance to deal the big kill damage etc.

blackfang
05-07-2010, 02:01 PM
right now i went to start playing wow a bit, already lvl 60 tough. So i guess i beat games quite fast, this is in a few days time:)

welshie
05-07-2010, 03:57 PM
right now i went to start playing wow a bit, already lvl 60 tough. So i guess i beat games quite fast, this is in a few days time:)

nah not rli, wow been major nerfed so people lvl from 1-70 quick then the 70=80 (ROTLK) is like amg so much exp and so boring.

nickson104
05-08-2010, 05:37 AM
I only ever hit lvl 27 on WoW, that was about 2 weeks playing in my one month I bought... Im not paying £10 a month, they can forget that

DarkMaster
05-08-2010, 11:29 PM
Im not paying £10 a month, they can forget that
Same. I've never tried WoW because of it. I'd rather a really expensive but F2P game than a free but P2P game;)

nickson104
05-09-2010, 03:43 AM
Same. I've never tried WoW because of it. I'd rather a really expensive but F2P game than a free but P2P game;)

The game IS good, I admit... I reasoned that I may as well buy a month, I get the cd's too for the £10. It went too quick though, WoW has some nice features and it can be very fun to play.
F2P MMO's are usually not AS good as P2P, the monthly subs pay for maintenance, new content, etc. However some F2P games are great, a shining example of this would be Guild Wars. I wont start the battle of the MMO's again, both are great games in different ways.
I just cant afford the monthly subs. Also until lately I was unable to possess a bank card, now I finally have one but I lack the money to use it... They really have to expand the payment methods and sell the time cards in more locations.

blackfang
05-09-2010, 10:57 AM
yeah, my favorite online game of all time till now gotta be wurm or guild wars. Wow is just for time consuming, i used two days reaching lvl 63:(

Aelfwine
05-17-2010, 01:12 AM
Will you be implementing some sort of demo or trial for those that were unfortunate enough to miss the open beta?

I really like the whole 1 time payment thing... hopefully its not too wallet breaking ^^, but i agree, those micro-payments tend to grind my 'nards once in awhile...

GPS51
05-17-2010, 10:23 AM
Yeah the plan is to have an open beta (read free demo) as the last step in the beta process. Probably to try out the server capabilities.

Aelfwine
05-17-2010, 06:19 PM
Yeah the plan is to have an open beta (read free demo) as the last step in the beta process. Probably to try out the server capabilities.

awww... no free 1 week trial ^^"?

im actually curious as to what kind of micros they put up if they do...

LoveToKill
05-26-2010, 02:37 AM
about those micro transaction iknow yall need money but your going to cause great unbalance in the game andit will make some players quit.

Yami-Yagari
05-26-2010, 02:41 AM
Yeah, have to agree, microtransactions are the hellspawn of Asia. You can buy great items for real money if you really want to buy money for those. And im guessing most people really don't want to be pumping money into the game this way, and people who do will have a big advantage over other people.

LoveToKill
05-26-2010, 02:58 AM
There going to might have to start takeing some of this off it may kill this game or be a game ran by the 10 players who spend the most

Puppeteer
05-26-2010, 05:27 AM
Actually, microtransactions are not buying for objects in game, you buy Influence. This is a resource in Dawn of Fantasy. With influence you can buy new units, new spells, new upgrades etc. However, if you don't want to pay for microtransactions, then simply fighting or playing gradually accumulates Influence. I also think (or hope) that you can gain Influence through specific quests. So, those most likely to care about microtransactions are mainly the ones who will play the game a lot, and so won't need to pay unless they want the new technologies instantly. Casual players, like me, won't altogether care.

nickson104
05-26-2010, 06:13 AM
Puppy has hit the nail on the head right there.
We can gain favour through certain quests and Im going to bet that there may be seasonal special quests or rewards (christmas for example).
The players who do buy it will probably either play it a lot or just have plenty of money to spend, or just generally suck at the game :p
Me, I am also a casual player, I probably wont buy any micro-transactions, I will earn it all myself :) :p (A bit like I have done with LoL, half heroes unlocked, just another 20 or so to go :p)

Josh Warner
05-26-2010, 08:25 AM
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with micro-transactions, I understand that many games end up forcing you to either pay or be unable to compete, but our in game currency that you can buy - you can also earn by simply playing the game.

Here's the thing, we have no monthly fee - we either need a secondary revenue stream or we have to begin working on another game immediately. As I'm sure most of you are aware, the vast majority of games these days see maybe a few bugfix patches and some minor balance tweaking after going retail. Short of MMOs you hardly ever see actual content being added, especially not for free. We'd rather not be forced to abandon our game right after releasing it, and we don't want to be homeless either. Microtransactions provide a way for people to support the developers and get something back. Yet for those that don't wish to beyond the original purchase, or cannot, they can still play the game, while they may take quite a while to unlock everything, or hopefully we're capable of adding enough content and continue to that there's always something else for people to strive to. The key here is optional, we'll strive to make sure there's no large gap between those that wish to spend more, and those that don't, we don't want there to be two "classes" of players either. Paying or not, amazing at the game or a casual player, every player is important to the continued success of the game. The people that pay for extra content do it for various reasons and we'll appreciate that greatly, but without all of the people that do not pay there wouldn't be a very large population in the game either and nobody wants that, we want everyone to play, not just those with deep pockets.

