Jump to content
MinerMax555

This has to end...

Recommended Posts

I can see where this is coming from, and it isn't actually a bad idea. There is one thing that bothers me however.

 

From friends' reactions, recent topics all around the gaming community and especially the comment section of the recent IGN video featuring JC and DU at GDC, it's easy to tell that Dual Universe has a really hard time to be taken seriously or being believed at all. For a vast majority of people as it seems, Dual Universe looks to be another cash grab in the steadily growing list of space sims and MMOs, people consider it a second No Man's Sky if you want to phrase it like that.

 

Now imagine a potentially doubtful player doing research on the game and bringing up the trust to look further into it. As soon as he sees that you have to pay money to create an organisation, so in order to do what you want or at least prepare it, this player would be detered as it does indeed seem like a cash grab at that point. 

"Give us your money in advance so you are free to do what we advertised before" may sound a bit overly critical, but that's what it would likely look for the average hysterical player. Trading this risk for a rather ineffective measure as I find isn't going to end well for the reputation of this game in this stage

 

It's a completely different topic as soon as DU has proven that it's in fact capable of what it promises. 

So if you want to introduce this measure in this exact form, I'd recommend to wait at least until Alpha, because that's when people will be able to see that it works and players become less doubtful.

 

I think that is a valid point and was thinking the same thing, but still think it is justified to require a pledge to create orgs going forward, like just another pledge perk, because the org system is part of the game and time and resources went into developing it. I think anyone wanting to create an org this early on should be dedicated enough to play the game at release which would mean subbing anyway, otherwise they can wait.

 

Nothing can really be done about the nay-sayers, all games have them, even the most successful ones. As long as the expectation will match the reality it will be fine, and NQ is doing well with that, and the community can help with that also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw my 2 cents.  I think only a backer should have the right to create an organization, which is the "best case" solution for this problem.  Also, if you're serious about creating an organization then the small fee should not hinder your decision or interest in joining the game.  As for the possibility of losing out on some money, that's always a risk gamers take when buying into a game.  For this game, it wouldn't be such an expensive risk.  Of course, I'm hoping for a big payoff when the game starts.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should generally not forget that any user on the forum can already 'create' or 'advertise' an organization, so I see little problems with being slightly more restrictive over at the community hub - even if it boils down to "only funders can create an organization, but invite anyone else".

 

Even if there was some obstacle for someone on the hub, they could make a thread here just fine and advertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Warden I think your post makes a lot of sense.

People who are serious about the game can make a thread on this forum about their org. And when the game releases they can jump to the community portal.

 

Edit: aaaw cant like the comment. Here have one in spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Nyz for responding to everyone so fast and I am glad you are looking into and taking the measures to fix these problems. Sadly this topic is taking time out of your day (and probably others) to fix but I hope all goes well and it all gets resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true Warden. I like your idea of only allowing founders to create organizations. 

 

At a fundamental level, I do not support this suggestion. While it is well-motivated, I will second points made by Croomar that especially at this stage, such a measure would appear as a cash grab to those skeptics or prospective yet borderline players. And again, this would only be a short-term fix (as Kurock said, what happens when the pledge portal closes?) that would take far more time to implement than the root problem ever appears. Consider also current organizations founded by non-backing members. Should those be removed then, or be allowed to remain, and what would be the reasoning for either decision?

 

In addition, it is worthwhile to note that, although not particularly prevalent currently, such a measure would only serve to take Dual Universe one step closer to an elitist and divided gaming community. In other words, there will exist a rift between "backers" and "non-backers" (read: elites vs. peasants) that would eventually fundamentally undermine the communal cohesion that we all currently enjoy, and that diversity is what makes Dual Universe that much more incredible.

 

So no, my two cents say no to this idea of allowing only backers to found organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In addition, it is worthwhile to note that, although not particularly prevalent currently, such a measure would only serve to take Dual Universe one step closer to an elitist and divided gaming community. In other words, there will exist a rift between "backers" and "non-backers"

Its really refreshing to read so many sensible comments. I personally really dislike the way how the have's and the have nots are often played out against eachother.

And Astrophil points that out in his post. I dont have a solution for the problem and I've seen some good suggestions all around.

But this is something we really shouldnt forget. 

As soon as you divide a community human nature tends to turn even the best of people towards ugly behaviour.

And I really enjoy the way this community treat other people in general.

 

I'm sure there is an elegant solution that doesnt revolve around being a founder or not.

Although I also know that at some point NQ will have to make an unpopular decision, this might be the first one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point. Dividing the community is not a good thing.

