The Battle of the Stretch Goal - Page 7 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-29-2013, 11:37 PM   #61
Darkmater
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 33
Default

Honestly, as a non pledge giver yet, your issue isn't free planes, its not the planes selection, its not the map.

Why I haven't pledged, is that I don't believe you can deliver a competitive WW2 sim that's is fun without more control over the engine. The forums are full of these comments. You can provide accurate this and accurate that, which is great for just buzzing around, but if you want to hit a larger community you need the following:

--Better more/interesting AI to fight against
--Better graphical damage model (engine oil splatter on the windshield, bullet holes in the glass, pilot damage, flying buy a bomber with the tail gunner slumped over, knocking a landing gear down from its store, all amazing and immersive.
--Effects like the turbulence of plances flying by you, and you plane sort of bounces in the air from it, very immersive.
--All of the above things you know from Cliffs, I just want that game again but done right, I want all the pieces of it that made it immersive and challenging, thats where my dollars lie.

oh and for the WIN, if you really wanted the money from peps

A DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN THAT RIVAL FALCON...

But honestly, I like Cliffs of Dover, especially with Team Fusion fixing it up. Want I wanted was for this to say we are making Cliffs again, but we are doing it right. I JUST DON'T believe you can do it right if you just have control over the map and airframes. At best you get a few good planes for flying around like the P-51, but a not a great game.

Just my opinion. Take it or leave it, but remember its not about the planes and their realism, no one doubts the planes, its about delivering a good game that people or better put "I" doubt.

Thanks,

Last edited by Darkmater; 09-29-2013 at 11:47 PM.
Darkmater is offline  
Old 09-29-2013, 11:48 PM   #62
NoCarrier
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ff4life4 View Post
Also don't get me wrong a campaign restart will have its backlashes as well, it just appears they are between a rock and a hard place. Either try to produce the deliverables with what appears to be too little funds, or have to suffer the repercussion of having a campaign restart.
Actually, I don't think it's a bad idea at all; to call off the campaign and return half a year or a year later for another attempt. No-one can deny that DCS as a combat flight simulator platform has some issues that need resolving in the following months—EDGE and the current multiplayer instability being just a couple of examples. The hardcore simming crowd knows this, and I have a feeling it's been mostly this crowd that has been pledging.
NoCarrier is offline  
Old 09-29-2013, 11:55 PM   #63
Hans-Joachim Marseille
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampyre View Post
I for one believe the hook for this project to be a free flyable COMBAT aircraft.
Combat trainer with guns; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...Texan_variants.
Hans-Joachim Marseille is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 12:13 AM   #64
Vampyre
Member
 
Vampyre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Mesa AZ
Posts: 950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Joachim Marseille View Post
A T-6 Texan with guns is no more a combat aircraft than the AT-38B was in it's time. It is meant to teach basic gunnery and basic tactics and is nowhere near the capability of the combat aircraft in use in 1944. It would not be competative. Further, there were no combat squadrons in Normandy so equipped in 1944. to get the sales needed new pilots have to have a true taste of what could be. I would rather have a dedicated ground attacker like the Hs-129B-2 or A-20G Havoc for a free plane but those are not even on the list...yet. A trainer is a bad idea.
Vampyre is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 12:29 AM   #65
Hans-Joachim Marseille
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampyre View Post
It would not be competitive ... A trainer is a bad idea.
But then again, it would not be meant to be competitive. It would be a trainer with guns, for free roaming the map. An incentive to buy the game's fully-fledged warbirds.
Hans-Joachim Marseille is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 12:30 AM   #66
9./JG27 DavidRed
Senior Member
 
9./JG27 DavidRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,221
Default

luthier already said that they cant afford to make a trainer at the current stage...
9./JG27 DavidRed is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 12:35 AM   #67
Hans-Joachim Marseille
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidRed View Post
luthier already said that they cant afford to make a trainer at the current stage...
Hi DavidRed, whereat?
Hans-Joachim Marseille is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 12:36 AM   #68
luthier1
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 118
Default

All right, what a lively discussion.

So, the updated plan to discuss is as follows:

1. Add PayPal. This is a little more complicated than I thought, I have to set something up with PayPal. I hope there'll be enough time.

2. Announce a partial update to the retail strategy at relase. One free plane to be voted for by backers. The rest available for a separate fee.

ALL kickstarter backers receive rewards as previously stated. I.e., the project features are exactly as they were announced TO ALL BACKERS.

Non-backers - one free plane.

Won't muddy the waters with updated pledges. We were happy to give those planes away for free to everyone, so giving them to backers who pledge $1 is no problem at all.

Good? Bad?