A great example of a company that has done this fairly well, is Riot with League of Legends, the only things that cannot be bought with currency earned by playing the game are aesthetic only to my knowledge, this means they have ZERO impact on gameplay creating a relatively balanced playing field. Everything else can be purchased by simply playing the game - while it might take you an astronomical amount of time to unlock everything without supporting the devs monetarily you can pick and choose the runes/champions you want to unlock, so it's not a big deal if you don't have everything, you'll have the things you really want if you play the game regularly. I don't see how anyone can disapprove of this system, it keeps riot funded and able to continue working on and adding content to their game League of Legends and doesn't force anyone that doesn't wish to, to pay a penny to compete.

Just because there are a handful of games that require you pay money to compete with micro-transactions doesn't mean they all do, give it a chance based on the merits of the game, not games that have come before it.

LoveToKill
05-26-2010, 09:08 AM
Im aware of LoL the reason why this is aconcern from my prospective is that This is an RTS id imagine playersexspect some form of "bangfor there Buck" andif they can rush eliet units even a few onday one players who do accept battle mayfind them selfs Rolled over thenall there things burned to the ground. That being said i understand why your doing it imjust baseing this off other mmorts that have done that. Just my 2 cents worth

nickson104
05-26-2010, 09:30 AM
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with micro-transactions, I understand that many games end up forcing you to either pay or be unable to compete, but our in game currency that you can buy - you can also earn by simply playing the game.

Here's the thing, we have no monthly fee - we either need a secondary revenue stream or we have to begin working on another game immediately. As I'm sure most of you are aware, the vast majority of games these days see maybe a few bugfix patches and some minor balance tweaking after going retail. Short of MMOs you hardly ever see actual content being added, especially not for free. We'd rather not be forced to abandon our game right after releasing it, and we don't want to be homeless either. Microtransactions provide a way for people to support the developers and get something back. Yet for those that don't wish to beyond the original purchase, or cannot, they can still play the game, while they may take quite a while to unlock everything, or hopefully we're capable of adding enough content and continue to that there's always something else for people to strive to. The key here is optional, we'll strive to make sure there's no large gap between those that wish to spend more, and those that don't, we don't want there to be two "classes" of players either. Paying or not, amazing at the game or a casual player, every player is important to the continued success of the game. The people that pay for extra content do it for various reasons and we'll appreciate that greatly, but without all of the people that do not pay there wouldn't be a very large population in the game either and nobody wants that, we want everyone to play, not just those with deep pockets.

A great example of a company that has done this fairly well, is Riot with League of Legends, the only things that cannot be bought with currency earned by playing the game are aesthetic only to my knowledge, this means they have ZERO impact on gameplay creating a relatively balanced playing field. Everything else can be purchased by simply playing the game - while it might take you an astronomical amount of time to unlock everything without supporting the devs monetarily you can pick and choose the runes/champions you want to unlock, so it's not a big deal if you don't have everything, you'll have the things you really want if you play the game regularly. I don't see how anyone can disapprove of this system, it keeps riot funded and able to continue working on and adding content to their game League of Legends and doesn't force anyone that doesn't wish to, to pay a penny to compete.

Just because there are a handful of games that require you pay money to compete with micro-transactions doesn't mean they all do, give it a chance based on the merits of the game, not games that have come before it.

And we appreciate that, I think we all realise that the system is a good thing. It is perhaps the best solution to the problem presented, and if it means added content then I certainly would consider it, Getting used to DLC due to my xbox :) lol

And yes LoL does pull of the system well, they manage to get the mini transactions on many unlocks, most can be unlocked just through playing a lot, others such as unique skins can only be unlocked using Riot points. This has very little impact on the game other than some people getting new heroes instantly at release...
However if you pay a lot, it is possible to get experience boosts for the day, meaning you gain experience twice as fast, that can be annoying when you hit level 11 or so and their level 17... It gives them a bit of an advantage, but they paid for it so you cant really complain :)

Micro transactions are not a bad thing, and I for one support the movement, I just probably wont purchase using it, unless new content is added (new race/new quests)

GPS51
05-26-2010, 09:45 AM
Yeah I mean you get what you pay for. I like the LOL system. We surely don't want to see our favorite devs pandhandling on the street corners! Also I expect people with deep pockets to have an advantage but so long as they are beatable with different strategies I really don't care. Kudos for finding a good system to model after.

Josh Warner
05-26-2010, 09:46 AM
And we appreciate that, I think we all realise that the system is a good thing. It is perhaps the best solution to the problem presented, and if it means added content then I certainly would consider it, Getting used to DLC due to my xbox :) lol

And yes LoL does pull of the system well, they manage to get the mini transactions on many unlocks, most can be unlocked just through playing a lot, others such as unique skins can only be unlocked using Riot points. This has very little impact on the game other than some people getting new heroes instantly at release...
However if you pay a lot, it is possible to get experience boosts for the day, meaning you gain experience twice as fast, that can be annoying when you hit level 11 or so and their level 17... It gives them a bit of an advantage, but they paid for it so you cant really complain :)

Micro transactions are not a bad thing, and I for one support the movement, I just probably wont purchase using it, unless new content is added (new race/new quests)

LoL uses an ELO ranking system not the levels for matchmaking so it's a pretty small advantage, I'll give that it's there, but not for very long as the levels cap out fairly quickly. Spoofing (High ELO players creating new accounts) is more damaging than any of that.