 

Perhaps really the only solution to the alt problem is to 1) have orgs that want to protect themselves from massive alt influxes implement stricter recruiting guidelines and 2) have NQ delete orgs that create massive amounts of alts in order to move up the orgs rankings and attract real members. AKA nothing will really change, but people will be more aware.

 

The orgs on the community page really don't matter at this point and neither do the member counts. It is important that we keep that in perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple reset of the entire community hub would solve a lot of this - those "active" would be able to rejoin - and more legit numbers would be represented. . .

 

This is just a opinion however. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea behind only backers having the ability to create an org has both pros and cons as mentioned by others before, so I do believe that while it may provide a solution now, in the long run it won't work well.

 

A simple reset of the entire community hub would solve a lot of this - those "active" would be able to rejoin - and more legit numbers would be represented. . .

 

This is just a opinion however. . .

While I see the benefits of this option you have to remember that many real people and backers if I say so are not active but are real people nonetheless and it would be unjust for them when they come back and find out that the organisation they joined is no more or they are not part of it. again I think it could work in the short run but it is not stopping anyone from doing the alt frenzy again.

I do support what Lord_Void said regarding the legates being more aware as to who they are accepting into the org and also that NQ may check for orgs which are considered to be bolstered by alt accounts.

Today I also saw this post by Caesares, the creator of IBF https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/10911-an-apology-and-explanation/#entry47188
While I see his intentions, I by no means support his actions and how he went by it as it does creates a bad element for the community as a whole and he could have gone for it in another way.

I also think that another controlling element can be implemented which lets non-backers be added to a limited number of organisations, say a non-backer can only join 1 or 2 organisations, while this might go against the idea of a open sandbox we are not in the game yet and we definitely don't need such cancerous elements in our organisations and on our community portal as it diverts the attention of NQ from what is important i.e developing the game to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple reset of the entire community hub would solve a lot of this - those "active" would be able to rejoin - and more legit numbers would be represented. . .

 

This is just a opinion however. . .

 

I'm not in favor of that at all.  Too much admin work to put me through all that again. Can't imagine what a pain that would be for the larger orgs too.  No, don't make us redo everything we have already done just to delete a few spammers.   I'll loose all my messages, posts, member names, have to contact everyone again, have to check the community portal several times a day since we get no messages, etc.  If your goal is to have fewer orgs to begin with, then this is the way to do it.  I don't have the time to go through all of that again and will probably just keep my group unofficial like how we play in all our other games instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple reset of the entire community hub would solve a lot of this - those "active" would be able to rejoin - and more legit numbers would be represented. . .

 

This is just a opinion however. . .

Horrible idea, JUST HORRIBLE. In my opinion they never should have opened the community portal,.They really should have just waited in till the game was out. My prediction is that once the game is out orgs like the TU will crumble because they can not support there size.

 

A little off subject but I wanted to point it out.

 

In a support message I asked "Why do names have to be 6 charters long?" NQ-Nyzaltar responded with something along the lines of "Longer names are more secure." So I said "But the names are public?" Then NQ-Nyzaltar said "They wont be for long, we are working on it."

 

So obviously there are changes planned for the community portal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, as I said I do not think the corps in the community portal will mean anything anyhow.

 

They will mean something but exactly what that is and how it translates over to the actual game is beyond complicated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how people want solutions, as long as said solutions won't expose their alt bloated member-count.

 

You wouldn't be implying that my whopping 19 member group is bloated with alts? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be against it if it wipes the organization as entity, requiring it to be made again, rather than just wiping all but the founder.

 

"How will I be able to brag in a few years otherwise, pointing at the early creation date of it!?"

 

Also what mefsh said. TRUST NOBODY, EVERYONE IS AN ALT! Everyone but Cybrex!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you representing the ''people'' ? :P Cause I am talking about others :P

 

No, just me.  I just posted how I would hate that.  And I would hope that you would think that if I was bloating with alts I could do better than 19, lol.  

 

And yes, ok, ok...I'll admit it, I am an alt of an alt of one of my other alts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, just me.  I just posted how I would hate that.  And I would hope that you would think that if I was bloating with alts I could do better than 19, lol.  

 

And yes, ok, ok...I'll admit it, I am an alt of an alt of one of my other alts. 

I KNEW IT!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another potential idea is to require each hub member to log on and verify their account - those who do not verify within X amount of time are auto dropped by the system. This allows organizations to remain - minus potential alternates created with one time use accounts - or severe inactives - and would allow more of a grasp of the active player base.

 

 

Of course as usual, this is just a opinion. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, as I said I do not think the corps in the community portal will mean anything anyhow.

Yep this. I think it was more of a gauge of interest for NQ as well as something to get the community engaged at an early lvl.