3. Updated video. Working with MP. We'll probably just put it right up there replacing the current main video. I think KS allows me to do that.

Now, some answers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GT 5.0 View Post
if all the existing backers would up there pledge an additional (just under $20,- bucks), then the first stretch would be met...no need of them to re-pledge, and they would keep their rewards, they need only edit the dollar amount in the manage page...I'll be the first, it's really just 1/2 of one aircraft cost
I really can't think of anything I could justify asking 20 extra bucks for. Planes, manuals, it's all in there.

The combination of the three free aircraft and the low $40 all aircraft goal is what got us here. I don't mean that in a bad way. If we had originally promised one free aircraft, and priced the all aircraft option at $100 or something like that, the entire campaign might have ran differently. Who knows if we would have reached even the initial goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadTommy View Post
Paypal is a no brainer IMO, lots of younger games can often only pay via paypal.

You should be posting the kickstarter updates on the major game forums. Here, SimHQ etc etc. Having them only on kickstarter is fairly useless, it does not reach new people. Each update should get its own thread.
Right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJWest View Post
Luthier, my honest answer - as someone still undecided how much I can justify pledging on a very limited budget - has to be that making wholesale changes at this late stage doesn't really inspire confidence. If the 'three free planes' proposal isn't financially viable, then clearly it will have to go - but I can't see how doing this would result in increased Kickstarter funding.
I'm sorry if you're losing confidence. Nothing we're discussing affects the actual development.

Everyone wins if we hit a stretch goal with kickstarter. Everyone also wins if we make a metric ton of money on initial release, and can put it right back into the project and make more theaters and planes.

This is how development usually is. We're way, way, way early to lock anything down, especially in terms of a pricing structure. With a project like this, you'd normally decide on the free vs paid content, their price, etc, well into the beta test.

In other words, we're obviously not trying to give you an inferior product. We're trying to find a way to make it more commercially viable - which in turn gives it longer life - and that in turn ends up giving everyone a bigger better flight sim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizzicato View Post
1. There have been a few high profile Kickstarter debacles in the news recently which may have shaken people's confidence in this whole business model.
Those were overly ambitious projects done from scratch.

I've already done my overly ambitious project done from scratch. Still feeling the burn.

DCS WWII is done on an existing engine, and is specifically designed to be modest. A lot of people would like to add giant multiplayer improvements, AI changes, dynamic campaigns, etc. I am really itching for that too. However we're not doing that precisely because we want to stay lean and clean in the beginning.

We could have written out giant specs, priced them out, and added everything mentioned above to the kickstarter, and tried to raise the extra $$$. Would we have? Perhaps. Would I be 100% confident that we'd be able to deliver everything on time?

And that's exactly why I did not promise you guys a sky full of diamonds.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizzicato View Post
2. Many people in the community still feel burnt by the Cliffs of Dover experience. The rights, wrongs and details of what actually occurred are unimportant compared to people's individual perceptions of what happened. Some people (like myself) are willing to give you another shot. Many others are not. This may be unfair and frustrating, but it's an unavoidable truth.
Perhaps I have not done the best job reaching out to those people, but I'm muzzled and I cannot really offer my explanation on any of those events. That would have made an honest discussion nearly impossible.

Like I said above though, if you'll just compare our attitude and our promises when developing the two projects, you'll really notice the difference with DCS WWII, the lessons learned. We only promise the things we KNOW we can deliver. With an existing engine, with tracks already laid down, making airplanes or landscapes is not an unknown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizzicato View Post
4. The frequent changes of focus (first you were going for a brand new audience, then you shifted to the hardcore), the increasingly complex/confusing pledge rewards, the indecisiveness over stretch goals, the rather amateurish videos and the general lack of communication with the community make the whole endeavour seem rather unprofessional and poorly thought out.
That's how it usually is. Things are very fluid this early in development.

Like I said above, none of the changes affect the actual game we're building. The kickstarter, the videos, all of that is done by me personally with virtually no help. Does it inspire confidence? I would hope that the fact that I can identify things that are not working, and not stick with them with a poker face, is actually a good thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizzicato View Post
I don't mean any of this to sound nasty or personal (I really, really don't)
I really appreciate your comments. I'll even take some personal attacks right now if that can help me get better in the future. I'm definitely not perfect, and your comments is precisely what I was looking for, why I started this discussion in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charly_Owl View Post
c) A dedicated person to act as a community manager. Star Citizen had Wingman's Hangar and we always had little updates. Constant interaction with the community and updates about what's going on are key to successful funding. I understand your resources are limited, but if you're to see this project hit greater stretch goals, you need to think about other people than the diehard fans that we are.
That's a wonderful idea.