As for the issue of someone buying a bunch of units LoveToKill, we're not even 100% on what will be available for influence, or if things will always be available. Perhaps we'll only "Unlock" those elite battalions, and you'll still have to train them at your base, or maybe we'll limit how much influence you can spend in a certain amount of time, or a third option is to simply not allow/greatly restrict how many battalions you can purchase for your first few weeks with the game.

I wouldn't worry so much, I know myself and the rest of the team will be doing everything we can to prevent such things. Once you're actually in the beta however and you see things like then, then please feel free to worry and let us know on the forums, myself or someone else will take a look, until then it's not worth it.

Puppeteer
05-26-2010, 10:02 AM
LOL? ELO? DLC?
...
What on earth do they mean?
I'm way out of my depth here, I'll leave it to you superior geeks :p

nickson104
05-26-2010, 10:03 AM
LoL uses an ELO ranking system not the levels for matchmaking so it's a pretty small advantage, I'll give that it's there, but not for very long as the levels cap out fairly quickly. Spoofing (High ELO players creating new accounts) is more damaging than any of that.


But you already expect some people to be very skilled anyway...
And besides, on that game ELO and your level are two totally different things, a high level may just play the game a lot and actually be terrible, whereas a low level may be very skilled. ELO is a good system, but people often cheat it by creating second accounts, it goes for most games these days really

GPS51
05-26-2010, 12:48 PM
True but those skilled players will quickly move out of the range of the newbies so its a decent system of moving them on.

Negthareas
05-26-2010, 01:48 PM
I think it sounds good. [Just my two cents - will leave it at that]. No doubt there may be some problems with it, but they are small problems, I think, compared to other things.

Josh Warner
05-26-2010, 01:57 PM
LOL? ELO? DLC?
...
What on earth do they mean?
I'm way out of my depth here, I'll leave it to you superior geeks :p

LoL is league of legends, the game I was talking about in my previous post.

ELO is a rating system that originated with chess, and many other games/sports have adopted it, it's a way of ranking players relatively based on their skill in an attempt to create balanced matches and in some cases a way of determining what sort of handicap to place on who.

DLC is downloadable content, console games especially tend to have it. It's just extra stuff they didn't have time/chose not to add for retail that you can choose to download to supplement the standalone game which may or may not cost money.


And nickson - I was only saying that the level difference you mentioned which, it's true would exist because of the exp gain increase, was pretty insignificant compared to the players themselves, it's unlikely to tip a game in anyone's favor.

otomotopia
05-26-2010, 02:02 PM
Hmm.

I think that a modified ELO algorithm could work. Players would be ranked on a leader board by this ranking, and only be able to challenge other players ranked 4% below and 8% above of their standing on leader board.

The algorithm would first value their total military force based on its total stats and its number. It would average their total unit kill/death ratio for PvP and PvE. It would value the players Win/loss defending to their attackers W/L Attacking, and their Win/loss attacking to their defenders W/L defending. It would give an extra numerical bonus to the player for his home defenses and Siege weapons. It would then combine these three numbers in a way to get a number. This would combine skill, survivability, and army structure/strength into a single number.

Some values would also be modified to support how different races are to take into account the different army's playstyles'. EX: Elves take down a lot of units per death compared to Orcs, so a modifier must be added to even that out.

Suggestion:
X could be determined with this: Every time you fight a PvP battle, your W/L at the position is averaged against your opponent's W/L at their position. So if you have a W/L of 1.5 when attacking, and they have a W/L of 2 while defending, the difficulty of the battle is 1.75. The average of all your PvP battles vs the difficulty of all your battles will be the X value.

ELO value = (Statistical value of units/Number of units)+ (((((Kills in PvP)/(Deaths in PvP))+((Kills in PvE)/(Deaths in PvP)))/2)*[Race modifier]) + [X] + Total Defensive assets + Total Siege assets

Josh Warner
05-26-2010, 02:08 PM
Hmm.

I think that a modified ELO algorithm could work. Players would be ranked on a leader board by this ranking, and only be able to challenge other players ranked 4% below and 8% above of their standing on leader board.

The algorithm would first value their total military force based on its total stats and its number. It would average their total unit kill/death ratio for PvP and PvE. It would value the players Win/loss defending to their attackers W/L Attacking, and their Win/loss attacking to their defenders W/L defending. It would give an extra numerical bonus to the player for his home defenses and Siege weapons. It would then combine these three numbers in a way to get a number. This would combine skill, survivability, and army structure/strength into a single number.

Some values would also be modified to support how different races are to take into account the different army's playstyles'. EX: Elves take down a lot of units per death compared to Orcs, so a modifier must be added to even that out.

Suggestion:
X could be determined with this: Every time you fight a PvP battle, your W/L at the position is averaged against your opponent's W/L at their position. So if you have a W/L of 1.5 when attacking, and they have a W/L of 2 while defending, the difficulty of the battle is 1.75. The average of all your PvP battles vs the difficulty of all your battles will be the X value.