 

At best I could see them doing like SWTOR did and these guilds will transfer into the live game on launch day to make launch day guild logistics a bit easier. You still needed actual live accounts to transfer into the game so even if that is the plan these fake Orgs won't be a factor as there won't be anything to transfer into the live game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone!

 

@Astrophil:

 

We want to avoid making the community looking like an elitist group.

However, we also want to avoid situations where any non-backer with bad intentions can create chaos as much as he want in the community because we give him powers to make trouble without other restriction than creating an account and we can't prevent them in another way than a Community Manager intervention. CMs have a limited time to handle those cases. Those who want to generate trouble have always too much free time in their hands. This is something that could be verified on every MMO game. If the community grows properly, if the game starts to be more and more popular, it's inevitable that we will have a growing number of people who will create trouble "just for fun".

 

So from there, what would you suggest? Saying just "no, that's a bad thing" to the ideas that have been mentioned before doesn't help much.

P.S: Suggesting that all will be handled by CMs is not a reasonable option. Delegate this kind of tasks to Moderators isn't a reasonable one either. Somewhere, there is a need to have automated mechanics preventing such abuse.

 

Beside, you may have missed one of the previous reply:

 

 

We have to chose between:

 

- Letting all the creating/posting powers to the non-backers accounts, and see a growing number of abuses as the community grows, which will make the community looks bad (and this will also make potential players go away), because of all the inappropriate organizations created and all the inappropriate content posted on it and the limitation of manpower to handle all those cases manually.

 

- Limiting a bit the rights of non-backers accounts without excluding them from being part of the community, especially as it just concerns the rights on the Community Portal, and not the access to the game itself (any non-backer player will still have a free trial period at official release to judge about whether or not it's a game worth to play. No cash grab offer a free trial period to test it before paying). If someone is suspicious about Dual Universe - which again can be understandable with some events that occurred last year in the gaming industry - then the best thing to do is to suggest him to wait until the official release to try the game for free.

 

(...)

 

Your concerns are understandable.

That's why, if we go for limiting the right of non-backer accounts, we will try to avoid making it retroactive.

In short: the non-backer accounts that would have created an organization before such update will keep their organization but wouldn't have the right to create new ones after the update. Moreover, this will be a temporary situation as a non-backer account using a DAC once the game will be officially launched, will have the same rights as a backer account on the Community Portal. This way, it will remain possible to create organizations - on the long term - without necessarily paying anything (but it will necessitate time investment).

 

 

In addition, the packs similar to Kickstarter ones won't be available forever but the crowdfunding portal is not meant to close until the official release (though it will undergo some changes as time pass). What is going to be explained below is still subject to change, but it will explain the global idea:

 

- Crowdfunding portal 1.1 (current version): Founder packs similar to Kickstarter ones.

- Crowdfunding portal 2.0: New Founder packs (will last between late pre-Alpha to end of Alpha)

- Crowdfunding portal 3.0: Possibly Early Access (for Beta when the game will be feature-complete nearly feature-complete).

- Opening of the website for the official release and Crowdfunding Portal closing.

 

So to sum up the situation: 

- Any player will be able to back the game at any time before the official release.

- If we go for "creating an organization" as a feature not available to non-backers, this situation will be temporary: any player will have the right to create an organization as soon as he meets on of the condition below: 

1) he has backed the game (possible right now)

2) he paid one month of the subscription (possible at official release)

3) he used a DAC (which means he may have spent nothing) (possible at official release)

 

True, a non-backer won't have the opportunity to create an organization right now, but he will have the opportunity at official release.

Do you think it is really a big problem that he has to wait until official release? Will it really develop an elitist mindset in the Community?

 

@All: 

 

Assuming not everyone can afford an Iron Pack (or don't want to at the moment), there might be another idea: a very low pledge/pack costing a few euros or dollars (but not giving any DACs) to be affordable to everyone, giving the ability to create Organizations, and with the intent to dissuade players to make trouble "just for fun and for free". What do you think about this idea?

 

@WilksCheckov & Dhara_Elysande:
 

A complete reset of the Community Portal is not considered a viable solution.
This would destroy the purpose of having created the Community Portal before the official release.

However, it's really important to not underestimate the effect of "a few spammers".

If we take the recent example, we have one player who create more than 150 fake accounts (all deleted today) in a few days: just to put things in perspective, imagine what would happen with a dozen of people doing that for a month...

 

@mefsh:

 

Saying that opening the Community Portal before the official release was a bad idea is a matter of opinion.

There might be some bad sides, but there are also definitely good sides: organizations are a huge topic in the community, and it may have attract new players (and will continue to do it). Having the Community Portal live right now (even in its minimalistic form) it's also a way for the dev team to prove that the Community is important to us, and when we say that, it's not just words.

 

Best regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...