I think the biggest mistake in this kickstarter is not having one.

I'm a very poor PR person, as should be clear to everyone. We would have done infinitely better had we started off with a knowledgeable, dedicated, motivated PR person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charly_Owl View Post
4) About changes to project features
Your project features are what I have in mind. But the base aircraft must NOT be one of the cool aircrafts.
I disagree.

An uncool airplane is worse than no demo at all. If you don't really enjoy the demo, why would you ever consider giving the project your money?

I still believe the free game should be awesome. We're not looking to give you something you try for one night, and then reach for the wallet. Fine, fly and enjoy it for six months, and maybe decide then.

Anyway, time will tell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charly_Owl View Post
What we need to consider here:
Flight sims need to become more accessible. Hardware is a major issue because it's expensive. There needs to be a "Getting into Flight Simulators for Dummies" video on youtube. I'm planning on doing one eventually for newcomers to flight simulators. I plan on giving "do's and don't's", "what to buy with a limited budget", "what information is relevant", a detailed step-by-step guide on "how to fly", and other useful tips.
Yes, exactly. Hardware requirements are a hurdle which I really don't know how to overcome.

There needs to be a no-hardware entry point, and then the sim itself should make it easy for the players to get what they want. I know how confusing it must be to people who never encountered this.

Definitely a great topic to discuss, but perhaps not for right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris View Post
My suggestion: Get more publicity! Take the project to the wider gaming community. Wake the nostalgic sentiments of gamers who have since moved on to other genres.
That's pretty clear, but it's actually not working. We are sending out press releases. We are trying to reach out to media outlets.

The project is just not exciting the unconverted. I'm not sure why that is. It's probably because we're, A, unable to use our old series name, and B, because we're so early in the process we just don't have a very impressive presentation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCarrier View Post
Come on, Ilya, you have stretch goals set at several hundred thousand dollars. Several hundred thousand dollars worth of pledges for a new product in a genre that has basically become niche, as you yourself pointed out in one of your videos.
Right. Going to give the main page a major overhaul right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmater View Post
Honestly, as a non pledge giver yet, your issue isn't free planes, its not the planes selection, its not the map.

Why I haven't pledged, is that I don't believe you can deliver a competitive WW2 sim that's is fun without more control over the engine. The forums are full of these comments. You can provide accurate this and accurate that, which is great for just buzzing around, but if you want to hit a larger community you need the following:

--Better more/interesting AI to fight against
--Better graphical damage model (engine oil splatter on the windshield, bullet holes in the glass, pilot damage, flying buy a bomber with the tail gunner slumped over, knocking a landing gear down from its store, all amazing and immersive.
--Effects like the turbulence of plances flying by you, and you plane sort of bounces in the air from it, very immersive.
--All of the above things you know from Cliffs, I just want that game again but done right, I want all the pieces of it that made it immersive and challenging, thats where my dollars lie.

oh and for the WIN, if you really wanted the money from peps

A DYNAMIC CAMPAIGN THAT RIVAL FALCON...
That's an awesome list, but like I mentioned above, we're going to hold off on making any promises (but not on attempting to address those things) precisely because we burned so many people in the past.

Can we try to improve the damage model? Sure. Can we, as we are today, PROMISE improved damage model? Nope. Something'll go wrong, as it often does, and we're where we were three years ago.

Fact is, features like that are just too unpredictable. It's not because I'm a poor project manager or we have idiots for programmers. Everybody runs into problems like that. It's just they're a lot more noticeable in a flight sim. FPS or RTS or RPG ships with moronic AI? Everyone groans but keeps on playing. Flight sim promises great AI but ships with UFOs? Forum explosion.

Anyway, thank you guys, keep em coming!
luthier1 is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 12:38 AM   #69
BabyJail
Junior Member
 
BabyJail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 46
Default

To be completely honest, I do not even want three free planes with the base game. Call me crazy, but here is why:

- my flying is crap, and Im not going to change that if I try to suddenly learn three planes at once. I dont have the spare time.
- before I become an owner of stuff I like to do some research on it, taking my sweet time deciding.
- which leads to general satisfaction with what I decide finally. I dont want a hangar full of planes that I will only fly a couple of times.

My two cents. Now sitting back in my comfy chair watching how it all turns out over the next few days!
BabyJail is offline  
Old 09-30-2013, 12:43 AM   #70
9./JG27 DavidRed
Senior Member
 
9./JG27 DavidRed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans-Joachim Marseille View Post
Hi DavidRed, whereat?
on the kickstarter comments of the last update...
9./JG27 DavidRed is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:49 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.