ELO value = (Statistical value of units/Number of units)+ (((((Kills in PvP)/(Deaths in PvP))+((Kills in PvE)/(Deaths in PvP)))/2)*[Race modifier]) + [X] + Total Defensive assets + Total Siege assets

The problem for using it like that is in ELO games your 'start' is always the same, it's equal, or at least fairly close to it, in our game your army composition/number of battalions/veterancy of battalions all play a big role in it, and they vary wildly. It's more likely we'll set up a value system for units/tech/levels etc, and try to find armies that are a good matchup rather than players, perhaps there will be a player based skill modifier to the army value? Who knows, I don't work on that sort of thing, the actual math involved in it would take me some time to figure out.

nickson104
05-26-2010, 03:29 PM
And nickson - I was only saying that the level difference you mentioned which, it's true would exist because of the exp gain increase, was pretty insignificant compared to the players themselves, it's unlikely to tip a game in anyone's favor.

True enough, but that level difference early on tips small fights in their favour, each champion kill will gain them a lot of money and so lead to a long term advantage. But yes you are right, it can easily be countered, just be more careful.

It's more likely we'll set up a value system for units/tech/levels etc, and try to find armies that are a good matchup rather than players,

I dont know about that, I would rather be able to battle someone who just conquered a nearby land and is recouperating. Or to help/avenge a friend, such a system would make them impossible :(

GPS51
05-26-2010, 03:31 PM
Lets hope the system "recommends" attackable people but lets the user decide whom they will attack.

Josh Warner
05-26-2010, 06:55 PM
True enough, but that level difference early on tips small fights in their favour, each champion kill will gain them a lot of money and so lead to a long term advantage. But yes you are right, it can easily be countered, just be more careful.



I dont know about that, I would rather be able to battle someone who just conquered a nearby land and is recouperating. Or to help/avenge a friend, such a system would make them impossible :(

The only way I could possibly see being able to select targets would have to work through the guilds/war, allowing someone to just regularly stomp on weaker players isn't likely to happen.

A retaliation option for individuals is something to be considered, I don't see why not, allowing someone else to use that retaliation however? Not so sure. The way I see it is you use matchmaking to randomly pick a suitable target where both sides have a fair chance at winning, the attacked can choose to bribe or defend. If they defend the attack, win or lose they would then be able to retaliate outside of matchmaking against the aggressor's city.

otomotopia
05-26-2010, 09:19 PM
The problem for using it like that is in ELO games your 'start' is always the same, it's equal, or at least fairly close to it, in our game your army composition/number of battalions/veterancy of battalions all play a big role in it, and they vary wildly. It's more likely we'll set up a value system for units/tech/levels etc, and try to find armies that are a good matchup rather than players, perhaps there will be a player based skill modifier to the army value? Who knows, I don't work on that sort of thing, the actual math involved in it would take me some time to figure out.
Well, to be blunt, I don't think many skilled players will want to go back to the 'start.' If anyone has played an MMO to its endgame, re-taking the time to advance to the late game is just not fun. Beta players love to complain about server resets, because they've lost their work (I know it is something to expect and not complain about, but it's a fact). No one really gives a 'hoot' if they loose a battle when they've just started, heck, I'd be expecting it if I'm inexperienced at a game. Point is, very few players will do it, and I really don't think the community will be effected by it at all.

I really think this whole "Greifing by starting over" idea is being blown way out of proportion. Its an unlikely, hypothetical situations that would only happen in extremely isolated circumstances. And hey, what if a player actually does this? It doesn't matter after less then a day, because players will, by nature, progress past this hypothetical player's rank soon enough. Also, they would have fought an experienced player and would have learned from their advanced tactics. There's two sides to every coin, people. Its only one loss either way.

Listen, with ranking systems, there's really no perfect way or algorithm, because you're quantifying skill, which is an intangible. Statistics can be used to attempt to formulate skill, but in the end, it will and can never be perfect. You can come close, or at least have a nearly fair equation with algorithms. But its always a bad idea to just toss out your best ideas for an improbable, hypothetical situation.

GPS51
05-26-2010, 10:02 PM
Hmm your last point I agreed with 100% but it gives us something to do while we eagerly wait for more info and the beta start. :D

Josh Warner
05-27-2010, 06:44 AM
Well, to be blunt, I don't think many skilled players will want to go back to the 'start.' If anyone has played an MMO to its endgame, re-taking the time to advance to the late game is just not fun. Beta players love to complain about server resets, because they've lost their work (I know it is something to expect and not complain about, but it's a fact). No one really gives a 'hoot' if they loose a battle when they've just started, heck, I'd be expecting it if I'm inexperienced at a game. Point is, very few players will do it, and I really don't think the community will be effected by it at all.

I really think this whole "Greifing by starting over" idea is being blown way out of proportion. Its an unlikely, hypothetical situations that would only happen in extremely isolated circumstances. And hey, what if a player actually does this? It doesn't matter after less then a day, because players will, by nature, progress past this hypothetical player's rank soon enough. Also, they would have fought an experienced player and would have learned from their advanced tactics. There's two sides to every coin, people. Its only one loss either way.

Listen, with ranking systems, there's really no perfect way or algorithm, because you're quantifying skill, which is an intangible. Statistics can be used to attempt to formulate skill, but in the end, it will and can never be perfect. You can come close, or at least have a nearly fair equation with algorithms. But its always a bad idea to just toss out your best ideas for an improbable, hypothetical situation.

Who said anything about people starting over just to grief other players in our game? I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. The only time I mentioned something along those lines was about LoL. It wouldn't work in DoF to begin with considering the amount of time and effort you need to build up an army the first time, and again, I doubt we'd use an ELO system because like I said - your "Start" at each battle varies depending on what army you're using, the level/tech/size of that army can vary a great deal unlike other games where at the start of each battle you have exactly the same thing.

In almost all RTSes you start with the same resources and same units, it's an even playing field, since we're using a persistent world in the MMORTS mode, every fight is fought with a pre-existing army.

nickson104
05-27-2010, 07:38 AM
No one really gives a 'hoot' if they loose a battle when they've just started

Or in my case, pretty much anytime... It is a game, win or lose the main thing is having fun :)

Also, I dont know if assigning units and techs with differing stats will work that well... Infantry/archers/cavalry generally have different values in most games, and that would result in a predominantly cavalry army perhaps being 'valued' as higher than it really should be and being matched against a stronger army...
Also techs or veterancy I think should not come into the equation, these should be judged by the player to make it more interesting. Otherwise the armies are 'Too' Equal, and in war that generally wouldnt happen. I understand about not allowing you to pick on small opponents, but if you are a higher tech or simply have more trained units, I think that should just be an advantage to you rather than not being able to fight someone you would otherwise be able to fight...

Also would that mean that each army would have a different stat? Or would it be an average? In which case meaning your smaller, weaker armies would be potentially useless

Yami-Yagari
05-27-2010, 08:33 AM
Or in my case, pretty much anytime... It is a game, win or lose the main thing is having fun :)

Also, I dont know if assigning units and techs with differing stats will work that well... Infantry/archers/cavalry generally have different values in most games, and that would result in a predominantly cavalry army perhaps being 'valued' as higher than it really should be and being matched against a stronger army...
Also techs or veterancy I think should not come into the equation, these should be judged by the player to make it more interesting. Otherwise the armies are 'Too' Equal, and in war that generally wouldnt happen. I understand about not allowing you to pick on small opponents, but if you are a higher tech or simply have more trained units, I think that should just be an advantage to you rather than not being able to fight someone you would otherwise be able to fight...

The probability of each different army being "to equal" is really slim, considering people have different playstyles.
Like some people will really focus on cavalry, while others will rely on huge but weak armies to zerg the enemy and others are able to find a good mix between units.
So the chance of to equally matched armies is very slim.


Also would that mean that each army would have a different stat? Or would it be an average? In which case meaning your smaller, weaker armies would be potentially useless

Well, of course every army has different stats. Individual units have different stats as well, so why won't armies? And having small (relative weak) armies doesn't necessarily mean they're useless.
Say you'd have a small army with only light cavalry. They can still pack a serious punch against larger armies which are fully infantry based.
It depends on how you use your units that decides wether or not they're useless or not.

otomotopia
05-27-2010, 08:55 AM
Who said anything about people starting over just to grief other players in our game? I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. The only time I mentioned something along those lines was about LoL. It wouldn't work in DoF to begin with considering the amount of time and effort you need to build up an army the first time, and again, I doubt we'd use an ELO system because like I said - your "Start" at each battle varies depending on what army you're using, the level/tech/size of that army can vary a great deal unlike other games where at the start of each battle you have exactly the same thing.

In almost all RTSes you start with the same resources and same units, it's an even playing field, since we're using a persistent world in the MMORTS mode, every fight is fought with a pre-existing army.

You're quite right, I misread your post.

Looking at this again, I'm starting to see your point. As multiple players will be in the same area, the matchmaking system will match a defending army that's present with an army that is attacking, and that makes sense. But the problem is, who's going to keep a strong army at their base, when you're going to want to be out in the world questing? I think the problem is that you've got so many moving parts and not enough stationary ones. Maybe if you are forced to feed an army, and after the food runs out, the army auto-walks back to your base?

GPS51
05-27-2010, 09:25 AM
Well perhaps not a strong army but a medium army at home base seems highly proper. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense to have a battle. You'd just have the opportunity to bribe or be annihilated.

nickson104
05-27-2010, 01:41 PM
The probability of each different army being "to equal" is really slim, considering people have different playstyles.
Like some people will really focus on cavalry, while others will rely on huge but weak armies to zerg the enemy and others are able to find a good mix between units.
So the chance of to equally matched armies is very slim.



Well, of course every army has different stats. Individual units have different stats as well, so why won't armies? And having small (relative weak) armies doesn't necessarily mean they're useless.
Say you'd have a small army with only light cavalry. They can still pack a serious punch against larger armies which are fully infantry based.
It depends on how you use your units that decides wether or not they're useless or not.

I meant that if for example an infantry is worth 15, and a cavalry is worth 45... You could get 3 infantry to one cavalry?
And thats what I meant, everyone has different playstyles, but if the rating system were to be used, that would increase the chance of you being matched against someone with the same type army as you, yes?

Josh Warner
05-27-2010, 01:51 PM
You're quite right, I misread your post.

Looking at this again, I'm starting to see your point. As multiple players will be in the same area, the matchmaking system will match a defending army that's present with an army that is attacking, and that makes sense. But the problem is, who's going to keep a strong army at their base, when you're going to want to be out in the world questing? I think the problem is that you've got so many moving parts and not enough stationary ones. Maybe if you are forced to feed an army, and after the food runs out, the army auto-walks back to your base?

This is why your army cap for number of battalions is well below your total battalion cap, you'll have several full armies before reaching the cap - ie; always have enough to attack and defend.

Yami-Yagari
05-27-2010, 01:53 PM
@ nicksons:
AAAAH ok totally misread your post. Well, there haven't been any signs of cp costs per unit, so it isn't really certain.
And wouldn't it get boring, getting matched up with almost exact same army as yours?

Josh Warner
05-27-2010, 01:56 PM
AAAAH ok totally misread your post. Well, there haven't been any signs of cp costs per unit, so it isn't really certain.

:o I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that you'll have enough to get several full armies before, anyway, yeah you'll be able to attack and defend at the same time effectively. Well - you can only have ONE hero, so you'll be at a small disadvantage with whichever you choose not to bring your hero with, but you'll be fully capable of fighting without him.

Yami-Yagari
05-27-2010, 02:30 PM
:o I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that you'll have enough to get several full armies before, anyway, yeah you'll be able to attack and defend at the same time effectively. Well - you can only have ONE hero, so you'll be at a small disadvantage with whichever you choose not to bring your hero with, but you'll be fully capable of fighting without him.

Not what i meant. I meant the individual unit cp cost.:)

Josh Warner
05-27-2010, 04:03 PM
Not what i meant. I meant the individual unit cp cost.:)

The actual numbers don't matter, they're just there for balance - it's a game design thing that you will have be able to have at least several maxed out armies, this has always been the plan.

Yami-Yagari
05-27-2010, 04:16 PM
how many armies can be used in , like say, open field combat? Would give it a nice edge if you could have more armies as reinforcements.

Josh Warner
05-28-2010, 01:37 AM
how many armies can be used in , like say, open field combat? Would give it a nice edge if you could have more armies as reinforcements.

One per player or there'd be no point in army caps.

Khan kreiger
05-29-2010, 03:43 PM
oh man soo glad

krgwynne
07-07-2010, 08:33 PM
would rather pay a fair price and just pay for large expansions each year or something but not sure if a mmo can survive that way with running costs and such.just dont go the saga way were it cost a small fortune to play past the beginer lvls due to buying all units.;)

Khan kreiger
07-07-2010, 08:37 PM
would rather pay a fair price and just pay for large expansions each year or something but not sure if a mmo can survive that way with running costs and such.just dont go the saga way were it cost a small fortune to play past the beginer lvls due to buying all units.;)

saga as in the online strategy game...that game was good untill i started loosin my units and then paying for them to come back to life:mad:

Yami-Yagari
07-08-2010, 01:03 AM
saga as in the online strategy game...that game was good untill i started loosin my units and then paying for them to come back to life:mad:

Had that problem to. Plus the fact that, for whatever reason, i could'nt boost my CP. Really annoying having to do gold lvl quests with just 3 units :mad:.

FishMG
07-08-2010, 11:52 AM
While I always like to save a buck when possible and limit cost for my hobby. I at the same time do not mind paying a reasonable fee to play a well done game, as long at that monthly fee means there is Dev involvement and improvement/updates to the game. After all if they are going to have people constantly improving and working on the game, they need to take care of those hard workers.

Alex Walz
07-08-2010, 11:58 AM
While I always like to save a buck when possible and limit cost for my hobby. I at the same time do not mind paying a reasonable fee to play a well done game, as long at that monthly fee means there is Dev involvement and improvement/updates to the game. After all if they are going to have people constantly improving and working on the game, they need to take care of those hard workers.
Dev involvement will be strongly emphasized; however, we do not require that you take advantage of, and therefore pay for, this feature. We will, of course, constantly patch and add some small features to the game, free of charge; but, large quest packs, campaign storylines, and expansion packs will all have a small fee - which can be paid with either actual cash or in-game achievement points (Influence).

So while there will be a lot of additional, optional costs, I promise you that Dawn of Fantasy won't be just another cash cow to milk. Anything that we put a price on will be well worth your money and not just an extra quest or two or a new environment.

FishMG
07-08-2010, 12:03 PM
That sounds great! Give players many options. You can pay for the little extras as you chose or can afford or wait to gain the points needed. Nice.

N3V312M0123
11-26-2010, 08:42 PM
I think people need to start thinking from the point of view of the people running the game. Obviously the more money you pay/pay for extra content, the more money they have to make a good game. I mean, look at world of warcraft for example. Blizzard is rich as ****, so they can afford to polish their games that much more.

Alezzy
11-27-2010, 02:22 AM
i still dont know what they see in WOW ... its a non skill based mmo... and you can put in money to get better items ..so the rich guys dont have to spend alot time ingame to be better than others

nickson104
11-27-2010, 06:08 AM
I think people need to start thinking from the point of view of the people running the game. Obviously the more money you pay/pay for extra content, the more money they have to make a good game. I mean, look at world of warcraft for example. Blizzard is rich as ****, so they can afford to polish their games that much more.

WoW is polished? ummm, I'm gonna go with 'no comment'

doom132
11-29-2010, 06:49 PM
Who would ever want it to be a monthly payment?

SmasherKao
11-29-2010, 07:05 PM
lol making a poll this obvious cant really be considered a poll.

Jeremiah87
11-30-2010, 02:45 PM
Lol, not many if any :D

Boomshaker
12-04-2010, 01:28 PM
Atlast a game that won't suck money out of ya!

Katana
12-04-2010, 02:25 PM
I voted one time but honestly wouldnt mind if it were monthly either.

Chojin
12-04-2010, 02:44 PM
One time would be a good way.
But I am wondering how it could possible to pay game servers in a long term basis.
Probably with item shops or others things taken from F2P games. But it would ruins the game experience. Who can pay alot could have big armies, ... no challenge in that.

Karamelgemini90
12-04-2010, 03:55 PM
one time payment = GREAT idea.

biggest_kid
12-04-2010, 04:06 PM
Hopefully its cheaps, but i think a little extra money to Reverie Studios is deserved dont u guys? Maybe not the publishers, but Reverie deserves it.

zudalu
12-04-2010, 05:04 PM
on purchase free to play online

efz88
12-04-2010, 09:21 PM
Well you can have my money

DeusVult
12-04-2010, 09:56 PM
well now a lot of mmo go into half-free mode, made here we'll see something different

flameoflucifer
12-05-2010, 02:08 AM
It's a one time payment, definitely - don't worry about it.
Source (http://reverieworld.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11738&postcount=3) (from the Officialy FAQ Thread (http://reverieworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=509))

hmm...nice to know that!`can`t wait....

ryuujin
12-05-2010, 03:06 AM
starting to save money XD cant wait to play this >.<

bamato
12-05-2010, 04:16 AM
Hope they'll only use micro-payments.

Bier_Kanonier
12-06-2010, 02:14 AM
only one payment, realy good to hear, who will be the publisher? couldnt find the info:confused:

Emrus
12-06-2010, 03:37 AM
I would like the basic game to be one time payment only. but yeah! added look features or kinda expansions? may be? for additional subscriptions.

Though not sure people would go for them or not,just in case?

nickson104
12-06-2010, 12:55 PM
only one payment, realy good to hear, who will be the publisher? couldnt find the info:confused:

The publisher has not currently been announced, although it should be soon. They have not said when they will announce the publisher, but I have doubts of it being announced this year. My guess is about a months time.

I would like the basic game to be one time payment only. but yeah! added look features or kinda expansions? may be? for additional subscriptions.

Though not sure people would go for them or not,just in case?

Micro-Transactions will be available, although what will be available is currently unknown. Unit/army skins have been discussed and may be a possibility, new races or unique units may be another option, or maybe expansions.

People wont need to buy them, but some will. This has been proven by a number of games, for example RiotGames currently applies this system to their F2P game League Of Legends, characters can be unlocked using ingame points (gained slowly) or Riot points (bought), however skins must be purchased using Riot points, giving them a prestige value of sorts. It is a very effective system, and the descriptions of the DoF system sound similar to that so far.

KonstantinDK
12-07-2010, 11:44 AM
Any information on the game in other countries? Dates will be same as USA?

andyf91
12-07-2010, 02:21 PM
considering that you'd need some source of continuous flow of money, micro-transactions ain't a bad idea. but please don't make it like..well..pretty much every other game that have used this businessmodel and make it to impossible to obtain a fair amount of "influence". It have ruined so many games for me (i.e BF:heroes, warrock)

Angbad
12-07-2010, 03:24 PM
Yay for a non-monthly fee. Really seals the deal for me.

cybroxis
12-07-2010, 07:02 PM
There will, most likely, be some additional, optional costs like DLC/quest packs, although we may make it so that you could alternatively purchase these with achievement points.

OMG YES PLS -

I hope , I hope in my little dark heart
that someone out there won't give me a start
allow me to, as dark elven play
without having to, dreadfully, pay..

:D

efz88
12-07-2010, 08:02 PM
Any word on that kind of dlc schedule they are going to put in place?

Avatarn11
12-07-2010, 10:33 PM
if the game is as balanced and awsome as it looks i'd pay a monthly fee just make it optional for premium content or extra exp/gold per mission or something. so people have a choice doesn't need to be expensive but benifical to both player and company

jambon99
12-08-2010, 06:21 PM
I have played online, monthly payments games like wow and LOTRO and I really liked it because it was fair for everyone. Other desktop games I have played ended costing me hundreds of dollars in a couple of month just to compete with bottomless wallets ( most players were quitting after couple of days). I think that to keep the game fun, monthly fee is the answer.

Alezzy
12-08-2010, 06:35 PM
i like monthly fee...altho most of the people dont like it but the monthly one really helps in the developement of the game ...and it keeps it alive in a long term

Zorander
01-19-2011, 11:28 PM
i like monthly fee...although most of the people don't like it but the monthly one really helps in the development of the game ...and it keeps it alive in a long term

Putting up a monthly doesn't always keep it alive long term, look at Warhammer online. When starting out with a game like this its best to get people into it first, and you do that by NOT charging up a monthly fee, there's ton of other ways mmos make money even without subscription fees, etc Company of Heroes Online.

reddot
01-20-2011, 01:28 AM
i would have been willing to pay for it monthly if its good enough, but the fact that it wont be monthly and if it happens to be good will just make me more likely to buy it =)

Rokniel
01-20-2011, 02:15 AM
A montly fee in my mind requires quality content at a relatively steady pace. WoW handled this well by releasing good content about three times a year, so for around $60 I got a new games worth of playtime.

Daraim
01-20-2011, 02:16 AM
games do not need Monthly fee to survive just look at guildwars they are doing good.

krichard
01-20-2011, 02:23 AM
Putting up a monthly doesn't always keep it alive long term, look at Warhammer online. When starting out with a game like this its best to get people into it first, and you do that by NOT charging up a monthly fee, there's ton of other ways mmos make money even without subscription fees, etc Company of Heroes Online.
I had heard that COHO had pay for power stuff though not sure just hearsay on my part but
hope this game doesnt go that route.

omardigs
01-20-2011, 02:43 AM
For a game like this I have no problem paying a monthly fee but I always liked it when MMOs did a a lifetime pass type of thing since it saves money in the long run.

When it comes down to it when it comes to fees for a MMO it all depends on the content. Right now im playing DCUO and I like it but if they arent adding new stuff every week or so I don't see a point in paying $15 a month for a game for a few hours of new stuff. On the other hand if the new content is awesome and I could see myself sticking to it I would have no problem dropping the large sum for the Lifetime sub to save some money over the long run.

But for a game like this I can see microtransations being more important and there is nothing wrong if that. It gives the player more freedom which as we all learned from Braveheart is really great.

GeneralGonzo
01-20-2011, 03:09 AM
I like more to one pay for a game just for the reason that a montly fee forces you to play the game all the time because you spend money on it every month.

As I play mostly more than one game parallel I like to choose between them and won“t be forced to nplay one just because I have to play for it all the time....

StormXLR
01-20-2011, 06:29 AM
will there be country limits ? as right now im studying in asia >_< but the game looks great and i wouldnt mind spending money on it

Seroni
01-20-2011, 07:49 AM
My hope is that they have a one time payment, with DLC on the side to help prop up their income, I think that as long as the DLC don't affect the game to much they will be fine.

kryptz
01-20-2011, 07:55 AM
I would pay for it monthly if money is invested into keeping the game fun, with lots of updates and improvements :)

Rycon
01-20-2011, 08:05 AM
I would prefer it to be a one time payments but if the game is good then i am willing to pay a monthly fee.

Quarok
01-20-2011, 09:03 AM
problem is with monthly fees is that it makes it very difficult to entice players that stop paying back into the game, whereas you can also mess around with your existing playerbase a bit before they decide to leave due to the sunk costs. One time payments, with the occasional top up (like GW) ftw!

Devilmoon
01-20-2011, 10:17 AM
Obviously one-time pay would be the best

tomche
01-20-2011, 04:44 PM
i would prefer not to pay a monthly fee so DLC's are probably the best way forward to keep a large number of players interested and paying

LiTos456
01-20-2011, 04:55 PM
I'm not sure why this thread still exists, it has been confirmed that it's a one time pay game.

Jolleyboy
01-20-2011, 04:58 PM
I think people are just skipping to the end of the forum in order to post a quick "Here's one of my 10!" Entries.

I hope that there is DLC or micropurchases to be made in game. It would promote further development of the game rather than "Heres the game, heres some updates to fix some balance issues we found...." and 4 months later the game is gone the way of all other old games.

LiTos456
01-20-2011, 05:07 PM
I dunno about DLC yet, but there will be micropurchases, to support the game further since there's no online pay.

Chaoticuss
01-20-2011, 05:33 PM
There will not be any monthly payments. And how much the game costs is up to the publisher.

There will, most likely, be some additional, optional costs like DLC/quest packs, although we may make it so that you could alternatively purchase these with achievement points.

I think that is an awesome idea too bad more people don't have that, glad to see people thinking of the gamer not their own wallets! :)

akyko
01-20-2011, 07:23 PM
I'm glad it's a one time payment, they gonna be trying something like guild wars with expansions prolly funding the game?

GoGoCactusMan!
01-20-2011, 10:30 PM
I would, personally, like to see the options of multiple choice. There are a few MMO games out there that are a mix of one time pay, subscription, and micro transactions that have done fairly well. Some of which have even flourished by aiming for such a system, bringing them back from dire financial straits that nearly killed the game off.

It would really come down to the success of the game, and how quickly content would be put out by the devs. If it were lots of content and patching, I would gladly pay a subscription. If the game were engaging with healthy longevity, I would snatch up many micro transaction options to help me prior to going on a conquer spree.

I worry, seeing as this game so far sounds like what I've been wanting for years, that this game might fade into obscurity and die out too quickly if the devs do not have a constant cash flow coming in post launch.

Wyzak
01-20-2011, 11:26 PM
This has probably been said multiple times, but the FAQ on the site clearly says that it is a once-off payment, without any monthly subscription.

Unfortunately I do not have a lot of gaming time available, so a monthly subscription automatically excludes me from a game. It's just not worth paying $15-30 a month, just for a few hours of play time. Maybe one day I'll be really lucky and somebody will have a roll-over subscription which allows x hours of playtime.

Adevill20
01-21-2011, 04:11 AM
I would much rather have a one time payment system and pay extra for additional addons, etc.

Falgorn
01-21-2011, 07:18 PM
It's good to hear that game will not have monthy fee :)

Rhino
01-21-2011, 08:19 PM
I really do hate P2P games. I do not go to the effort of buying a game that is P2P as often I may be busy with other things. I really do hope it is only a pay once game as I will buy it even if the price is high.